T has been a growing awareness of the crucial role of the cascade of platelet-related events in the formation of an arterial thrombus. Platelet activation, adhesion, and aggregation result in the release of products causing vasoconstriction, thrombin generation, further platelet aggregation, and the initiation of the coagulation cascade. Given the pathophysiologic substrate of plaque rupture, thrombosis, and the platelet-rich milieu of acute coronary syndromes, plus the role played by platelets in the development of atherosclerosis, the benefit of platelet inhibition in both the acute and chronic phases of coronary artery disease is easily understood. Aspirin, which has been known as an antipyretic and analgesic for 100 years, has undergone a resurgence of popularity since it became appreciated in the 1980s as the most cost-effective agent for the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Following myocardial infarction, aspirin reduces death and recurrent myocardial infarction by 30%, and in patients with unstable angina, subsequent infarction is reduced by approximately 30%. Other subsets of patients with coronary artery disease that have been shown to benefit from aspirin include patients with previous coronary bypass surgery, previous coronary intervention, those with chronic stable angina, and those with a history of stroke and transient ischemic attacks. Aspirin’s undoubted clinical success is perhaps somewhat surprising, because it is a relatively weak antiplatelet agent that affects only 1 of the many pathways involved in platelet aggregation. Aspirin inhibits the cyclooxygenase pathway, but leaves the others intact, including several pathways activated in response to thrombin and collagen, both of which are abundant in acute coronary syndromes and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Inhibitors of the adensosine diphosphate-mediated pathway for platelet aggregation, such as ticlopidine and the more recently introduced clopidogrel, which lack the neutropenic side effects of ticlopidine, may be superior to aspirin for several indications, including transient ischemic attacks and peripheral vascular disease. In contrast, one of the strongest and most frequent indications for aspirin is in patients who have survived an acute myocardial infarction, a subgroup in which clopidogrel did not demonstrate an advantage over aspirin in the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in the Prevention of Recurrent Ischemic Events (CAPRIE) trial. Furthermore, the safety of clopidogrel has been questioned because sporadic cases of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura with use of clopidogrel have been identified, although the incidence is probably only about 1 of 300,000 patients treated. Nonetheless, among acute infarct survivors, who remain intolerant of aspirin, clopidogrel may be a good but costly alternative. The only serious candidate that may add to the efficacy of aspirin is also clopidogrel. Recently, the Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) trial, in which clopidogrel plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone in 12,500 patients with non–ST elevation acute coronary syndromes, showed a significant acute and long-term benefit, both in patients who did and did not undergo intervention, albeit with a 40% increase in major bleeding. These results have led to extensive use of clopidogrel in non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, where clearly more efficacy and safety data are necessary, especially in patients who require urgent coronary surgery. Currently, short-term clopidogrel is being tested in 40,000 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction in China (Chinese Cardiac Study-2 [CCS-2]), and long-term clopidogrel has been evaluated in 2,000 patients after coronary intervention in the Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) study, the results of which will be available shortly. These trials may confirm the shortand long-term protection as suggested in the CURE study. During the past 5 years, the intravenous platelet membrane glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, particularly abciximab, have been shown to be effective in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndromes in whom percutaneous coronary intervention is not performed, the magnitude of benefit is less impressive, with an overall risk reduction in 30-day death or myocardial infarction of approximately 12%, which is substantially less than the benefits reported in patients in the coronary intervention trials. In particular, the disappointing results of the large Global Utilisation of Streptokinase and TPA in Occluded arteries-IV (GUSTO)-IV trial, using abciximab in the absence of early coronary intervention, have placed into question the routine use of the glycoprotein receptor blockers in patients not undergoing coronary intervention. Although the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockers have an acceptable safety profile with respect to bleeding in acute coronary syndromes, they are expensive. Several lines of evidence from clinical trials, plus an increased understanding of both the pharmacokinetics of the IIb/IIIa inhibitors and the prolonged time course of platelet activation in acute coronary synFrom the Heartcenter, Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center St. Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; and Cardiovascular Diseases and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota. Manuscript received January 23, 2002; revised manuscript received and accepted February 26, 2002. Address for reprints: Freek W.A. Verheugt, MD, Heartcenter, Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center St. Radboud, P.O. Box 9101, Nijmegen, The Netherlands 6500 HB. E-mail: f.verheugt@cardio.umcn.nl.