Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated that aspirin is effective in secondary prevention and in high-risk primary prevention of adverse cardiovascular events. However, a constellation of clinical and laboratory evidence exists that demonstrates diminished or absent response to aspirin in some patients. This has led to the concept of “aspirin resistance,” which is a poorly defined, somewhat misleading term. The mechanism for aspirin resistance has not been fully established, but it is almost certainly due to a combination of clinical, biological, and genetic properties affecting platelet function. There are no criteria for distinguishing true resistance from treatment failure, and there is no consensus on whether the definition of aspirin resistance should be based on clinical outcomes, laboratory evidence, or both. Studies in large populations are needed to define antiplatelet resistance using consistent and reproducible assays and correlate the measurements with clinical outcomes. One such prospective randomized trial is completed, and 2 others are under way: the Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance (CHARISMA) trial compared clopidogrel and aspirin with placebo and aspirin for high-risk primary or secondary prevention, and the Aspirin Nonresponsiveness and Clopidogrel Endpoint Trial (ASCET) is evaluating whether switching to clopidogrel will be superior to continued aspirin therapy in improving clinical outcomes in aspirin-resistant patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease. The Research Evaluation to Study Individuals Who Show Thromboxane or P2Y₁₂ Receptor Resistance (RESISTOR) trial is investigating whether modifying antiplatelet regimens could prevent myonecrosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with aspirin and clopidogrel resistance.