Objective: To compare the expected population impact of benefit and risk of aspirin treatment strategies for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases recommended by different guidelines in the Chinese Electronic Health Records Research in Yinzhou (CHERRY) study. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to simulate and compare different strategies of aspirin treatment, including: Strategy ①: Aspirin treatment for Chinese adults aged 40-69 years with a high 10-year cardiovascular risk, recommended by the 2020 Chinese Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases; Strategy ②: Aspirin treatment for Chinese adults aged 40-59 years with a high 10-year cardiovascular risk, recommended by the 2022 United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement on Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease; Strategy ③: Aspirin treatment for Chinese adults aged 40-69 years with a high 10-year cardiovascular risk and blood pressure well-controlled (< 150/90 mmHg), recommended by the 2019 Guideline on the Assessment and Management of Cardio-vascular Risk in China. The high 10-year cardiovascular risk was defined as the 10-year predicted risk over 10% based on the 2019 World Health Organization non-laboratory model. The Markov model simulated different strategies for ten years (cycles) with parameters mainly from the CHERRY study or published literature. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the number needed to treat (NNT) for each ischemic event (including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke) were calculated to assess the effectiveness of the different strategies. The number needed to harm (NNH) for each bleeding event (including hemorrhagic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding) was calculated to assess the safety. The NNT for each net benefit (i.e., the difference of the number of ischemic events could be prevented and the number of bleeding events would be added) was also calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis on the uncertainty of the incidence rate of cardiovascular diseases and probabilistic sensitivity analysis on the uncertainty of hazard ratios of interventions were conducted. Results: A total of 212 153 Chinese adults, were included in this study. The number of people who were recommended for aspirin treatment Strategies ①-③ was 34 235, 2 813, and 25 111, respectively. The Strategy ③ could gain the most QALY of 403 [95% uncertainty interval (UI): 222-511] years. Compared with Strategy ①, Strategy ③ had similar efficiency but better safety, with the extra NNT of 4 (95%UI: 3-4) and NNH of 39 (95%UI: 19-132). The NNT per net benefit was 131 (95%UI: 102-239) for Strategy ①, 256 (95%UI: 181-737) for Strategy ②, and 132 (95%UI: 104-232) for Strategy ③, making Strategy ③ the most favorable option with a better QALY and safety, along with similar efficiency in terms of net benefit. The results were consistent in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The aspirin treatment strategies recommended by the updated guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases showed a net benefit for high-risk Chinese adults from developed areas. However, to balance effectiveness and safety, aspirin is suggested to be used for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases with consideration for blood pressure control, resulting in better intervention efficiency.