This is a really interesting area without much data. We do often think about using statins to lower MACE, but what actually happens in terms of coronary plaque burden? There happens to be a study by Steve Nissen (former chairman of CV dept at Cleveland Clinic) called the REVERSAL trial (JAMA 2004) which compared high-intensity therapy (80mg atorvastatin) versus moderate-intensity (40mg pravastatin) for halting the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Now, notably, this study was in patients who had known non-obstructive CAD (e.g. 20-50% stenosis), and your patient likely has normal coronaries (e.g. <20% stenosis). However, what the study showed was that atorva 80 but not prava 40 stopped progression of atherosclerotic burden.
While we do not have the exact data to your specific question, it is not unreasonable nor crazy to think that early statin therapy may reduce in a dose-dependent manner future atherosclerosis, meaning potentially increase time to first MACE, though perhaps not stop. However, there is no real evidence for this as of yet, and your patient should at the least know that the practice is not evidence-based though perhaps well-intentioned.
On the other hand, what's the downside if tolerated well? With the first statin trials in 1980s, we have long-term safety data now and there does not seem to be some crazy long-term statin consequence. To be clear - I am not advocating for a non-evidence based practice, but just throwing out a thought.
