Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials appraising the impact of cilostazol after percutaneous coronary intervention - 08/08/11
, Marzia Lotrionte, MD b, h, Matteo Anselmino, MD a, Claudio Moretti, MD a, Pierfrancesco Agostoni, MD c, Luca Testa, MD b, Antonio Abbate, MD d, John Cosgrave, MD e, Antonio Laudito, MD f, Gian Paolo Trevi, MD a, Imad Sheiban, MD aRésumé |
Background |
Drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but may pose a risk of thrombosis. Cilostazol, an oral antiplatelet agent with pleiotropic effects including inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia, could hold the promise of preventing both restenosis and thrombosis. We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the angiographic and clinical impact of cilostazol after PCI.
Methods |
We searched RCT in BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, and PubMed (November 2007). Coprimary end points were binary angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization, abstracted and pooled by means of random-effect relative risks (RRs). Small study/publication bias was appraised with multiple methods.
Results |
A total of 23 RCTs were included (5428 patients), with median follow-up of 6 months. Pooled analysis showed that cilostazol was associated with statistically significant reductions in binary angiographic restenosis (RR = 0.60 [0.49-0.73], P < .001) and repeat revascularization (RR = 0.69 [0.55-0.86], P = .001). Cilostazol appeared also safe, with no significant increase in the risk of stent thrombosis (RR = 1.35 [0.71-2.57], P = .36) or bleeding (RR = 0.71 [0.43-1.16], P = .17). However, small study bias was evident for both binary restenosis (P < .001) and repeat revascularization (P < .001), suggesting that at least part of the apparent benefits of cilostazol could be due to this type of confounding effect.
Conclusions |
Cilostazol appears effective and safe in reducing the risk of restenosis and repeat revascularization after PCI, but available evidence is limited by small study effects. Awaiting larger RCTs, this inexpensive treatment can be envisaged in selected patients in which drug-eluting stents are contraindicated or when there is a need for neointimal hyperplasia inhibition.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 155 - N° 6
P. 1081-1089 - juin 2008 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Safety and efficacy of overlapping sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents
- Mehdi H. Shishehbor, Reza Amini, Russell E. Raymond, Anthony A. Bavry, Sorin J. Brener, Samir R. Kapadia, Patrick L. Whitlow, Stephen G. Ellis, Deepak L. Bhatt
- Contemporary outcomes of rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: Comparison with primary angioplasty and the role of distal protection devices (EMERALD trial)
- George Dangas, Gregg W. Stone, Mitchell D. Weinberg, John Webb, David A. Cox, Bruce R. Brodie, Mitchell W. Krucoff, Raymond J. Gibbons, Alexandra J. Lansky, Roxana Mehran, for the EMERALD Investigators
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?