scholarly journals Cilostazol Mono and Combination Treatments in Ischemic Stroke

Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 3503-3511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Min Kim ◽  
Jin-Man Jung ◽  
Bum Joon Kim ◽  
Ji-Sung Lee ◽  
Sun U. Kwon

Background and Purpose— We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of cilostazol as a mono or combination (plus aspirin or clopidogrel) treatments compared to conventional single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT, mainly aspirin) for secondary stroke prevention. Methods— Randomized controlled trial studies were searched across multiple comprehensive databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) for review. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke comprising ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes included ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, and composite outcomes. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the identified reports, including 2 recently published randomized controlled trials. In addition, network meta-analysis was performed to compare the relative effects of mono versus combination cilostazol treatments. Results— Ten studies were included in this review, 5 of which were assigned to the cilostazol mono group (n=5429) and the other 5 to the combination group (n=2456). The relative risks of recurrent stroke, ischemic stroke, and composite outcomes with cilostazol mono as well as combination treatments were significantly lower than with SAPT without any significant heterogeneity. An indirect comparison of these 3 outcomes revealed the cilostazol combination approach to be superior. The cilostazol mono treatment diminished hemorrhagic stroke more significantly than SAPT and the cilostazol combination did not increase hemorrhagic stroke compared to SAPT. The outcomes from the 2 cilostazol regimens were comparable to SAPT in the case of myocardial infarction. Conclusions— Cilostazol is a more effective and safer treatment option than SAPT approaches using mainly aspirin. Cilostazol regimens can also be modified to clinical situations as this drug reduces recurrent and ischemic stroke more efficiently as a combination therapy but is more beneficial for hemorrhagic stroke as a monotherapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J.Y Levett ◽  
S.B Windle ◽  
K.B Filion ◽  
J Cabaussel ◽  
M.J Eisenberg

Abstract Background Approximately half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) present with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Purpose To compare the risks of major cardiovascular outcomes and procedural complications in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD randomized to complete revascularization versus culprit-only PCI. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete to culprit-only PCI, identified via a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Libraries. Count data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to obtain relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 8 RCTs (n=6,632) were included, with mean/median follow-up times ranging from 6 to 36 months. Compared to culprit-only PCI, complete PCI was associated with a substantial reduction in MACE (12.6% vs. 22.0%), repeat myocardial infarction (4.5% vs. 6.9%), and repeat revascularization (3.3% vs. 12.1%) (Table 1). Complete PCI may also improve all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but estimates were accompanied by wide 95% CIs. Findings for stroke, major bleeding, and contrast-induced AKI were inconclusive. Conclusion Complete revascularization appears to confer benefit over culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, and should be considered a first-line strategy in these patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Mr. Levett is supported by a Dr. Clarke K. McLeod Memorial Scholarship, funded through the McGill University Faculty of Medicine Research Bursary Program. Dr. Filion is supported by a Junior 2 Research Scholar award from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and a William Dawson Scholar award from McGill University.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document