Comparison of cilostazol and ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin for long-term efficacy and safety after coronary stenting; a meta-analysis

Masayuki Hashiguchi, Keiko Ohno, Satoshi Kishino, Mayumi Mochizuki, Tsuyoshi Shiga

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aims: To compare cilostazol with ticlopidine for long-term efficacy and safety as an adjunctive antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting. Methods: Using published clinical studies retrieved through Medline and other databases from 1986-2604, meta-analyses were employed to evaluate efficacy and adverse clinical events for cilostazol or ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin after coronary stenting. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), quantitative coronary angiographic parameters (QCA) including minimal lumen diameter (MLD) late loss, loss index of diseased vessels, and net gain, or adverse clinical events after coronary stenting were compared between the two study arms and expressed with the mean difference or odds ratios (OR) specific for the individual studies and meta-analytic pooled estimate for the mean difference or OR. Results: Five of the clinical studies we reviewed met the inclusion criteria and underwent meta-analysis. The cilostazol was found to be superior in the pooled estimate of the total clinical outcomes and QCA as compared to ticlopidine (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.46, 0.75]), MLD (WMD [95% CI]: 0.27 mm [0.17, 0.37]), late loss (WMD [95% CI]: -0.36mm [-0.51, -0.22]), loss index (WMD [95% CI]: - 0.16 [-0.24, -0.08]), and net gain (WMD [95% CI]: 0.49 mm [0.30, 0.68]). The pooled estimate of all adverse clinical events in cilostazol was approximately the same as that seen for ticlopidine. Conclusions: Our results suggest that cilostazol plus aspirin therapy, as compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin therapy, might be superior with regard to long-term efficacy, particularly in preventing late restenosis. Although cilostazol exhibits few serious adverse clinical events, we must pay attention to increased heart rate or the occurrence of arrhythmias during treatments.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)69-79
Number of pages11
JournalJapanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Volume36
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2005 Mar
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ticlopidine
Aspirin
Meta-Analysis
Safety
Odds Ratio
cilostazol
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Therapeutics
Heart Rate
Databases

Keywords

  • Adverse event
  • Antiplatelet therapy
  • Cilostazol
  • Efficacy
  • Intracoronary
  • Meta-analysis
  • Safety
  • Stent implantation
  • Ticlopidine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

Comparison of cilostazol and ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin for long-term efficacy and safety after coronary stenting; a meta-analysis. / Hashiguchi, Masayuki; Ohno, Keiko; Kishino, Satoshi; Mochizuki, Mayumi; Shiga, Tsuyoshi.

In: Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 36, No. 2, 03.2005, p. 69-79.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{603a66cb953647d197ad4b2a2a55bc4d,
title = "Comparison of cilostazol and ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin for long-term efficacy and safety after coronary stenting; a meta-analysis",
abstract = "Aims: To compare cilostazol with ticlopidine for long-term efficacy and safety as an adjunctive antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting. Methods: Using published clinical studies retrieved through Medline and other databases from 1986-2604, meta-analyses were employed to evaluate efficacy and adverse clinical events for cilostazol or ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin after coronary stenting. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), quantitative coronary angiographic parameters (QCA) including minimal lumen diameter (MLD) late loss, loss index of diseased vessels, and net gain, or adverse clinical events after coronary stenting were compared between the two study arms and expressed with the mean difference or odds ratios (OR) specific for the individual studies and meta-analytic pooled estimate for the mean difference or OR. Results: Five of the clinical studies we reviewed met the inclusion criteria and underwent meta-analysis. The cilostazol was found to be superior in the pooled estimate of the total clinical outcomes and QCA as compared to ticlopidine (OR [95{\%} CI]: 0.59 [0.46, 0.75]), MLD (WMD [95{\%} CI]: 0.27 mm [0.17, 0.37]), late loss (WMD [95{\%} CI]: -0.36mm [-0.51, -0.22]), loss index (WMD [95{\%} CI]: - 0.16 [-0.24, -0.08]), and net gain (WMD [95{\%} CI]: 0.49 mm [0.30, 0.68]). The pooled estimate of all adverse clinical events in cilostazol was approximately the same as that seen for ticlopidine. Conclusions: Our results suggest that cilostazol plus aspirin therapy, as compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin therapy, might be superior with regard to long-term efficacy, particularly in preventing late restenosis. Although cilostazol exhibits few serious adverse clinical events, we must pay attention to increased heart rate or the occurrence of arrhythmias during treatments.",
keywords = "Adverse event, Antiplatelet therapy, Cilostazol, Efficacy, Intracoronary, Meta-analysis, Safety, Stent implantation, Ticlopidine",
author = "Masayuki Hashiguchi and Keiko Ohno and Satoshi Kishino and Mayumi Mochizuki and Tsuyoshi Shiga",
year = "2005",
month = "3",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "69--79",
journal = "Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics",
issn = "0388-1601",
publisher = "Japanese Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of cilostazol and ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin for long-term efficacy and safety after coronary stenting; a meta-analysis

AU - Hashiguchi, Masayuki

AU - Ohno, Keiko

AU - Kishino, Satoshi

AU - Mochizuki, Mayumi

AU - Shiga, Tsuyoshi

PY - 2005/3

Y1 - 2005/3

N2 - Aims: To compare cilostazol with ticlopidine for long-term efficacy and safety as an adjunctive antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting. Methods: Using published clinical studies retrieved through Medline and other databases from 1986-2604, meta-analyses were employed to evaluate efficacy and adverse clinical events for cilostazol or ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin after coronary stenting. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), quantitative coronary angiographic parameters (QCA) including minimal lumen diameter (MLD) late loss, loss index of diseased vessels, and net gain, or adverse clinical events after coronary stenting were compared between the two study arms and expressed with the mean difference or odds ratios (OR) specific for the individual studies and meta-analytic pooled estimate for the mean difference or OR. Results: Five of the clinical studies we reviewed met the inclusion criteria and underwent meta-analysis. The cilostazol was found to be superior in the pooled estimate of the total clinical outcomes and QCA as compared to ticlopidine (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.46, 0.75]), MLD (WMD [95% CI]: 0.27 mm [0.17, 0.37]), late loss (WMD [95% CI]: -0.36mm [-0.51, -0.22]), loss index (WMD [95% CI]: - 0.16 [-0.24, -0.08]), and net gain (WMD [95% CI]: 0.49 mm [0.30, 0.68]). The pooled estimate of all adverse clinical events in cilostazol was approximately the same as that seen for ticlopidine. Conclusions: Our results suggest that cilostazol plus aspirin therapy, as compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin therapy, might be superior with regard to long-term efficacy, particularly in preventing late restenosis. Although cilostazol exhibits few serious adverse clinical events, we must pay attention to increased heart rate or the occurrence of arrhythmias during treatments.

AB - Aims: To compare cilostazol with ticlopidine for long-term efficacy and safety as an adjunctive antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting. Methods: Using published clinical studies retrieved through Medline and other databases from 1986-2604, meta-analyses were employed to evaluate efficacy and adverse clinical events for cilostazol or ticlopidine coadministered with aspirin after coronary stenting. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), quantitative coronary angiographic parameters (QCA) including minimal lumen diameter (MLD) late loss, loss index of diseased vessels, and net gain, or adverse clinical events after coronary stenting were compared between the two study arms and expressed with the mean difference or odds ratios (OR) specific for the individual studies and meta-analytic pooled estimate for the mean difference or OR. Results: Five of the clinical studies we reviewed met the inclusion criteria and underwent meta-analysis. The cilostazol was found to be superior in the pooled estimate of the total clinical outcomes and QCA as compared to ticlopidine (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.46, 0.75]), MLD (WMD [95% CI]: 0.27 mm [0.17, 0.37]), late loss (WMD [95% CI]: -0.36mm [-0.51, -0.22]), loss index (WMD [95% CI]: - 0.16 [-0.24, -0.08]), and net gain (WMD [95% CI]: 0.49 mm [0.30, 0.68]). The pooled estimate of all adverse clinical events in cilostazol was approximately the same as that seen for ticlopidine. Conclusions: Our results suggest that cilostazol plus aspirin therapy, as compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin therapy, might be superior with regard to long-term efficacy, particularly in preventing late restenosis. Although cilostazol exhibits few serious adverse clinical events, we must pay attention to increased heart rate or the occurrence of arrhythmias during treatments.

KW - Adverse event

KW - Antiplatelet therapy

KW - Cilostazol

KW - Efficacy

KW - Intracoronary

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Safety

KW - Stent implantation

KW - Ticlopidine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=17644413510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=17644413510&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 69

EP - 79

JO - Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

JF - Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

SN - 0388-1601

IS - 2

ER -