The Effectiveness and Safety of Triple‐Antiplatelet Treatment Based on Cilostazol for Patients Receiving Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta‐Analysis

The combination of cilostazol, aspirin, and clopidogrel (triple therapy) after percutaneous coronary intervention has been considered as an alternative therapy. We performed a meta‐analysis based on 8 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3332 patients to compare the effectiveness and safety of this triple therapy with traditional dual therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel). Our findings suggested that the triple therapy is more effective than dual therapy in preventing restenosis (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40–0.66, P < 0.00001), maintaining minimal lumen diameter (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.10–0.20, P < 0.00001), and avoiding target‐vessel revascularization (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.47–0.82, P = 0.001). There is also no significant difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the 2 therapies, except the smaller occurrence rate of target‐lesion revascularization in the triple‐therapy group (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26–0.69, P = 0.0005). However, the triple therapy is associated with a higher level of adverse drug events, including rash (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.41–4.23, P = 0.001), gastrointestinal disorders (OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.26–5.30, P = 0.009), and drug discontinuation (OR: 3.80, 95% CI: 1.59–9.10, P = 0.003), but it has no difference in bleeding compared with the dual therapy (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71–1.55, P = 0.80). Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. Ping Wang, MS and Shijie Zhou, MS contributed equally to this article. The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.