Key result
Cilostazol plus aspirin resulted in a significantly higher rate of subacute thrombosis compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin (2% vs 0.3%, p=0.02) after coronary stenting, with no difference in restenosis.
Why the study?
Does cilostazol plus aspirin improve angiographic or clinical outcomes compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin in patients after coronary stenting?
Population
642 patients who underwent coronary stenting
Comparison
Cilostazol plus aspirin continued until 6-month… vs Ticlopidine plus aspirin continued until 6-month…
Design
RCT, randomized
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
Cilostazol plus aspirin should be avoided post-stenting due to excess thrombosis risk; challenges its use as an alternative to ticlopidine in dual antiplatelet regimens.
RCT (n=642)
Open-label
Standard list of random numbers
No
Does cilostazol plus aspirin improve angiographic or clinical outcomes compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin in patients after coronary stenting?
Absolute Event Rate: 2% vs 0.3%
p-value: p=0.02
Cilostazol is associated with a significantly higher risk of subacute thrombosis compared to ticlopidine when used as dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting, despite similar angiographic restenosis rates.
Takeyasu et al. (2005) conducted an RCT in Ischemic heart disease requiring coronary stenting (n=642). Cilostazol + aspirin vs. Ticlopidine 200 mg/day + aspirin 81-200 mg/day was evaluated on Subacute thrombosis (SAT) (p=0.02). Cilostazol plus aspirin resulted in a significantly higher rate of subacute thrombosis compared to ticlopidine plus aspirin (2% vs 0.3%, p=0.02) after coronary stenting, with no difference in restenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: