Why the study?
Does the addition of cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy reduce in-stent neointimal hyperplasia in patients undergoing elective coronary stenting?
Does the addition of cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy reduce in-stent neointimal hyperplasia in patients undergoing elective coronary stenting?
The addition of cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy significantly reduces in-stent neointimal hyperplasia and late loss after bare-metal coronary stenting.
Supports cilostazol addition to DAPT after bare-metal stenting to curb restenosis; extends RCT evidence on angiographic neointimal suppression.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to investigate the efficacy of cilostazol on the prevention of in-stent neointimal hyperplasia as measured by both quantitative coronary angiography (CAG) and volumetric intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients (39 men, age 62 years) undergoing elective coronary stenting were randomly assigned to receive aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticlopidine (Group I, n=28, 30 lesions) or aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticlopidine plus cilostazol (Group II, n=31, 35 lesions). CAG and IVUS were performed and repeated at 6 months to assess the primary endpoints of minimal luminal diameter (MLD) and in-stent neointimal hyperplasia volume. Follow-up CAG was performed on all patients and follow-up IVUS study was available for 50 lesions in 48 patients (24 lesions in Group I, 26 in Group II). There were no significant differences in the baseline angiographic data between the 2 groups. At 6 months follow-up, in-stent MLD was 1.90+/-0.76 mm in Group I and 2.41+/-0.85 mm in Group II (p=0.006). Volumetric IVUS at 6 months demonstrated that in-stent intimal hyperplasia volume per stent length was 2.2+/-1.4 mm3/mm in Group I and 1.0+/-0.5 mm3/mm in Group II (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Triple antiplatelet therapy including cilostazol seems to be more effective at preventing in-stent neointimal hyperplasia than a dual antiplatelet regimen.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Min et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: