Why the study?
Does triple antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol) reduce major adverse cardiac effects compared to dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients after coronary stents implantation?
Does triple antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol) reduce major adverse cardiac effects compared to dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients after coronary stents implantation?
In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing coronary stenting, adding cilostazol to aspirin and clopidogrel (triple therapy) significantly reduces major adverse cardiac events and target vessel revascularization without significantly increasing bleeding, though it increases the risk of adverse drug reactions.
Supports TAPT to reduce MACE in T2DM post-stenting; reinforces meta-analytic evidence for triple therapy in this population.
BACKGROUND: Since antiplatelet therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients is very important after intracoronary stenting, and because the most commonly used therapies have been the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel and the triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT) consisting of aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol, we aim to compare the effectiveness and safety between triple antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy in T2DM patients. METHODS: Systematic literature search was done from the databases of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness and safety between triple therapy and dual therapy in T2DM patients after coronary stents placement were included. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac effects (MACEs), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, stent thrombosis, bleeding and adverse drug reactions during a 9-12 months period, as well as platelet activities. RESULTS: Four studies including 1005 patients reporting the adverse clinical outcomes and six studies including 519 patients reporting the platelet activities, with a total of 1524 patients have been analyzed in this meta-analysis. The pooling analysis shows that TAPT has significantly decreased the occurrence of MACEs (RR: 0.55; 95 % CI: 0.36-0.86, P = 0.009), TLR (RR 0.41; 95 % CI: 0.21-0.80, P = 0.008), TVR (RR 0.55; 95 % CI: 0.34-0.88, P = 0.01) and the overall incidence of Death/ Myocardial Infarction (MI)/TVR (RR 0.54; 95 % CI: 0.31-0.94, P = 0.03) during this 9 to 12 months follow up period after stents implantation. Stent thrombosis was almost similar in both groups. Bleeding seemed to favor DAPT but the result was not statistically significant. Platelet aggregation, platelet reactivity index (PRI) and platelet reactivity unit (PRU) were also reduced with Weight Mean Difference (WMD) of (-13.80; 95 % CI: -17.03 to -10.56, P < 0.00001), (-22.87; 95 % CI: -23.66 to -22.07, P < 0.00001) and (-44.17; 95 % CI: -58.56 to -29.77, P < 0.00001) respectively. CONCLUSION: Since MACEs have been significantly decreased in the triple group, TAPT appears to be more effective than DAPT in T2DM patients after intracoronary stenting. No significant difference in stent thrombosis and bleeding risks between these 2 groups shows TAPT to be almost as safe as DAPT in these diabetic patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bundhun et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: