Key result
Cilostazol plus ozagrel shows no benefit over ozagrel alone for 30-day favorable outcomes.
Why the study?
The efficacy of cilostazol for the treatment of acute perforating artery infarction in the lenticulostriate artery territory was examined due to its pleiotropic effects beyond antiplatelet activity.
Does cilostazol added to ozagrel improve favorable outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the lenticulostriate artery territory?
RCT (n=100)
Open-label, blinded-endpoint
Randomized
Does cilostazol added to ozagrel improve favorable outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the lenticulostriate artery territory?
Absolute Event Rate: 81.3% vs 82%
Cilostazol added to ozagrel did not improve 30-day functional outcomes or significantly reduce neurological deterioration in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the lenticulostriate artery territory.
BACKGROUND: Cilostazol, an inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 3, has various pleiotropic effects besides its antiplatelet activity. This study examined the efficacy of cilostazol for the treatment of acute perforating artery infarction. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point trial, 100 patients with cerebral infarction in the territory of the lenticulostriate arteries were enrolled within 48 h of onset. Patients were randomly treated with both cilostazol and ozagrel for 14 days (n = 50, cilostazol group) or ozagrel alone for 14 days (n = 50, control group). The primary end point was the proportion of favorable outcomes 30 days after randomization as defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2. Secondary end points included the incidence of neurological deterioration (an increase of ≥ 2 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale within 7 days). RESULTS: Favorable outcomes (mRS scores 0-2) were similar in both groups (81.3 and 82.0% in the cilostazol and control groups, respectively). The incidence of neurological deterioration was lower in the cilostazol group than the control group (12.5 and 16.0%, respectively) with a 21.9% relative risk reduction, although the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol did not prevent the neurological deterioration of perforating artery infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kondo et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in Acute perforating artery infarction (n=100). Cilostazol and ozagrel vs. Ozagrel alone was evaluated on Proportion of favorable outcomes (mRS score 0-2) 30 days after randomization. Cilostazol combined with ozagrel resulted in similar rates of favorable outcomes at 30 days compared to ozagrel alone (81.3% vs 82.0%) in patients with acute perforating artery infarction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: