Key result
Cilostazol is linked to ~11% higher clinical efficacy and improved survival vs trimetazidine in arteriosclerosis obliterans.
Why the study?
The comparative efficacy and long-term survival impact of trimetazidine versus cilostazol in treating lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans were unclear.
Does cilostazol improve clinical efficacy and survival compared to trimetazidine in patients with lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans?
Cohort (n=206)
No
Does cilostazol improve clinical efficacy and survival compared to trimetazidine in patients with lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.18% vs 78.72%
p-value: p=0.022
In a retrospective cohort of patients with lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans, cilostazol improved clinical efficacy, walking distance, and 5-year survival with fewer adverse effects compared to trimetazidine.
This study compared the efficacy and long-term survival rate of trimetazidine and cilostazol in the treatment of lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans (ASO). A retrospectively analysis on the medical records of 206 patients with ASO who were admitted to The Central Hospital of Wuhan from January 2011 to May 2013 was performed, including 94 patients treated with trimetazidine (group A) and 112 patients treated with cilostazol (group B). On the basis of the same basic treatment, both groups were applied with these two drugs after two courses of treatments. Then the efficacy of clinical treatment, dorsal artery blood flow, anterior femoral artery, posterior tibial artery blood flow, brachial artery index, toe-brachial index, painless walking distance, maximum walking distance, adverse reactions, 5-year survival rates were compared. The total effective rate of clinical efficacy in group B was higher than group A (P<0.05). After the first course of treatment, the above indicators increased in both groups (P<0.05). After the end of the second course of treatment, the above-mentioned index values in both groups were significantly increased (P<0.05). The improvement of the above indicators in group B were better than the trimetazidine group in both the first and second treatment courses (P<0.05). In group A, there were 15 cases of patients with lethargy and hypodynamia and 9 cases of dizziness and headache. There were significant differences between the 7th and 3rd cases of patients when compared to group B (P<0.05). The 5-year survival rate of group A was lower than group B (P<0.05). The clinical efficacy of cliostazol in the treatment of ASO had a good effect, and there was only a few adverse reactions and the long-term survival rate was high. It is worthy of being promoted in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans (ASO) (n=206). Cilostazol vs. Trimetazidine was evaluated on Total effective rate of clinical efficacy (p=0.022). Cilostazol demonstrated a significantly higher total clinical effective rate (90.18% vs 78.72%) and 5-year survival rate compared to trimetazidine in patients with lower extremity arteriosclerosis obliterans.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: