OBJECTIVE: Although cilostazol is commonly used as an adjunct after peripheral vascular interventions, its efficacy remains uncertain. We assessed the effect of cilostazol on outcomes after peripheral vascular interventions using meta-analytic techniques. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946-2012), Cochrane CENTRAL (1996-2012), and trial registries for studies comparing cilostazol in combination with antiplatelet therapy to antiplatelet therapy alone after peripheral vascular interventions. Treatment effects were reported as pooled risk/hazard ratio (HR) with random-effects models. RESULTS: Two randomized trials and four retrospective cohorts involving 1522 patients met inclusion criteria. Across studies, mean age ranged from 65 to 76 years, and the majority of patients were male (64%-83%); mean follow-up ranged from 18 to 37 months. Most interventions were in the femoropopliteal segment, and overall, 68% of patients had stents placed. Pooled estimates demonstrated that the addition of cilostazol was associated with decreased restenosis (relative risk [RR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.84; P < .001), improved amputation-free survival (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002), improved limb salvage (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66; P < .001), and improved freedom from target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61; P < .001). There was no significant reduction in mortality among those receiving cilostazol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.45-1.19; P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cilostazol to antiplatelet therapy after peripheral vascular interventions is associated with a reduced risk of restenosis, amputation, and target lesion revascularization in our meta-analysis of six studies. Consideration of cilostazol as a medical adjunct after peripheral vascular interventions is warranted, presuming these findings are broadly generalizable.
OBJECTIVE: Although cilostazol is commonly used as an adjunct after peripheral vascular interventions, its efficacy remains uncertain. We assessed the effect of cilostazol on outcomes after peripheral vascular interventions using meta-analytic techniques. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946-2012), Cochrane CENTRAL (1996-2012), and trial registries for studies comparing cilostazol in combination with antiplatelet therapy to antiplatelet therapy alone after peripheral vascular interventions. Treatment effects were reported as pooled risk/hazard ratio (HR) with random-effects models. RESULTS: Two randomized trials and four retrospective cohorts involving 1522 patients met inclusion criteria. Across studies, mean age ranged from 65 to 76 years, and the majority of patients were male (64%-83%); mean follow-up ranged from 18 to 37 months. Most interventions were in the femoropopliteal segment, and overall, 68% of patients had stents placed. Pooled estimates demonstrated that the addition of cilostazol was associated with decreased restenosis (relative risk [RR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.84; P < .001), improved amputation-free survival (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002), improved limb salvage (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66; P < .001), and improved freedom from target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.61; P < .001). There was no significant reduction in mortality among those receiving cilostazol (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.45-1.19; P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cilostazol to antiplatelet therapy after peripheral vascular interventions is associated with a reduced risk of restenosis, amputation, and target lesion revascularization in our meta-analysis of six studies. Consideration of cilostazol as a medical adjunct after peripheral vascular interventions is warranted, presuming these findings are broadly generalizable.
Authors: Martin Schillinger; Schila Sabeti; Christian Loewe; Petra Dick; Jasmin Amighi; Wolfgang Mlekusch; Oliver Schlager; Manfred Cejna; Johannes Lammer; Erich Minar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Marzia Lotrionte; Matteo Anselmino; Claudio Moretti; Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Luca Testa; Antonio Abbate; John Cosgrave; Antonio Laudito; Gian Paolo Trevi; Imad Sheiban Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Michael S Conte; Patrick J Geraghty; Andrew W Bradbury; Nathanael D Hevelone; Stuart R Lipsitz; Gregory L Moneta; Mark R Nehler; Richard J Powell; Anton N Sidawy Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2009-11-07 Impact factor: 4.268