Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Stent thrombosis associated with drug eluting stents on addition of cilostazol to the standard dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials

BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology201819:31

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40360-018-0224-3

  • Received: 17 January 2018
  • Accepted: 12 June 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare stent thrombosis (ST) and its different subtypes following treatment with DAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel) versus TAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel + cilostazol).

Methods

Studies were included if: they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAPT (cilostazol + aspirin + clopidogrel) with DAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel); they reported ST or its subtype including definite, probable, acute, sub-acute and late ST as their clinical outcomes. RevMan software (version 5.3) was used to carry out this analysis whereby odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated.

Results

Statistical analysis of the data showed no significant difference in total ST with the addition of cilostazol to the standard DAPT with OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.38–1.10; P = 0.11, I2 = 6%. Moreover, when ST was further subdivided and analyzed, still, no significant difference was observed in acute, sub-acute, late, definite and probable ST with OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.13–1.74; P = 0.27, I2 = 0%, OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.22–1.40; P = 0.21, I2 = 0%, OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.23–2.28; P = 0.58, I2 = 0%, OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.38–3.69; P = 0.77, I2 = 3% and OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.17–3.55; P = 0.70, I2 = 0% respectively. No change was observed during a short term (≤ 6 months) and a longer (≥ 1 year) follow-up time period.

Conclusions

This current analysis showed no significant difference in stent thrombosis with the addition of cilostazol to the standard dual antiplatelet therapy during any follow-up time period after PCI.

Keywords

  • Dual antiplatelet therapy
  • Triple antiplatelet therapy
  • Cilostazol
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention
  • Stent thrombosis

Background

Nowadays, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is mainly carried out with drug eluting stents (DES). In the year 2017, a clinically interesting meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed similar cardiovascular outcomes in patients who were discharged on the same day versus patients who stayed overnight in the hospital following PCI [1]. However, the main shortcoming of DES is the occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST) [2].

In order to minimize ST, the 2014 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) guidelines on myocardial revascularization recommend the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel for at least six months in patients with stable coronary artery disease and for at least one year in patients with acute coronary syndrome [3]. However, recent progress in clinical medicine showed the addition of cilostazol (another antiplatelet agent) to DAPT, now called triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT), to be more effective in comparison to DAPT [4] especially in decreasing repeated revascularization.

Further updated meta-analyses compared the outcomes which were associated with DAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel) and TAPT (cilostazol + aspirin + clopidogrel) [5, 6]. However, ST was never well compared systematically.

In contrast to other previously published meta-analyses, we aimed to systematically compare ST and its different subtypes following treatment with DAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel) versus TAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel + cilostazol) to show any significant difference related to ST.

Methods

Searched databases

The following databases were searched:
  1. 1.

    The Cochrane database;

     
  2. 2.
     
  3. 3.

    MEDLINE;

     
  4. 4.
     
  5. 5.

    Reference lists of relevant publications.

     

Searched terms

The following terms were searched:
  1. 1.

    Dual antiplatelet therapy versus triple antiplatelet therapy;

     
  2. 2.

    Cilostazol and percutaneous coronary intervention;

     
  3. 3.

    Cilostazol and coronary angioplasty;

     
  4. 4.

    Cilostazol, aspirin and clopidogrel;

     
  5. 5.

    Triple antiplatelet therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention;

     
  6. 6.

    DAPT versus TAPT;

     
  7. 7.

    DAPT versus cilostazol.

     

Inclusion criteria

Studies were included if:
  1. 1.

    They were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAPT (cilostazol + aspirin + clopidogrel) with DAPT (aspirin + clopidogrel);

     
  2. 2.

    They reported ST (or its subtype including definite, probable, acute, sub-acute and late ST) as their clinical outcomes.

     

Exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded if:
  1. 1.

    They were meta-analyses, review articles, observational cohorts, case-control studies and letter to editors;

     
  2. 2.

    TAPT did not consist of cilostazol, but instead, consisted of another antiplatelet or antithrombotic drug such as warfarin;

     
  3. 3.

    ST was not reported among the clinical outcomes;

     
  4. 4.

    They were duplicated studies.

     

Type of patients, outcomes, definitions and follow-ups

Several types of patients with CAD who were treated by PCI were included in this analysis (Table 1):
  1. 1.

    Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM);

     
  2. 2.

    Patients with obesity;

     
  3. 3.

    Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS);

     
  4. 4.

    Patients with long coronary lesions (LCL);

     
  5. 5.

    Patients with coronary bifurcation;

     
  6. 6.

    Patients with native CAD;

     
  7. 7.

    Patients with multi-vessel CAD.

     
Table 1

Types of stent thrombosis which were reported

Studies

Type of stent thrombosis reported

Follow-up period

Type of participants

Type of stent

Ahn2008 [10]

Acute, sub-acute and late ST

6 months

PCI in patients with T2DM

DES

Gao2013 [11]

Definite, probable, acute and late ST

1 year

PCI in patients with obesity

DES

Han2009 [12]

Sub-acute ST

1 month

PCI in patients with ACS

DES

Lee2005 [13]

Acute and sub-acute ST

1 month

PCI in patients with CAD

DES

Lee2010A [14]

Acute, sub-acute, late and very late ST

2 years

PCI in patients with T2DM and LCL

DES

Lee2011 [15]

Acute, sub-acute, late ST

1 year

PCI in patients with LCL

DES

Suh2011 [16]

ST

6 months

PCI in patients with native CAD

DES

Youn2014 [17]

ST, definite and probable ST

3 months and 1 year

PCI in patients with LCL or MVD

DES

Zhu2015 [18]

Sub-acute and late ST

1 year

PCI in patients with ACS

DES

Park2013 [19]

Definite and probable ST

1 month

PCI in patients with CAD

DES

Abbreviations: ST: Stent thrombosis, PCI: Percutaneous coronary intervention, T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus, ACS: Acute coronary syndrome, CAD: Coronary artery disease, LCL: Long coronary lesions, MVD: Multi-vessel diseases, DES: Drug eluting stents

ST and its subtypes including (Table 1):
  1. 1.

    Total ST: the total number of any type of ST;

     
  2. 2.

    Acute ST: less than 1 day;

     
  3. 3.

    Sub-acute ST: 1 day to 1 month;

     
  4. 4.

    Late ST: 1 to 12 months or more;

     
  5. 5.

    Definite ST and;

     
  6. 6.

    Probable ST were assessed.

     

Definite and probable ST were defined according to the Academic Research Consortium [7].

The follow-up time periods were as followed:
  1. 1.

    A short term follow up period of 6 months or less.

     
  2. 2.

    A longer follow up time period of 1 year or more (1–3 years) as shown in Table 1.

     

Data extraction and quality assessment

The following data were extracted and cross-checked by the reviewer Feng Huang:
  1. 1.

    The type of study (trial or observational cohort);

     
  2. 2.

    The total number of patients who were treated by DAPT and TAPT respectively;

     
  3. 3.

    The types of participants;

     
  4. 4.

    The patients’ enrollment time periods;

     
  5. 5.

    The baseline characteristics of the participants;

     
  6. 6.

    The follow-up time periods.

     

Another reviewer (Pravesh Kumar Bundhun) was also involved in the searched process and in data extraction. However, because he did not satisfy all the criteria for authorship, he was only acknowledged at the end of the paper.

The methodological quality was assessed in accordance to the criteria suggested by the Cochrane collaboration (for randomized controlled trials) [8]. Grades were allotted (A to E with a grade A implying a low risk of bias).

Statistical analysis

RevMan analytical software for meta-analysis (version 5.3) was used to carry out this analysis whereby odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated.

Heterogeneity was assessed by two simple methods:
  1. 1.

    The Q statistic test whereby a P value less or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant;

     
  2. 2.

    The I2 statistic test which focused on the value of I2 (the greater the value, the higher the heterogeneity).

     

In addition, a fixed effects model (I2 < 50%) or a random effects model (I2 > 50%) was used based on the I2 value which was obtained.

Sensitivity analysis was also carried out by an exclusion method (each trial was excluded one by one and a new analysis was carried out each time and the results were observed for any significant difference).In addition, publication bias was visually estimated through funnel plots.

Since registration for meta-analyses was not compulsory, protocol for this study was not prospectively registered.

Ethics

Ethical approval was not required for such types of research articles.

Results

Searched outcomes

The PRISMA guideline was followed [9]. This search resulted in a total number of 788 articles. Six hundred and ninety-five (695) articles were eliminated since they were not related to this research title. Ninety three (93) full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Further elimination was carried out due to the following reasons:
  1. 1.

    They were meta-analyses (14);

     
  2. 2.

    They were observational studies (3);

     
  3. 3.

    They were letters to editors (3);

     
  4. 4.

    They reported platelet aggregation as outcomes (8);

     
  5. 5.

    They did not report ST among the cardiovascular outcomes (5);

     
  6. 6.

    They involved another drug in the triple antiplatelet group (23);

     
  7. 7.

    They were duplicated studies (27).

     
Finally 10 randomized controlled trials [1019] were confirmed for this analysis as shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Flow diagram representing the study selection

General features of the studies which were included

The general features of the studies have been listed in Table 2. Ten randomized controlled trials consisting of a total number of 11, 878 participants (6035 patients were assigned to the DAPT group and 5843 patients were assigned to the TAPT group). The time period for patients’ enrollment varied from years 1998 to 2011. A detailed data set for the total number of patients which were extracted from each trial has been shown in Table 2.
Table 2

General features of the studies which were included

Studies

No of patients with DAPT (n)

No of patients with TAPT (n)

Type of study

Year of patients’ enrollment

Bias risk grade

Ahn2008 [10]

124

113

RCT

2004–2006

B

Gao2013 [11]

215

213

RCT

B

Han2009 [12]

608

604

RCT

B

Lee2005 [13]

1597

1415

OS

1998–2003

Lee2010A [14]

450

450

RCT

2004–2006

A

Lee2011 [15]

249

250

RCT

2007–2008

A

Suh2011 [16]

458

457

RCT

2006–2009

A

Youn2014 [17]

307

308

RCT

2010–2011

B

Zhu2015 [18]

151

154

RCT

B

Park2013 [19]

1876

1879

RCT

2010–2011

B

Total (n)

6035

5843

   

Abbreviations: DAPT: Dual anti-platelet therapy, TAPT: Triple antiplatelet therapy, RCT: Randomized controlled trials, OS: Observational studies

As previously stated, the bias risk was assessed in accordance to the criteria suggested by the Cochrane collaboration. A grade ‘A’ with low risk bias was allotted to three randomized trials, whereas a grade ‘B’ was allotted to the other remaining 6 trials.

Baseline characteristics of the participants

The baseline features of the participants have been listed in Table 3. The participants had a mean age ranging from 55.3 to 65.0 years. In addition, male patients were predominant in both groups (DAPT and TAPT). Other co-morbidities or risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus and current smoker were also reported in Table 3. According to the data which were presented, no significant difference was observed in the baseline features among those participants who were assigned to the DAPT or TAPT groups.
Table 3

Baseline features of the studies which were included

Studies

Age (years)

Males (%)

HT (%)

Ds (%)

DM (%)

Cs (%)

 

DT/TT

DT/TT

DT/TT

DT/TT

DT/TT

DT/TT

Ahn2008 [10]

62.0/61.2

54.7/61.7

54.0/48.9

25.2/19.1

100/100

34.5/39.5

Gao2013 [11]

55.3/57.6

81.9/78.9

54.4/56.3

21.4/24.9

16.2/19.2

42.3/38.5

Han2009 [12]

60.2/59.6

72.9/73.8

56.1/57.9

45.4/45.5

20.1/23.3

Lee2005 [13]

59.0/59.0

71.8/71.8

46.1/42.3

27.6/26.8

26.2/23.4

31.9/32.4

Lee2010A [14]

61.0/60.9

60.7/62.2

57.1/57.0

28.5/30.2

62.4/63.3

34.7/31.6

Lee2011 [15]

62.1/60.9

71.5/70.0

64.7/58.4

45.0/42.4

33.7/36.8

30.1/30.4

Suh2011 [16]

64.0/64.8

68.3/68.6

66.6/64.5

32.2/35.5

26.8/23.7

Youn2014 [17]

64.2/65.0

64.2/63.0

65.8/68.2

47.6/49.4

30.9/32.5

44.0/48.4

Zhu2015 [18]

60.1/60.2

64.9/66.9

45.7/41.6

57.0/51.3

21.9/17.5

32.5/39.0

Park2013 [19]

63.7/62.8

67.0/69.8

68.6/66.8

62.7/64.2

31.3/31.8

30.8/32.8

Abbreviations: DT: Dual antiplatelet therapy, TT: Triple antiplatelet therapy, HT: Hypertension, ds: Dyslipidemia, DM: Diabetes mellitus, Cs: Current smoker

Main results of this analysis

Results of this analysis have been represented in Table 4.
Table 4

Results of this analysis

Outcomes

OR with 95% CI

P value

I2 (%)

Statistical model used

ST

0.65 [0.38–1.10]

0.11

6

Fixed effects

Definite ST

1.18 [0.38–3.69]

0.77

3

Fixed effects

Probable ST

0.75 [0.17–3.35]

0.70

0

Fixed effects

Acute ST

0.48 [0.13–1.74]

0.27

0

Fixed effects

Sub-acute ST

0.56 [0.22–1.40]

0.21

0

Fixed effects

Late ST

0.72 [0.23–2.28]

0.58

0

Fixed effects

Abbreviations: OR: Odds ratios, CI: Confidence intervals, ST: Stent thrombosis, RCT: Randomized controlled trials, OS: Observational studies

Statistical analysis of the data showed no significant difference in total ST with the addition of cilostazol to the standard DAPT with OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.38–1.10; P = 0.11, I2 = 6% as shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 2
Fig. 2

Stent thrombosis observed with the addition of cilostazol to the standard DAPT

When ST was further subdivided and analyzed, still, no significant difference was observed in acute, sub-acute, late, definite and probable ST with OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.13–1.74; P = 0.27, I2 = 0%, OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.22–1.40; P = 0.21, I2 = 0%, OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.23–2.28; P = 0.58, I2 = 0%, OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.38–3.69; P = 0.77, I2 = 3% and OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.17–3.35; P = 0.70, I2 = 0% respectively as shown in Fig. 2.

Another analysis was carried out based on the follow-up time period.

During a short term follow-up time period, total, sub-acute, definite and probable ST were again similarly manifested with OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.29–1.07; P = 0.08, I2 = 0%, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.10–1.32; P = 0.12, I2 = 0%, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.27–3.69; P = 1.00, I2 = 42% and OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.17–3.35; P = 0.70, I2 = 0% respectively as shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3
Fig. 3

Stent thrombosis observed with the addition of cilostazol to the standard DAPT during a short follow-up time period

During a longer follow-up time period, still no significant difference was observed in total, acute, sub-acute, late, and definite ST with the addition of cilostazol to the standard DAPT, with OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.47–2.53; P = 0.84, I2 = 39%, OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.17–3.37; P = 0.71, I2 = 0%, OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.25–3.97; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%, OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.19–2.36; P = 0.53, I2 = 0%, and OR: 3.03, 95% CI: 0.47–19.32; P = 0.24, I2 = 0% respectively as shown in Fig. 4.
Figure 4
Fig. 4

Stent thrombosis observed with the addition of cilostazol to the standard DAPT during a longer follow-up time period

Sensitivity analysis was also carried out. No significant difference in results were obtained when each study was excluded one by one.

Since this analysis consisted of a small volume of studies, publication bias could better be represented by funnel plots. After carefully assessing the funnel plots, no evidence of publication bias was observed across all the trials which assessed the different subtypes of ST in this analysis as shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
Figure 5
Fig. 5

Funnel plot showing publication bias (A)

Figure 6
Fig. 6

Funnel plot showing publication bias (B)

Discussion

Even though the ESC/EACTS guidelines recommend DAPT as the treatment of choice following PCI with DES, we aimed to show whether the addition of cilostazol to DAPT might potentially be associated with significantly lower ST.

In this analysis, the addition of cilostazol to the standard DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel) did not show any significant difference in total ST or any of its subtypes including acute, sub-acute, late, definite and probable ST. No significant difference was observed even during a short (≤ 6 months) or a longer follow-up time period (≥ 1 year) after PCI.

In 2015, a clinically important meta-analysis which was published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders compared DAPT with TAPT (cilostazol + aspirin + clopidogrel) in patients with T2DM. In their results, the authors demonstrated a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events, and revascularization when cilostazol was added to aspirin and clopidogrel [4].

However, even if this current study did not report adverse cardiovascular outcomes, ST which was reported was not significantly different between DAPT and TAPT further supporting this analysis. In addition, this current analysis was far better since different subtypes of ST were assessed with a higher total number of participants.

A meta-analysis carried out by Zhou et al. showed no significant difference in ST with DAPT and TAPT further supporting this current analysis [20]. Additionally, another meta-analysis of randomized trials with adjusted indirect comparisons still showed no significant difference in ST with the addition of cilostazol to DAPT [21]. Major and minor bleeding events were also not increased [22].

Nevertheless, insights from a recent meta-analysis of randomized trials which aimed to show the efficacy of cilostazol on platelet reactivity and cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing PCI showed reduced stent thrombosis with the triple therapy [23]. The result was completely different from our current analysis. However, it should be clearly noted that in their analysis, the authors repeated data from the DECLARE trial (DECLARE-LONG, DECLARE-DM). In addition, in their analysis, bare metal stents were also included, which was not the case in this current analysis whereby only DES were used. Also, they included unpublished studies and their focus was not specifically based on ST. Our focus was centered specifically on ST and was based on published trials.

Novelty

New features of this analysis included:
  1. 1.

    A high total number of participants;

     
  2. 2.

    Comparing a detailed outcome of ST (acute, sub-acute, late, definite and probable ST) in one particular paper.

     
  3. 3.

    The systematical comparison of short term and long-term ST in the general population with CAD undergoing PCI.

     

Limitations

Limitations were as followed:
  1. 1.

    Even though all the participants were CAD patients with coronary stenting, they were different in terms of subtypes of disease and co-morbidities. A few studies reported patients with diabetes mellitus, obesity, ACS, whereas other studies involved patients with stable CAD, multi-vessel CAD, long coronary lesions, and coronary bifurcation which might affect the results.

     
  2. 2.

    More data would have significantly improved the results when assessing for definite and probable ST. However, improvement on this aspect was not possible since only few studies reported definite and probable ST among the trials which were included in this analysis.

     
  3. 3.

    Longer follow-up time periods above 5 years would have further enhanced this analysis. Nevertheless, no studies have evaluated the use of cilostazol in addition to aspirin and clopidogrel for such a longer follow up time period.

     
  4. 4.

    One observational cohort was also included among the trials.

     

Conclusions

This current analysis showed no significant difference in stent thrombosis with the addition of cilostazol to the standard dual antiplatelet therapy during any follow-up time period after PCI.

Abbreviations

DAPT: 

Dual antiplatelet therapy

PCI: 

Percutaneous coronary intervention

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trials

ST: 

Stent thrombosis

TAPT: 

Triple antiplatelet therapy

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Pravesh Kumar Bundhun (MD), from the Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China, for his immense contribution to the search process and data extraction.

Funding

This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81560046), Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (No. 2016GXNSFAA380002), Scientific Project of Guangxi Higher Education (No. KY2015ZD028), Science Research and Technology Development Project of Qingxiu District of Nanning (No. 2016058) and Lisheng Health Foundation pilotage fund of Peking (No. LHJJ20158126).

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials used in this research are freely available in electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane database, www.ClinicalTrials.gov). References have been provided.

Authors’ contributions

FH was responsible for the conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the initial manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. FH wrote and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was not applicable for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author declare that he has no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Guangxi Key Laboratory Base of Precision Medicine in Cardio-cerebrovascular Diseases Control and Prevention, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, P. R. China

References

  1. Bundhun PK, Soogund MZ, Huang WQ. Same day discharge versus overnight stay in the hospital following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169807.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bundhun PK, Yanamala CM, Huang WQ. Comparing stent thrombosis associated with Zotarolimus eluting stents versus Everolimus eluting stents at 1 year follow up: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17(1):84.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Task Force members, Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–619.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Bundhun PK, Qin T, Chen MH. Comparing the effectiveness and safety between triple antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients after coronary stents implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2015;15:118.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bangalore S, Singh A, Toklu B, DiNicolantonio JJ, Croce K, Feit F, Bhatt DL. Efficacy of cilostazol on platelet reactivity and cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Open Heart. 2014;1(1):e000068.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Zhang Y, Tang HQ, Li J, Fu ZX. Efficacy and safety of triple-antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J. 2013;126(9):1750–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al; Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115(17):2344–2351.Google Scholar
  8. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcareinterventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Ahn Y, Jeong MH, Jeong JW, Kim KH, Ahn TH, Kang WC, Park CG, Kim JH, Chae IH, Nam CW, Hur SH, Bae JH, Kim KY, Oh SK. Randomized comparison of cilostazol vs clopidogrel after drug-eluting stenting in diabeticpatients--clilostazol for diabetic patients in drug-eluting stent (CIDES) trial. Circ J. 2008;72(1):35–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gao W, Zhang Q, Ge H, Guo Y, Zhou Z. Efficacy and safety of triple antiplatelet therapy in obese patients undergoing stent implantation. Angiology. 2013;64(7):554–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Han Y, Li Y, Wang S, Jing Q, Wang Z, Wang D, Shu Q, Tang X. Cilostazol in addition to aspirin and clopidogrel improves long-term outcomes after percutaneouscoronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized, controlled study. Am Heart J. 2009;157(4):733–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee SW, Park SW, Hong MK, Kim YH, Lee BK, Song JM, Han KH, Lee CW, Kang DH, Song JK, Kim JJ, Park SJ. Triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: impact on stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(10):1833–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee SW, Chun KJ, Park SW, Kim HS, Kim YH, Yun SC, Kim WJ, Lee JY, Park DW, Lee CW, Hong MK, Rhee KS, Chae JK, Ko JK, Park JH, Lee JH, Choi SW, Jeong JO, Seong IW, Jon S, Cho YH, Lee NH, Kim JH, Park SJ. Comparison of triple antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy in patients at high risk of restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation (from the DECLARE-DIABETES and –LONG trials). Am J Cardiol. 2010;105(2):168–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee SW, Park SW, Kim YH, Yun SC, Park DW, Lee CW, Kang SJ, Park SJ, Lee JH, Choi SW, Seong IW, Lee NH, Cho YH, Shin WY, Lee SJ, Lee SW, Hyon MS, Bang DW, Choi YJ, Kim HS, Lee BK, Lee K, Park HK, Park CB, Lee SG, Kim MK, Park KH, Park WJ; DECLARE-LONG II Study Investigators. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison study of triple antiplatelet therapy with dualantiplatelet therapy to reduce restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation in long coronarylesions: results from the DECLARE-LONG II (drug-eluting stenting followed by Cilostazol treatment reduces late restenosis in patients with long coronary lesions) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57(11):1264–1270.Google Scholar
  16. Suh JW, Lee SP, Park KW, Lee HY, Kang HJ, Koo BK, Cho YS, Youn TJ, Chae IH, Choi DJ, Rha SW, Bae JH, Kwon TG, Bae JW, Cho MC, Kim HS. Multicenter randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of cilostazol on ischemic vascularcomplications after drug-eluting stent implantation for coronary heart disease: results of the CILON-T (influence of CILostazol-based triple antiplatelet therapy ON ischemic complication after drug-eluting stenT implantation) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(3):280–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Youn YJ, Lee JW, Ahn SG, Lee SH, Choi H, Yu CW, Hong YJ, Kwon HM, Hong MK, Jang Y, Yoon J. Multicenter randomized trial of 3-month cilostazol use in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy afterbiolimus-eluting stent implantation for long or multivessel coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2014;167(2):241–248.e1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhu HC, Li Y, Guan SY, Li J, Wang XZ, Jing QM, Wang ZL, Han YL. Efficacy and safety of individually tailored antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronarysyndrome after coronary stenting: a single center, randomized, feasibility study. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2015;12(1):23–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Park KW, Kang SH, Park JJ, Yang HM, Kang HJ, Koo BK, Park BE, Cha KS, Rhew JY, Jeon HK, Shin ES, Oh JH, Jeong MH, Kim S, Hwang KK, Yoon JH, Lee SY, Park TH, Moon KW, Kwon HM, Chae IH, Kim HS. Adjunctive cilostazol versus double-dose clopidogrel after drug-eluting stent implantation: the HOST-ASSURE randomized trial (harmonizing optimal strategy for treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Safety & Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents & Anti-platelet Regimen). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(9):932–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhou H, Feng XL, Zhang HY, Xu FF, Zhu J. Triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy for coronary heart disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med. 2013;6(4):1034–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen Y, Zhang Y, Tang Y, Huang X, Xie Y. Long-term clinical efficacy and safety of adding cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy for patients undergoing PCI: a meta-analysis of randomized trials with adjusted indirect comparisons. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(1):37–49.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ding XL, Xie C, Jiang B, Gao J, Zhang LL, Zhang H, Zhang JJ, Miao LY. Efficacy and safety of adjunctive cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy after stent implantation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2013;18(3):222–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bangalore S, Singh A, Toklu B, DiNicolantonio JJ, Croce K, Feit F, Bhatt DL. Efficacy of cilostazol on platelet reactivity and cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoingpercutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Open Heart. 2014;1(1):e000068.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement