We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Effect of cilostazol on restenosis after coronary angioplasty and stenting in comparison to conventional coronary artery stenting with ticlopidine.
International Journal of Cardiology 2001 May
BACKGROUND: The role of antiplatelet therapy with ticlopidine plus aspirin in the prevention of subacute thrombosis after coronary artery stenting has been established. However, restenosis remains a major limitation in coronary artery stenting.
METHODS: To compare the effect of cilostazol on restenosis after coronary angioplasty and stenting with that of ticlopidine after coronary artery stenting, 213 patients with 230 lesions who underwent successful coronary interventions were evaluated. Optimal results (residual stenosis less than 30%) were obtained by balloon angioplasty in 112 lesions, 64 lesions were treated with aspirin 81 mg/day (balloon-aspirin group) and 48 lesions with cilostazol 200 mg/day and aspirin 81 mg/day (balloon-cilostazol group). Stent implantation was performed in the remaining 118 lesions; 55 lesions were treated with ticlopidine 200 mg/day and aspirin 243 mg/day (stent-ticlopidine group) and 63 lesions with cilostazol 200 mg/day and aspirin 81 mg/day (stent-cilostazol group). Concomitant medications were continued for 4 to 6 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: No adverse events including acute occlusion and subacute thrombosis occurred in any groups. Although immediate gain and minimal lumen diameter immediately after angioplasty were significantly larger in stent groups than those in balloon groups, net gain at follow-up was significantly larger in cilostazol groups (1.54+/-0.83 mm in balloon-cilostazol group and 1.65+/-0.78 mm in stent-cilostazol group) than other groups (1.02+/-0.81 mm in balloon-aspirin group and 1.21+/-0.70 in stent-ticlopidine group) as a result of significantly lower late loss and loss index in cilostazol groups. The restenosis rate was significantly lower in cilostazol groups (12.5% in balloon-cilostazol group and 14.3% in stent-cilostazol group) than other groups (43.8% in balloon-aspirin group and 32.7% in stent-ticlopidine group). The rate of recurrent angina was significantly lower in cilostazol groups (4.3% in balloon-cilostazol group and 1.9% in stent-cilostazol group) than in other groups (17.5% in balloon-aspirin group and 14.0% in stent-ticlopidine groups).
CONCLUSIONS: Both optimal balloon angioplasty with cilostazol and coronary artery stenting with cilostazol have a potential to reduce restenosis compared with optimal balloon angioplasty with aspirin or conventional coronary artery stenting with ticlopidine plus aspirin.
METHODS: To compare the effect of cilostazol on restenosis after coronary angioplasty and stenting with that of ticlopidine after coronary artery stenting, 213 patients with 230 lesions who underwent successful coronary interventions were evaluated. Optimal results (residual stenosis less than 30%) were obtained by balloon angioplasty in 112 lesions, 64 lesions were treated with aspirin 81 mg/day (balloon-aspirin group) and 48 lesions with cilostazol 200 mg/day and aspirin 81 mg/day (balloon-cilostazol group). Stent implantation was performed in the remaining 118 lesions; 55 lesions were treated with ticlopidine 200 mg/day and aspirin 243 mg/day (stent-ticlopidine group) and 63 lesions with cilostazol 200 mg/day and aspirin 81 mg/day (stent-cilostazol group). Concomitant medications were continued for 4 to 6 months of follow-up.
RESULTS: No adverse events including acute occlusion and subacute thrombosis occurred in any groups. Although immediate gain and minimal lumen diameter immediately after angioplasty were significantly larger in stent groups than those in balloon groups, net gain at follow-up was significantly larger in cilostazol groups (1.54+/-0.83 mm in balloon-cilostazol group and 1.65+/-0.78 mm in stent-cilostazol group) than other groups (1.02+/-0.81 mm in balloon-aspirin group and 1.21+/-0.70 in stent-ticlopidine group) as a result of significantly lower late loss and loss index in cilostazol groups. The restenosis rate was significantly lower in cilostazol groups (12.5% in balloon-cilostazol group and 14.3% in stent-cilostazol group) than other groups (43.8% in balloon-aspirin group and 32.7% in stent-ticlopidine group). The rate of recurrent angina was significantly lower in cilostazol groups (4.3% in balloon-cilostazol group and 1.9% in stent-cilostazol group) than in other groups (17.5% in balloon-aspirin group and 14.0% in stent-ticlopidine groups).
CONCLUSIONS: Both optimal balloon angioplasty with cilostazol and coronary artery stenting with cilostazol have a potential to reduce restenosis compared with optimal balloon angioplasty with aspirin or conventional coronary artery stenting with ticlopidine plus aspirin.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app