Circulation Journal
Online ISSN : 1347-4820
Print ISSN : 1346-9843
ISSN-L : 1346-9843
Clinical Investigation
Randomized Comparison of Cilostazol vs Ticlopidine for Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting
Noriyuki TakeyasuShigeyuki WatanabeYuichi NoguchiKimito IshikawaYuko FumikuraIwao Yamaguchi
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

2005 Volume 69 Issue 7 Pages 780-785

Details
Abstract

Background Cilostazol and ticlopidine are commonly prescribed for prevention of thrombosis after coronary stenting, but few studies have compared them. Methods and Results In the present study 642 patients who underwent stenting were randomized to treatment either with cilostazol + aspirin (C group, 321 patients) or ticlopidine + aspirin (T group, 321 patients). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed immediately after stenting and at the 6-month follow-up. Treatment was continued until follow-up angiography. Baseline patient characteristics did not differ significantly. With the exception of a higher rate of stenting in a venous graft in the C group, there were no differences in angiographic characteristics or stent type. Baseline QCA analysis of the reference diameter, minimal lumen diameter (MLD) showed no significant differences. Follow-up QCA analysis of the MLD showed no significant differences. There were also no differences in restenosis or target lesion revascularization rates, or in the incidence of adverse reactions. However, the rate of subacute thrombosis (SAT) was significantly higher in the C group than in the T group (2% vs 0.3%, p=0.02). Conclusion In the present study there was a similar restenosis rate with cilostazol or ticlopidine, but the rate of SAT was significantly higher with cilostazol. There was no significant difference in adverse reactions. (Circ J 2005; 69: 780 - 785)

Content from these authors
© 2005 THE JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOCIETY
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top