SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS OF CILOSTAZOL
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

G. BIONDI-ZOCCAI, 1 P. OMEDE’, 1 F. SCIUTO, 1 C. MORETTI, 1 P. LOMBARDI, 1 D. SILLANO, 1 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 50 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS OF CILOSTAZOL ON RESTENOSIS AND TARGET VESSEL REVASCULARIZATION AFTER PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION: EVIDENCE FROM A META-ANALYSIS. G. BIONDI-ZOCCAI, 1 P. OMEDE’, 1 F. SCIUTO, 1 C. MORETTI, 1 P. LOMBARDI, 1 D. SILLANO, 1

Download Presentation

G. BIONDI-ZOCCAI, 1 P. OMEDE’, 1 F. SCIUTO, 1 C. MORETTI, 1 P. LOMBARDI, 1 D. SILLANO, 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


G biondi zoccai 1 p omede 1 f sciuto 1 c moretti 1 p lombardi 1 d sillano 1

SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS OF CILOSTAZOL ON RESTENOSIS AND TARGET VESSEL REVASCULARIZATION AFTER PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION: EVIDENCE FROM A META-ANALYSIS

G. BIONDI-ZOCCAI,1 P. OMEDE’,1 F. SCIUTO,1

C. MORETTI,1 P. LOMBARDI,1 D. SILLANO,1

P. GARRONE,1 G. TREVI,1 AND I. SHEIBAN1

1University of Turin, Turin, Italy ([email protected])


Background

BACKGROUND

  • Drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but may pose a risk of thrombosis

  • Cilostazol is an oral phosphodiesterase inhibitor which has antiplatelet activities as well as pleiotropic effects including inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia

  • Thus, cilostazol could hold the promise of preventing both restenosis and thrombosis after PCI, but data to date are inconclusive


Objectives

OBJECTIVES

  • To perform a systematic review of randomized clinical trials focusing on cilostazol versus control therapy in patients undergoing PCI

  • To pool major angiographic and clinical outcomes with meta-analysis


Methods

METHODS

  • Several databases (BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, and PubMed) were systematically searched for pertinent clinical studies published up to May 2007

  • Major selection criteria were:

    • randomized treatment allocation,

    • comparison of cilostazol vs control,

    • after PCI,

    • follow-up ≥1 month


Methods1

METHODS

  • The co-primary efficacy end-points of the analysis were the mid-term risk of binary angiographic restenosis and the rate of repeat revascularization at the longest available follow-up

  • As secondary end-points, we considered the rate of major adverse cardiac events, ie death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization; stent thrombosis; and bleeding (as defined by each investigator)


Methods2

METHODS

  • Relative risks (RR) were computed from individual studies and pooled according to a random-effect method (with 95% confidence intervals) using RevMan 4.2

  • Small study bias and/or publication bias (ie the likelihood of small yet nominally significant studies being selectively published in the literature) was appraised by means of visual inspection of funnel plot, and analytically with Egger and Peters test

  • The Egger method plots linearly the standard normal deviate as dependent variable and 1/standard error of the RR as independent variable, with test results based on the p value of the regression constant.

  • The Peters method plots linearly the natural logarithm of the RR as dependent variable and 1/sample size as independent variable, with test results based on the p value of the regression coefficient


Review profile

REVIEW PROFILE


Included studies

INCLUDED STUDIES


Results

RESULTS

  • A total of 22 RCTs were included (4928 patients), with median follow-up of 6 months.

  • Pooled analysis showed that cilostazol was associated with statistically significant reductions in binary angiographic restenosis (RR=0.59 [0.48-0.73], p<0.001) and repeat revascularization (RR=0.70 [0.56-0.89], p=0.003)


Results1

RESULTS

  • Cilostazol appeared also safe, with no significant increase in the risk of stent thrombosis (RR=1.49 [0.85-2.61], p=0.16) or bleeding (RR=0.72 [0.44-1.18], p=0.19)

  • However, small study bias was evident for both binary restenosis (p<0.001) and repeat revascularization (p=0.016), suggesting that most of the apparent benefits of cilostazol could be due to this type of confounding effect


Binary restenosis

BINARY RESTENOSIS


Target vessel revascularization

TARGET VESSEL REVASCULARIZATION


Funnel plot for binary restenosis

FUNNEL PLOT FOR BINARY RESTENOSIS

P<0.001 at Egger test

0.0

P<0.001 at Peters test

0.4

0.8

Precision

(standard error of log relative risk)

1.2

1.6

Favours cilostazol

Favours control

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Effect

(relative risk)


Funnel plot for binary restenosis1

FUNNEL PLOT FOR BINARY RESTENOSIS

P<0.001 at Egger test

0.0

P<0.001 at Peters test

0.4

0.8

Precision

(standard error of log relative risk)

1.2

1.6

Favours cilostazol

Favours control

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Effect

(relative risk)


Funnel plot for tvr

FUNNEL PLOT FOR TVR

P=0.016 at Egger test

0.0

P<0.001 at Peters test

0.2

0.4

Precision

(standard error of log relative risk)

0.6

0.8

Favours cilostazol

Favours control

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Effect

(relative risk)


Funnel plot for tvr1

FUNNEL PLOT FOR TVR

P=0.016 at Egger test

0.0

P<0.001 at Peters test

0.2

0.4

Precision

(standard error of log relative risk)

0.6

0.8

Favours cilostazol

Favours control

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Effect

(relative risk)


Sensitivity analyses

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES


Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS

  • Cilostazol appears effective and safe in reducing the risk of restenosis and repeat revascularization after PCI, but available evidence is limited by small study effects

  • Awaiting larger RCTs, this inexpensive treatment can be envisaged in selected patients in which DES are contraindicated, or when there is a need for further neointimal hyperplasia inhibition


G biondi zoccai 1 p omede 1 f sciuto 1 c moretti 1 p lombardi 1 d sillano 1

For further slides on these topics please feel free to visit the metcardio.org website:http://www.metcardio.org/slides.html


  • Login