Cargando…

A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the preventive effect of cilostazol on in-stent restenosis in patients after superficial femoral artery (SFA) stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 28 patients with peripheral arterial disease, who had successfully undergone stent implantation, 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ikushima, Ichiro, Yonenaga, Kazuchika, Iwakiri, Hironao, Nagoshi, Hideki, Kumagai, Haruhito, Yamashita, Yasuyuki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22915934
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S21629
_version_ 1782240553829662720
author Ikushima, Ichiro
Yonenaga, Kazuchika
Iwakiri, Hironao
Nagoshi, Hideki
Kumagai, Haruhito
Yamashita, Yasuyuki
author_facet Ikushima, Ichiro
Yonenaga, Kazuchika
Iwakiri, Hironao
Nagoshi, Hideki
Kumagai, Haruhito
Yamashita, Yasuyuki
author_sort Ikushima, Ichiro
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the preventive effect of cilostazol on in-stent restenosis in patients after superficial femoral artery (SFA) stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 28 patients with peripheral arterial disease, who had successfully undergone stent implantation, 15 received cilostazol and 13 received ticlopidine. Primary patency rates were retrospectively analyzed by means of Kaplan–Meier survival curves, with differences between the two medication groups compared by log-rank test. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was applied to assess the effect of cilostazol versus ticlopidine on primary patency. RESULTS: The cilostazol group had significantly better primary patency rates than the ticlopidine group. Cumulative primary patency rates at 12 and 24 months after stent placement were, respectively, 100% and 75% in the cilostazol group versus 39% and 30% in the ticlopidine group (P = 0.0073, log-rank test). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for potentially confounding factors, including history of diabetes, cumulative stent length, and poor runoff, patients receiving cilostazol had significantly reduced risk of restenosis (hazard ratio 5.4; P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study showed that cilostazol significantly reduces in-stent stenosis after SFA stent placement compared with ticlopidine.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3417878
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34178782012-08-22 A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine Ikushima, Ichiro Yonenaga, Kazuchika Iwakiri, Hironao Nagoshi, Hideki Kumagai, Haruhito Yamashita, Yasuyuki Med Devices (Auckl) Original Research PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the preventive effect of cilostazol on in-stent restenosis in patients after superficial femoral artery (SFA) stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 28 patients with peripheral arterial disease, who had successfully undergone stent implantation, 15 received cilostazol and 13 received ticlopidine. Primary patency rates were retrospectively analyzed by means of Kaplan–Meier survival curves, with differences between the two medication groups compared by log-rank test. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was applied to assess the effect of cilostazol versus ticlopidine on primary patency. RESULTS: The cilostazol group had significantly better primary patency rates than the ticlopidine group. Cumulative primary patency rates at 12 and 24 months after stent placement were, respectively, 100% and 75% in the cilostazol group versus 39% and 30% in the ticlopidine group (P = 0.0073, log-rank test). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model with adjustment for potentially confounding factors, including history of diabetes, cumulative stent length, and poor runoff, patients receiving cilostazol had significantly reduced risk of restenosis (hazard ratio 5.4; P = 0.042). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study showed that cilostazol significantly reduces in-stent stenosis after SFA stent placement compared with ticlopidine. Dove Medical Press 2011-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3417878/ /pubmed/22915934 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S21629 Text en © 2011 Ikushima et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd. This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Ikushima, Ichiro
Yonenaga, Kazuchika
Iwakiri, Hironao
Nagoshi, Hideki
Kumagai, Haruhito
Yamashita, Yasuyuki
A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine
title A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine
title_full A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine
title_fullStr A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine
title_full_unstemmed A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine
title_short A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine
title_sort better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417878/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22915934
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S21629
work_keys_str_mv AT ikushimaichiro abettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT yonenagakazuchika abettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT iwakirihironao abettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT nagoshihideki abettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT kumagaiharuhito abettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT yamashitayasuyuki abettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT ikushimaichiro bettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT yonenagakazuchika bettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT iwakirihironao bettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT nagoshihideki bettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT kumagaiharuhito bettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine
AT yamashitayasuyuki bettereffectofcilostazolforreducinginstentrestenosisafterfemoropoplitealarterystentplacementincomparisonwithticlopidine