Efficacy of cilostazol-based dual antiplatelet treatment in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting

Cilostazol-based dual antiplatelet treatment in ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack patients with asymptomatic carotid artery disease: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

The optimal treatment for asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid artery disease remains controversial. Data on the efficacy of antiplatelet agents and stroke outcomes are limited. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of cilostazol-based dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and asymptomatic carotid artery disease.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary-care setting and included baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of participants. The study included patients who had experienced first-ever ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis, with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis refers to stenosis in patients without neurological symptoms referable to the carotid arteries. Propensity scores were estimated using a logistic regression model based on participants' baseline characteristics. The efficacy outcome was the composite outcome of recurrent ischemic events and vascular-related death in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. The safety outcome was the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications such as intracranial hemorrhages or extracranial hemorrhages. The effectiveness of dual therapy compared to monotherapy was evaluated at various time points following the initiation of antiplatelet treatment.

Results

This study included 516 patients with a 1-year follow-up period. At 1 year, composite events occurred in 10 (6.3%) patients in the dual antiplatelet group compared with 12 (7.6%) in the single antiplatelet group (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90; p = 0.024). Extracranial hemorrhage occurred in 12 (7.6%) patients in the dual antiplatelet group compared with nine (5.7%) in the single antiplatelet group (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13-1.48; p = 0.017). No intracranial hemorrhages were observed in this cohort.

Conclusion

Patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis who received cilostazol-based dual antiplatelet therapy had a lower risk of composite events but a higher risk of minor extracranial hemorrhage than those who received a single antiplatelet agent.

Comparison of Cilostazol versus Clopidogrel in Addition to Aspirin in Patients with Ischemic Stroke who Underwent Intracranial or Extracranial Artery Stent Implantation

AIMS

The role of cilostazol after intracranial or extracranial artery stent implantation is still unclear. Therefore, we designed this trial to explore the efficacy and safety of cilostazol in this particular population.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients were divided into the cilostazol or clopidogrel group by the antiplatelet therapy received after artery stent implantation. The primary efficacy endpoint was ischemic stroke. Bleeding events and other antiplatelet drug-related adverse reactions (ADRs) were also recorded. Neurological function prognosis was evaluated by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were enrolled; 56 underwent intracranial artery stenting, 95 underwent extracranial artery stenting, and 5 underwent intracranial combined with extracranial artery stenting. Any stroke and bleeding events in the hospital of the two groups were comparable (P=0.38, P=0.34, respectively). The incidence of stroke recurrence tended to be lower in the cilostazol group, although not significant (cilostazol vs. clopidogrel, 1.35% vs. 4.88%, P=0.25). There was a significant difference of any bleeding events between the two groups (cilostazol vs. clopidogrel, 5.41% vs. 20.73%, P=0.02). During follow-up, we did not observe an apparent increase of ADRs in the cilostazol group (cilostazol vs. clopidogrel, palpitation 4.05% vs. 2.44%, P=0.58; gastrointestinal discomfort events 8.11% vs. 12.20%, P=0.80). There were no differences between the two groups of neurological function prognosis (P=0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol-based dual antiplatelet therapy could be recommended as an effective and safe therapy regimen among patients undergoing intracranial or extracranial artery stent implantation.

Update on Cilostazol: A Critical Review of Its Antithrombotic and Cardiovascular Actions and Its Clinical Applications

Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, has vasodilating and antiplatelet properties with a low rate of bleeding complications. It has been used over the past 25 years for improving intermittent claudication in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Cilostazol also has demonstrated efficacy in patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization procedures for both PAD and coronary artery disease. In addition to its antithrombotic and vasodilating actions, cilostazol also inhibits vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation via phosphodiesterase III inhibition, thus mitigating restenosis. Accumulated evidence has shown that cilostazol, due to its "pleiotropic" effects, is a useful, albeit underutilized, agent for both coronary artery disease and PAD. It is also potentially useful after ischemic stroke and is an alternative in those who are allergic or intolerant to classical antithrombotic agents (eg, aspirin or clopidogrel). These issues are herein reviewed together with the pharmacology and pharmacodynamics of cilostazol. Large studies and meta-analyses are presented and evaluated. Current guidelines are also discussed, and the spectrum of cilostazol's actions and therapeutic applications are illustrated.

Clinical importance of testing for clopidogrel resistance in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting-a systematic review

Dual antiplatelet therapy is frequently prescribed for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS), however clopidogrel resistance might cause thromboembolic complications. The role of testing for clopidogrel resistance in patients undergoing CAS is unclear. In this study, we aimed to review the periprocedural thromboembolic outcomes in clopidogrel resistant patients who underwent CAS. We conducted a review of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to October 7, 2020. Studies were included that investigated at least ten patients aged 18 years or older with a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis requiring CAS. Studies were excluded that investigated patients with a carotid artery dissection, case reports, case series of less than ten patients, reviews, commentaries, letters to the editors, and conference abstracts. The primary endpoint was the incidence of thromboembolic events. One hundred seventy-seven unique articles were identified of which three studies were included in our systematic review. The sample sizes ranged from 76 to 449 patients and the follow-up duration from 24 hours to 2 years postprocedural. Two retrospective observational studies determined clopidogrel resistance using measurement of P2Y12 reaction units, and one historical cohort study used genetic testing. Two studies concluded that clopidogrel resistance was a risk factor for thromboembolic complications, the other found higher values of P2Y12 reaction units in patients with thromboembolic events compared to those without. In conclusion, current literature supports a possible relationship between clopidogrel resistance and thromboembolic complications in patients who underwent CAS. Preprocedural testing for clopidogrel resistance might therefore be of additional value. Randomized studies using a valid, reliable clopidogrel resistance test and clinical endpoints, are however required to make a definitive statement and to determine the impact of the thromboembolic complications. This study was registered within PROSPERO (CRD42020197318).

Antithrombotic therapies in aortic and peripheral arterial diseases in 2021: a consensus document from the ESC working group on aorta and peripheral vascular diseases, the ESC working group on thrombosis, and the ESC working group on cardiovascular pharmacotherapy

The aim of this collaborative document is to provide an update for clinicians on best antithrombotic strategies in patients with aortic and/or peripheral arterial diseases. Antithrombotic therapy is a pillar of optimal medical treatment for these patients at very high cardiovascular risk. While the number of trials on antithrombotic therapies in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases is substantially smaller than for those with coronary artery disease, recent evidence deserves to be incorporated into clinical practice. In the absence of specific indications for chronic oral anticoagulation due to concomitant cardiovascular disease, a single antiplatelet agent is the basis for long-term antithrombotic treatment in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases. Its association with another antiplatelet agent or low-dose anticoagulants will be discussed, based on patient's ischaemic and bleeding risk as well therapeutic paths (e.g. endovascular therapy). This consensus document aims to provide a guidance for antithrombotic therapy according to arterial disease localizations and clinical presentation. However, it cannot substitute multidisciplinary team discussions, which are particularly important in patients with uncertain ischaemic/bleeding balance. Importantly, since this balance evolves over time in an individual patient, a regular reassessment of the antithrombotic therapy is of paramount importance.

Microbleeds and clinical outcome in acute mild stroke patients treated with antiplatelet therapy: ADS post-hoc analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In this post-hoc analysis using acute dual study dataset, the impacts of cerebral microbleeds (MBs) after mild stroke on clinical outcome were investigated.

METHODS

The number of MBs on admission was categorized as 1) no MBs, 2) MBs 1-4, 3) MBs 5-9, and 4) MBs ≥ 10. The efficacy outcome was defined as neurological deterioration and stroke recurrence within 14 days. Safety outcomes included ICH and/or SAH as well as extracranial hemorrhages.

RESULTS

Of the 1102 patients, 780 (71%) had no MBs on admission, while 230 (21%) had MBs 1-4, 48 (4%) had MBs 5-9, and 44 (4%) had MBs ≥ 10. The number of MBs was not associated with the neurological deterioration and/or stroke recurrence (p = 0.934), ICH and/or SAH (p = 0.743), and extracranial hemorrhage (p = 0.205). Favorable outcome was seem in 84% in the No MBs group, 83% in the MBs 1-4, 94% in the MBs 5-9, and 85% in the MBs ≥ 10 (p = 0.304). Combined cilostazol and aspirin therapy did not alter any rates of efficacy and safety outcomes among the no MBs, MBs 1-4, MBs 5-9, and MBs ≥ 10 groups compared to aspirin alone (all p > 0.05). By multivariate regression analysis, a history of ICH and diastolic blood pressure were the independent parameters to all of the MBs criteria (presence, MBs ≥ 5, and MBs ≥ 10).

CONCLUSIONS

MBs did not alter the clinical outcome at 3 months of onset. Elevated diastolic blood pressure and a history of ICH were the essential parameters related to the MBs.

Efficacy and Safety of Adjunctive Cilostazol to Clopidogrel-Treated Diabetic Patients With Symptomatic Lower Extremity Artery Disease in the Prevention of Ischemic Vascular Events

Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for lower extremity arterial disease. Cilostazol expresses antiplatelet, anti-inflammatory, and vasodilator actions and improves the claudication intermittent symptoms. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cilostazol to clopidogrel-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus exhibiting symptomatic lower extremity arterial disease, in the prevention of ischemic vascular events and improvement of the claudication intermittent symptoms. Methods and Results In a prospective 2-arm, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 trial, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with intermittent claudication receiving clopidogrel (75 mg/d) for at least 6 months, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, either to continue to clopidogrel monotherapy, without receiving placebo cilostazol (391 patients), or to additionally receive cilostazol, 100 mg twice/day (403 patients). The median duration of follow-up was 27 months. The primary efficacy end point, the composite of acute ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack, acute myocardial infarction, and death from vascular causes, was significantly reduced in patients receiving adjunctive cilostazol compared with the clopidogrel monotherapy group (sex-adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.468; 95% CI, 0.252-0.870; P=0.016). Adjunctive cilostazol also significantly reduced the stroke/transient ischemic attack events (sex-adjusted HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15-0.98; P=0.046) and improved the ankle-brachial index and pain-free walking distance values (P=0.001 for both comparisons). No significant difference in the bleeding events, as defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria, was found between the 2 groups (sex-adjusted HR, 1.080; 95% CI, 0.579-2.015; P=0.809). Conclusions Adjunctive cilostazol to clopidogrel-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with symptomatic lower extremity arterial disease may lower the risk of ischemic events and improve intermittent claudication symptoms, without increasing the bleeding risk, compared with clopidogrel monotherapy. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02983214.

Acute Aspirin Plus Cilostazol Dual Therapy for Noncardioembolic Stroke Patients Within 48 Hours of Symptom Onset

Background

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet (aspirin plus cilostazol) dual therapy for patients with noncardioembolic stroke within 48 hours of symptom onset.

Methods and Results

The ADS (Acute Aspirin Plus Cilostazol Dual Therapy for Non‐Cardiogenic Stroke Patients Within 48 Hours of Symptom Onset ) study is an investigator‐initiated, prospective, multicenter (34 hospitals in Japan), randomized, open‐label, and aspirin‐controlled trial. Acute stroke patients with noncardioembolic stroke within 48 hours of onset were studied. The subjects were randomly allocated to combination therapy with aspirin 81 to 200 mg plus cilostazol 200 mg (dual group) and single therapy with aspirin 81 to 200 mg (aspirin group) for 14 days. After the 14 days, all patients took the cilostazol 200 mg for 3 months. A primary efficacy outcome was defined as any one of the following occurring (neurological deterioration, symptomatic stroke recurrence, or transient ischemic attack) within 14 days. A primary safety outcome included intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Between May 2011 and June 2017, 1201 patients (796 [66%] men; median age, 69 [61–77] years) randomized 1:1 to either the dual group or the aspirin group were analyzed. Initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2 (1–4) in both groups (P=0.830). A primary efficacy outcome was observed in 11% in the dual group and 11% in the aspirin group (P=0.853). A primary safety outcome occurred in 2 (0.3%) in the dual group and in 1 (0.2%) in the aspirin group (P=0.624).

Conclusions

Dual antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol and aspirin was safe but did not reduce the rate of short‐term neurological worsening.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: umin.ac.jp/ctr/index/htm. Unique identifier: UMIN000004950.

The safety of triple antiplatelet therapy under thromboelastography guidance in patients undergoing stenting for ischemic cerebrovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety of triple antiplatelet therapy (TAT) with cilostazol in patients undergoing stenting for extracranial and/or intracranial artery stenosis.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent stenting for extracranial and/or intracranial artery stenosis and showed resistance to aspirin and/or clopidogrel as assessed by pre-stenting thromboelastography (TEG) testing. Patients were assigned to a TAT group and a dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) group. Major complications were defined as thromboembolic events (transient ischemic attack (TIA), ischemic stroke, and stent thrombosis) or major bleeding events within 30 days, and minor complications were defined as extracranial bleeding that did not require vascular surgery or transfusion within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 183 patients were identified. The incidence of major complications was significantly lower in the TAT group than in the DAT group (TAT group vs. DAT group, 1/110 vs. 6/73; P=0.017). TIAs occurred in four patients, with one in the TAT group and three in the DAT group (1/110 vs. 3/73; P=0.303). Ischemic strokes occurred in three patients in the DAT group (TAT group vs. DAT group, P=0.062). No major bleeding events or stent thrombosis was recorded in either group. Two patients (one in each group) experienced minor complications that resolved without additional treatment (1/110 vs. 1/73; P>0.999).

CONCLUSIONS

TAT under TEG guidance appears to be a safe antiplatelet strategy in patients undergoing stenting for extracranial and/or intracranial artery stenosis. By employing TAT under TEG guidance, favorable outcomes can be achieved in these patients.