A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol Prescription in Patients With Femoropopliteal Peripheral Artery Disease After Endovascular Therapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of cilostazol prescription in patients with femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD) after endovascular therapy (EVT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies reporting the outcomes of cilostazol after femoropopliteal EVT of PAD up to September 2022. Clinical outcomes of interest included primary patency, in-stent restenosis (ISR), vessel re-occlusion, freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR), repeat revascularization, all-cause mortality, amputation, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and major adverse limb events (MALEs), and bleeding complication.

RESULTS

A total of 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 observational studies containing a total of 4898 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. We found that the use of cilostazol was associated with higher primary patency after femoropopliteal artery EVT (odds ratio [OR]=1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.50-1.87, p<0.001, I2=33.2%), a lower risk of ISR (OR=0.43, 95% CI=0.29-0.63, p<0.001, I2=37.6%), repeat revascularization (OR=0.43, 95% CI=0.24-0.76, p<0.005, I2=27.4%), and vessel re-occlusion (OR=0.59, 95% CI=0.38-0.93, p<0.05, I2=0%). There was an increase in freedom from TLR rate (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.58-3.05, p<0.001, I2=0%), as well as a reduction in the occurrence of MALEs (OR=0.50, 95% CI=0.29-0.85, p<0.05, I2=0%). However, there was no significant difference in amputation, MACEs, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding complications. Subgroup analysis showed that cilostazol treatment in patients with femoropopliteal drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation remained associated with higher primary patency and a lower risk of ISR.

CONCLUSIONS

After EVT of femoropopliteal artery lesions, additional oral cilostazol enhances primary patency, reduces the occurrences of ISR and vessel re-occlusion, diminishes the risks associated with MALEs, lowers the need for repeat revascularization, and increases freedom from TLR rates. However, it does not impact amputation, MACEs, all-cause mortality, or major bleeding complications. These findings suggest cilostazol as a potentially safe and effective adjunct therapy in patients with femoropopliteal PAD after EVT.

CLINICAL IMPACT

After undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT) for femoropopliteal artery lesions, the addition of cilostazol to antiplatelet therapy can significantly improve primary patency, reducing the incidence of in-stent restenosis, repeat revascularization, vessel re-occlusion, and major adverse limb events while increasing freedom from target lesion revascularization rate. The simultaneous use of drug-eluting stents in the femoropopliteal artery lesions, combined with cilostazol, potentially results in a synergistic anti-stenotic effect. This therapeutic approach does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events or all-cause mortality. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the treatment of anti-stenosis in patients with femoropopliteal artery lesions after EVT.

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.

Adjunctive Cilostazol to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy to Enhance Mobilization of Endothelial Progenitor Cell in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled EPISODE Trial

Background: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) have the potential to protect against atherothrombotic event occurrences. There are no data to evaluate the impact of cilostazol on EPC levels in high-risk patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of adjunctive cilostazol on EPC mobilization and platelet reactivity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Before discharge, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned to receive cilostazol SR capsule (200-mg) a day (n = 30) or placebo (n = 30) on top of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin. Before randomization (baseline) and at 30-day follow-up, circulating EPC levels were analyzed using flow cytometry and hemostatic measurements were evaluated by VerifyNow and thromboelastography assays. The primary endpoint was the relative change in EPC levels between baseline and 30-day. Results: At baseline, there were similar levels of EPC counts between treatments, whereas patients with cilostazol showed higher levels of EPC counts compared with placebo after 30 days. Cilostazol versus placebo treatment displayed significantly higher changes in EPC levels between baseline and follow-up (ΔCD133⁺/KDR⁺: difference 216%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44~388%, p = 0.015; ΔCD34⁺/KDR⁺: difference 183%, 95% CI 25~342%, p = 0.024). At 30-day follow-up, platelet reactivity was lower in the cilostazol group compared with the placebo group (130 ± 45 versus 169 ± 62 P2Y12 Reaction Unit, p = 0.009). However, there were no significant correlations between the changes of EPC levels and platelet reactivity. Conclusion: Adjunctive cilostazol on top of clopidogrel and aspirin versus DAPT alone is associated with increased EPC mobilization and decreased platelet reactivity in AMI patients, suggesting its pleiotropic effects against atherothrombotic events (NCT04407312).

Progress in the Mechanism and Clinical Application of Cilostazol

Cilostazol is a unique platelet inhibitor that has been used clinically for more than 20 years. As a phosphodiesterase type III inhibitor, cilostazol is capable of reversible inhibition of platelet aggregation and vasodilation, has antiproliferative effects, and is widely used in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease, cerebrovascular disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, etc. This article briefly reviews the pharmacological mechanisms and clinical application of cilostazol.

Effects of Cilostazol-Based Triple Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: An Updated Meta-Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The results of studies on cilostazol-based triple antiplatelet therapy (TAT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation were inconsistent. To assess the effects of TAT compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) after DES/second-generation DES implantation, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

All relevant studies evaluated were identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science databases without time and language limitation. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TAT after second-generation DES implantation.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs involving a total of 4684 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed TAT was associated with significant beneficial effects on angiographic findings of in-stent restenosis [risk ratio (RR) 0.645, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.470-0.885; P = 0.007], in-segment restenosis (RR 0.606, 95% CI 0.450-0.817; P = 0.001), in-stent late loss (RR - 0.095, 95% CI - 0.136 to - 0.054; P < 0.0001), in-segment late loss (RR - 0.100, 95% CI - 0.139 to - 0.061; P < 0.0001), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 0.570, 95% CI 0.430-0.755; P < 0.0001), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR 0.523, 95% CI 0.380-0.719; P < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in outcomes of all-cause death, cardiac death, definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), overall bleeding, and major bleeding between the two groups, as well as some minor adverse effects including palpitations, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hepatic dysfunction. However, the incidence rate of rash, gastrointestinal disorders, and headache was significantly higher in TAT. The second-generation DES subgroup showed similar results, except for the indicators of all-cause death (RR 2.161, 95% CI 1.007-4.635; P = 0.048) and hepatic dysfunction (RR 0.176, 95% CI 0.031-0.995; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with DAT, cilostazol-based TAT can significantly improve the angiographic findings of in-stent and in-segment late loss, in-stent and in-segment restenosis, TLR, and TVR after DES/second-generation DES implantation. However, no benefits were observed in outcomes of all-cause death, cardiac death, ST, and MI.