Cilostazol, clopidogrel or ticlopidine to prevent sub-acute stent thrombosis: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

• Published in: The American heart journal 2004-12, Vol.148 (6), p.990-997
• Main Authors: Schleinitz, Mark D., Olkin, Ingram, Heidenreich, Paul A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anticoagulants - therapeutic use; Aspirin; Aspirin - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiology. Vascular system; Clinical trials; Coronary Thrombosis - prevention & control; Drug dosages; Drug therapy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Heart attacks; Humans; Medical sciences; Odds Ratio; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors - therapeutic use; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Statistical methods; Stents; Studies; Tetrazoles - therapeutic use; Thrombosis; Ticlopidine - analogs & derivatives; Ticlopidine - therapeutic use; Warfarin - therapeutic use
• ISSN: 0002-8703; 1097-6744
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.03.066

Sub-acute thrombosis is a serious complication of coronary artery stenting. Clopidogrel plus aspirin is the accepted prophylactic regimen, but has yet to be proven superior to ticlopidine plus aspirin, and a new regimen combining cilostazol and aspirin has been introduced. We conducted a meta-analysis of all trials that compared ≥2 oral anti-thrombotic strategies in patients undergoing coronary stent placement to determine which treatment optimally prevents adverse cardiac events in the 30 days following stent insertion. We used meta-regression to compare all strategies to a shared control strategy: ticlopidine plus aspirin. We also compared randomized trials to historically controlled and other non-randomized trials. We conducted sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis to assess for possible heterogeneity. In comparison to ticlopidine plus aspirin the odds-ratios for cardiac events, with 95% confidence intervals were: aspirin alone, 4.29 (3.09–5.97), coumadin plus aspirin, 2.65 (2.18–3.21), clopidogrel plus aspirin, 1.06 (0.86–1.31), cilostazol plus aspirin, 0.73 (0.47–1.14). Among trials that compared clopidogrel plus aspirin to ticlopidine plus aspirin, historically controlled trials were statistically distinct from randomized trials. The analysis of cilostazol was sensitive to the small size of the included studies. Neither clopidogrel plus aspirin nor cilostazol plus aspirin can be statistically distinguished from ticlopidine plus aspirin for the prevention of adverse cardiac events in the 30 days after stenting. A randomized trial including cilostazol is warranted.