Efficacy and safety of using cilostazol versus aspirin in secondary stroke prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Ping Zhuang, Yi-Min Huang, Zhenyong Zheng, Xiaodie Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of using cilostazol versus aspirin in secondary stroke prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials.","authors":"Ping Zhuang, Yi-Min Huang, Zhenyong Zheng, Xiaodie Zhang","doi":"10.1111/imj.16657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Secondary stroke prevention is crucial for reducing recurrent events and associated morbidity. Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, is considered an alternative to aspirin for patients with ischaemic stroke due to its potentially lower risk of haemorrhagic complications. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of cilostazol versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention. It provides a basis for drug selection and observation of secondary stroke prevention strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials comparing cilostazol with aspirin in secondary stroke prevention. Key outcomes included recurrence of ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), death, effective rate and incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using I<sup>2</sup> statistics and Cochran's Q test. Publication bias was evaluated using Doi plots and Luis Furuya-Kanamori index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies involving 8993 participants were included. Cilostazol significantly reduced the recurrence of ischaemic stroke (risk ratio (RR): 0.766, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.624-0.941) and ICH (RR: 0.392, 95% CI: 0.250-0.616) compared to aspirin. No significant differences were observed in overall mortality or adverse events. Cilostazol increased risks of headache, dizziness, diarrhoea and tachycardia but reduced constipation. Heterogeneity was generally low to moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cilostazol is an effective alternative to aspirin for secondary stroke prevention, reducing the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke and ICH. However, its use is associated with certain adverse effects. Clinicians should consider individual patient profiles and preferences when selecting anti-platelet therapy for stroke prevention. Further research is warranted to optimise cilostazol use in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":13625,"journal":{"name":"Internal Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16657","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Secondary stroke prevention is crucial for reducing recurrent events and associated morbidity. Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, is considered an alternative to aspirin for patients with ischaemic stroke due to its potentially lower risk of haemorrhagic complications. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of cilostazol versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention. It provides a basis for drug selection and observation of secondary stroke prevention strategies.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials comparing cilostazol with aspirin in secondary stroke prevention. Key outcomes included recurrence of ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), death, effective rate and incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics and Cochran's Q test. Publication bias was evaluated using Doi plots and Luis Furuya-Kanamori index.

Results: Thirteen studies involving 8993 participants were included. Cilostazol significantly reduced the recurrence of ischaemic stroke (risk ratio (RR): 0.766, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.624-0.941) and ICH (RR: 0.392, 95% CI: 0.250-0.616) compared to aspirin. No significant differences were observed in overall mortality or adverse events. Cilostazol increased risks of headache, dizziness, diarrhoea and tachycardia but reduced constipation. Heterogeneity was generally low to moderate.

Conclusion: Cilostazol is an effective alternative to aspirin for secondary stroke prevention, reducing the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke and ICH. However, its use is associated with certain adverse effects. Clinicians should consider individual patient profiles and preferences when selecting anti-platelet therapy for stroke prevention. Further research is warranted to optimise cilostazol use in clinical practice.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Internal Medicine Journal
Internal Medicine Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
600
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Internal Medicine Journal is the official journal of the Adult Medicine Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Its purpose is to publish high-quality internationally competitive peer-reviewed original medical research, both laboratory and clinical, relating to the study and research of human disease. Papers will be considered from all areas of medical practice and science. The Journal also has a major role in continuing medical education and publishes review articles relevant to physician education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信