西洛他唑减少股腘动脉支架置入后支架内再狭窄的效果优于噻氯匹定。

IF 1.3 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research Pub Date : 2011-01-01 Epub Date: 2011-06-24 DOI:10.2147/MDER.S21629
Ichiro Ikushima, Kazuchika Yonenaga, Hironao Iwakiri, Hideki Nagoshi, Haruhito Kumagai, Yasuyuki Yamashita
{"title":"西洛他唑减少股腘动脉支架置入后支架内再狭窄的效果优于噻氯匹定。","authors":"Ichiro Ikushima,&nbsp;Kazuchika Yonenaga,&nbsp;Hironao Iwakiri,&nbsp;Hideki Nagoshi,&nbsp;Haruhito Kumagai,&nbsp;Yasuyuki Yamashita","doi":"10.2147/MDER.S21629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This retrospective study showed that cilostazol significantly reduces in-stent stenosis after SFA stent placement compared with ticlopidine.</p>","PeriodicalId":47140,"journal":{"name":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","volume":" ","pages":"83-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/MDER.S21629","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A better effect of cilostazol for reducing in-stent restenosis after femoropopliteal artery stent placement in comparison with ticlopidine.\",\"authors\":\"Ichiro Ikushima,&nbsp;Kazuchika Yonenaga,&nbsp;Hironao Iwakiri,&nbsp;Hideki Nagoshi,&nbsp;Haruhito Kumagai,&nbsp;Yasuyuki Yamashita\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/MDER.S21629\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This retrospective study showed that cilostazol significantly reduces in-stent stenosis after SFA stent placement compared with ticlopidine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47140,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"83-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/MDER.S21629\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S21629\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2011/6/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Devices-Evidence and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S21629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/6/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估西洛他唑对股浅动脉(SFA)支架置入术后支架内再狭窄的预防作用。材料与方法:28例成功行支架置入术的外周动脉病变患者中,15例使用西洛他唑,13例使用噻氯匹定。采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线回顾性分析原发性通畅率,采用log-rank检验比较两用药组间的差异。应用多变量Cox比例风险模型评估西洛他唑与噻氯匹定对原发性通畅的影响。结果:西洛他唑组原发性通畅率明显高于噻氯匹定组。支架放置后12个月和24个月,西洛他唑组的累积原发性通畅率分别为100%和75%,而噻氯匹定组为39%和30% (P = 0.0073, log-rank检验)。在一个多因素Cox比例风险模型中,校正了潜在的混杂因素,包括糖尿病史、累积支架长度和不良径流,接受西洛他唑的患者再狭窄的风险显著降低(风险比5.4;P = 0.042)。结论:本回顾性研究显示,与噻氯匹定相比,西洛他唑可显著减少SFA支架置入后支架内狭窄。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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

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, 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research
Medical Devices-Evidence and Research ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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