Randomized Comparison of Cilostazol vs Ticlopidine for Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting

  • Takeyasu Noriyuki
    Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital
  • Watanabe Shigeyuki
    Medical Science for Control of Pathological Processes, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba
  • Noguchi Yuichi
    Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital
  • Ishikawa Kimito
    Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital
  • Fumikura Yuko
    Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital
  • Yamaguchi Iwao
    Medical Science for Control of Pathological Processes, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba

この論文をさがす

抄録

Background Cilostazol and ticlopidine are commonly prescribed for prevention of thrombosis after coronary stenting, but few studies have compared them. Methods and Results In the present study 642 patients who underwent stenting were randomized to treatment either with cilostazol + aspirin (C group, 321 patients) or ticlopidine + aspirin (T group, 321 patients). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed immediately after stenting and at the 6-month follow-up. Treatment was continued until follow-up angiography. Baseline patient characteristics did not differ significantly. With the exception of a higher rate of stenting in a venous graft in the C group, there were no differences in angiographic characteristics or stent type. Baseline QCA analysis of the reference diameter, minimal lumen diameter (MLD) showed no significant differences. Follow-up QCA analysis of the MLD showed no significant differences. There were also no differences in restenosis or target lesion revascularization rates, or in the incidence of adverse reactions. However, the rate of subacute thrombosis (SAT) was significantly higher in the C group than in the T group (2% vs 0.3%, p=0.02). Conclusion In the present study there was a similar restenosis rate with cilostazol or ticlopidine, but the rate of SAT was significantly higher with cilostazol. There was no significant difference in adverse reactions. (Circ J 2005; 69: 780 - 785)<br>

収録刊行物

  • Circulation Journal

    Circulation Journal 69 (7), 780-785, 2005

    一般社団法人 日本循環器学会

被引用文献 (9)*注記

もっと見る

参考文献 (40)*注記

もっと見る

詳細情報

問題の指摘

ページトップへ