Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2020-000737
Title: Cilostazol for Secondary Stroke Prevention: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Authors: Tan, Choon Han
Wu, Andrew GR
Chan, Bernard PL
Sharma, Vijay K 
Tan, Benjamin YQ
Yeo, Leonard LL 
Keywords: Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Clinical Neurology
Peripheral Vascular Disease
Neurosciences & Neurology
Cardiovascular System & Cardiology
Issue Date: 2020
Publisher: KARGER
Citation: Tan, Choon Han, Wu, Andrew GR, Chan, Bernard PL, Sharma, Vijay K, Tan, Benjamin YQ, Yeo, Leonard LL (2020). Cilostazol for Secondary Stroke Prevention: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Cerebrovascular Diseases 49 (SUPPL 1) : 15-16. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2020-000737
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Cilostazol, an antiplatelet and phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor, has not been clearly established for ischaemic stroke use. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 25 September 2020, for randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of cilostazol monotherapy or dual therapy with another antiplatelet regimen or placebo, in patients with ischaemic stroke. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. This meta-analysis was reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Eighteen randomised trials comprising 11 429 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Most trials possessed low risk of bias and were of low heterogeneity. Cilostazol significantly reduced the rate of ischaemic stroke recurrence (risk ratio, RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81), any stroke recurrence (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74) and major adverse cardiovascular events (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81). Cilostazol did not significantly decrease mortality (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25) or increase the rate of good functional outcome (Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1; RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). Cilostazol demonstrated favourable safety profile, significantly reducing the risk of intracranial haemorrhage (RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.68) and major haemorrhagic events (RR=0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol demonstrated superior efficacy and safety profiles compared with traditional antiplatelet regimens such as aspirin and clopidogrel for secondary stroke prevention but does not appear to affect functional outcomes. Future randomised trials can be conducted outside East Asia, or compare cilostazol with a wider range of antiplatelet agents.
Source Title: Cerebrovascular Diseases
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/186401
ISSN: 10159770
14219786
DOI: 10.1136/svn-2020-000737
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
Cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention_ systematic review and meta-analysis.pdfPublished version3.88 MBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.