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

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":"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}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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。
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
Initial Validation of the NOL Nociception Level Index® Monitoring System in Black and Multiracial People. Potential of Aluminum Drug Packages with Press-Through Packaging Considering Usability for a Wide Range of Users. The Application Effect of Fine Management Combined with Man-Machine Fixation Mode in Reducing the Attrition Rate of Laparoscopic Instruments-A Non-Randomized, Concurrent Controlled Study. Patients with Growth-Related Disorders and Caregivers Prefer the Somapacitan Device to the Somatrogon Device: Results from a Randomized Crossover Study Assessing Device Preference and Ease of Use Following Simulated Injections. May Glymphatic Drainage Improve Life Quality in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis Outpatients?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1