Cardiovascular Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Korea.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jan 18;57(3):280-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.08.631.
We aimed to test whether cilostazol has beneficial effects in the real-world patients treated with intracoronary drug-eluting stents (DES).
The addition of cilostazol on the conventional dual antiplatelet therapy has been reported to reduce platelet reactivity and to improve clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in previous studies.
In a randomized multicenter trial, we enrolled 960 patients who received DES. They were randomized to receive either dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) (aspirin and clopidogrel) or triple antiplatelet therapy (TAT) (aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol) for 6 months. Primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary end points were P2Y₁₂ reaction unit (PRU) measured with the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (Accumetrics, San Diego, California) at discharge and at 6 months after the index procedure. All-cause death, stent thrombosis, and each component of the primary end point at 6 months were other secondary end points. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis.
At 6 months' follow-up, there was no difference in the primary end point between the 2 groups (8.5% in TAT vs. 9.2% in DAT, p = 0.74). In secondary end point analysis, the TAT group achieved lower PRU levels than the DAT group both at discharge (206.6 ± 90.3 PRU vs. 232.2 ± 80.3 PRU, p < 0.001) and at 6 months (210.7 ± 87.9 PRU vs. 255.7 ± 73.7 PRU, p < 0.001). In the Cox proportional hazards analysis, lesion length (≥28 mm, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25 to 3.52), and PRU level at discharge (every increase in tertile, HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.25) were predictors of the primary end point, but not the use of cilostazol (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.52).
Despite the greater reduction of platelet reactivity by addition of cilostazol to conventional DAT, TAT did not show superiority in reducing the composite of adverse cardiovascular outcomes after DES implantation. (The Efficacy of CILostazol ON Ischemic Complications After DES Implantation [CILON-T]; NCT00776828).
我们旨在检验西洛他唑在接受冠状动脉内药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗的真实世界患者中的疗效。
先前的研究表明,在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后,与常规双联抗血小板治疗相比,加用西洛他唑可降低血小板反应性并改善临床结局。
在一项随机多中心试验中,我们纳入了 960 例接受 DES 治疗的患者。他们被随机分为双联抗血小板治疗(DAT)(阿司匹林和氯吡格雷)组或三联抗血小板治疗(TAT)(阿司匹林、氯吡格雷和西洛他唑)组,治疗时间为 6 个月。主要终点是心脏死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、缺血性卒中和靶病变血运重建(TLR)的复合终点。次要终点是用 VerifyNow P2Y12 测定法(Accumetrics,圣地亚哥,加利福尼亚州)在出院时和指数操作后 6 个月时测量的 P2Y₁₂反应单位(PRU)。6 个月时的全因死亡、支架血栓形成和主要终点的每个组成部分都是其他次要终点。分析采用意向治疗。
在 6 个月的随访中,两组的主要终点无差异(TAT 组为 8.5%,DAT 组为 9.2%,p=0.74)。在次要终点分析中,TAT 组在出院时(206.6±90.3 PRU 与 232.2±80.3 PRU,p<0.001)和 6 个月时(210.7±87.9 PRU 与 255.7±73.7 PRU,p<0.001)的 PRU 水平均低于 DAT 组。在 Cox 比例风险分析中,病变长度(≥28mm,风险比[HR]:2.10,95%置信区间[CI]:1.25 至 3.52)和出院时的 PRU 水平(每增加一个三分位,HR:1.61,95%CI:1.16 至 2.25)是主要终点的预测因素,但西洛他唑的使用不是(HR:0.90,95%CI:0.54 至 1.52)。
尽管加用西洛他唑可进一步降低血小板反应性,但三联抗血小板治疗并未显示在降低 DES 植入后不良心血管结局方面具有优势。(西洛他唑对 DES 植入后缺血并发症的疗效[CILON-T];NCT00776828)。