Efficacy and Safety in Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke with Cilostazol or Aspirin: A Systematic Review
- VernacularTitle:西洛他唑与阿司匹林对缺血性脑卒中二级预防的系统评价
- Author:
Haixia FENG
;
Man YANG
;
Huaili JIANG
;
Wenzhe HUA
;
Junfang HE
;
Huixia YAO
;
Yabin LI
;
Tao XU
;
Lianxiu HE
;
Xiue SHI
;
Jinqiu YUAN
;
Yali LIU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
cilostazol, aspirin, ischemic stroke, randomized controlled trials, cross-controlled trials, systematic review
- From:
Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice
2010;16(10):961-965
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo review the efficacy and safety in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke with cilostazol or aspirin.Methodswe searched Cochrane Library(the 4th issue, 2009 ), PubMed(1980.1～2009.11), EMBASE(1980.1～2009.11), CBM(1978.1～2009.11), CNKI(1979.1～2009.11) and some other databases, then collected all of the studies describing the outcomes in curing the ischemic stroke after taking cilostazol or aspirin. According to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted datas, made cross-checking and methodological quality assessment of the homogeneity studies by using the Cochrane systematic review methods, then made Meta analysis using RevMan 5.0 software.ResultsThis systematic review study included two randomized controlled trials and a cross-over trial, which contained a total of 838 participants. The evidence quality of one of the randomized controlled trials was high, however, the evidence quality of another randomized controlled trial and the cross-over trial was poor. Meta analysis results suggested that the effectiveness of cilostazol and aspirin in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke performed no significantly statistical difference: primary endpoint(30 d［RR=3.00, 95%CI(0.31,28.70)］; 90 d［RR=1.67, 95%CI(0.40,6.92)］; 180 d［RR=1.25, 95%CI(0.50, 3.13)］; 360 d［RR=0.65, 95%CI(0.33, 1.29)］; 540 d［RR=0.80,95%CI(0.54, 1.18)］); combined endpoint(30 d［RR=4.00, 95%CI(0.45,35.61)］; 90 d ［RR=1.75,95%CI(0.52,5.93)］; 180 d［RR=1.00, 95%CI(0.48, 2.07)］; 360 d ［RR=0.77, 95%CI(0.45, 1.29)］; 540 d［RR=0.66,95%CI(0.40,1.09)］); the recurrence of ischemic stroke: cilostazol group: RR=0.64, 95%CI(0.31,1.30)，aspirin group: RR=0.21, 95%CI(0.04,1.06); PDMP［RR=1.00, 95%CI(0.39, 2.58)］. But in terms of the probability of intracranial hemorrhage (［RR=7.14, 95%CI(0.7,58.33)］) and other safety standards, taking cilostazol performed lower than taking aspirin.ConclusionThe side effects of cilostazol and aspirin in the treatment for ischemic stroke were similar to each other, but in terms of the probability of dizziness, headache, tachycardia and palpitation, taking cilostazol performed higher than taking aspirin, however, taking cilostazol performed lower in the probability of intracranial hemorrhage and other organ hemorrhage than taking aspirin. Since this study included a small amount of studies, in which the evidence quality of one of the randomized controlled trials and the cross-over study was poor, therefore, it would be necessary to make a further validation with lots of high-quality clinical trials.
