SynthesisClinical cardiology2012
The effectiveness and safety of triple-antiplatelet treatment based on cilostazol for patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Cilostazol-Based Triple Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: An Updated Meta-Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical drug investigation · 2019Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of cilostazol based triple antiplatelet treatment versus dual antiplatelet treatment in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation: an updated meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2015Pooled it
- Effect of triple versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE system.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- A Critical Review of the Molecular and Clinical Effects of Cilostazol After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Outcome Impact of Cilostazol in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease or at a High Risk of Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of cilostazol, aspirin, and clopidogrel (triple therapy) after percutaneous coronary intervention has been considered as an alternative therapy. We performed a meta-analysis based on 8 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3332 patients to compare the effectiveness and safety of this triple therapy with traditional dual therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel). Our findings suggested that the triple therapy is more effective than dual therapy in preventing restenosis (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.66, P < 0.00001), maintaining minimal lumen diameter (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.10-0.20, P < 0.00001), and avoiding target-vessel revascularization (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.47-0.82, P = 0.001). There is also no significant difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the 2 therapies, except the smaller occurrence rate of target-lesion revascularization in the triple-therapy group (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26-0.69, P = 0.0005). However, the triple therapy is associated with a higher level of adverse drug events, including rash (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.41-4.23, P = 0.001), gastrointestinal disorders (OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.26-5.30, P = 0.009), and drug discontinuation (OR: 3.80, 95% CI: 1.59-9.10, P = 0.003), but it has no difference in bleeding compared with the dual therapy (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.55, P = 0.80).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.