ArticlePloS one2025
Impact of cilostazol on clinical outcomes in lower extremity arterial disease patients after angioplasty: A real-world analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCilostazol has been shown to improve walking distance in patients with lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD) and may reduce restenosis after revascularization. However, its long-term prognostic impact in real-world settings remains underexplored.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (2012-2022). We included stable LEAD patients who had undergone percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and remained event-free for 1 year. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for baseline confounders. The study aimed to evaluate the effect of cilostazol on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), major adverse limb events (MALE), and composite bleeding outcomes.
resultsAmong 5,300 stable LEAD patients, of whom 844 received cilostazol alone, 1,786 received aspirin or clopidogrel, and 2,670 received cilostazol combined with aspirin or clopidogrel. After IPTW, there were no significant differences between cilostazol monotherapy and any antiplatelet therapy groups regarding MACE, MALE, or composite bleeding outcomes (aHR [95% CI] = 0.84 [0.68-1.03], p = 0.09; 0.84 [0.70-1.01], p = 0.06; 0.88 [0.71-1.10], p = 0.26, respectively). In secondary outcomes, cilostazol treatment was associated with a reduced rate of subsequent angioplasty (aHR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.60-0.98], p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes when comparing cilostazol monotherapy to cilostazol combined with antiplatelet therapy.
conclusionIn this real-world Asian cohort, cilostazol showed similar prognostic benefits and safety compared to standard antiplatelet therapy. These findings support its role in the long-term management of LEAD patients following PTA, particularly in Asian populations.
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.