Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol Therapy in Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis

BackgroundAntiplatelet therapy is recommended for patients who have experienced ischemic stroke. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of cilostazol with other antiplatelet therapies in patients with ischemic stroke.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from May 1999 to May 2013. Clinical outcomes were compared by pooled and meta-regression analyses.ResultsNine studies involving 6328 patients satisfied our inclusion criteria. Stroke recurrence (including hemorrhagic and ischemic) with cilostazol use was 5.3% (157) versus 8.3% (248) in control group (risk ratio .63 [.52-.76], 95% confidence interval [CI]). Poststroke intracranial hemorrhage was .5% (16) with cilostazol versus 1.6% (46) in control group (risk ratio .36 [.21-.63], 95% CI). Poststroke extracranial bleeding complications occurred in 2.4% (66) of the patients taking cilostazol versus 3.9% (108) in control group (risk ratio .62 [.46-.83], 95% CI). No significant difference in cerebrovascular events (nonfatal stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack) was found between the cilostazol group (8.2%, 246) versus control group (12.0%, 360; risk ratio .71 [.50-1.01], 95% CI). In addition, the cilostazol therapy brought about a nonsignificant reduction of cardiac adverse events (heart failure, myocardial infarction, and angina pectoris) comparing with control groups, with 3.8% (99) of the cilostazol group versus 4.7% (123) of control group (risk ratio, .81 [.62-1.04], 95% CI).ConclusionsCilostazol, alone or in combination with aspirin, significantly reduces stroke recurrence, poststroke intracranial hemorrhage, and extracranial bleeding in patients with a prior ischemic stroke as compared with other antiplatelet therapies.