These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: RACTS: a prospective randomized antiplatelet trial of cilostazol versus ticlopidine in patients undergoing coronary stenting: long-term clinical and angiographic outcome.
    Author: Ge J, Han Y, Jiang H, Sun B, Chen J, Zhang S, Du Z, RACTS (Randomized Prospective Antiplatelet Trial of Cilostazol Versus Ticlopidine in Patients Undergoing Coronary Stenting) Trial Investigators.
    Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol; 2005 Aug; 46(2):162-6. PubMed ID: 16044027.
    Abstract:
    We compared the efficacy of cilostazol for the prevention of late restenosis and acute or subacute stent thrombosis with that of ticlopidine. Cilostazol has been used for antiplatelet therapy after coronary stent implantation, but the results are controversial. Patients scheduled for stent implantation were randomly assigned to receive either cilostazol (100 mg twice daily for 6 months, n=201) or ticlopidine (250 mg twice daily for 1 month, n=196). All patients also received oral aspirin (100 mg once daily for 6 months). Coronary angiography was performed at baseline and immediately and 6 months after coronary stenting. Clinical follow-up was continued up to 9 months postprocedure. There was no significant difference in the composite incidence of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis between the 2 groups [cilostazol (1.5%) versus ticlopidine (3.6%), P=0.216], but the target lesion revascularization rate per patient was significantly lower in the cilostazol group than in the ticlopidine group (22.9% vs 32.7%, P=0.030) 9 months post-coronary stenting. Medication withdrawn because of drug-related side effects tended to be higher in the ticlopidine group than that in the cilostazol group (3.5% vs 8.2%, P=0.054). At follow-up angiography, the minimal luminal diameters (2.31+/-1.06 vs 2.10+/-1.16, P=0.057) tended to be larger and the restenosis rates lower (23.3% vs 30.9%, P=0.086) in the cilostazol group than in the ticlopidine group. Aspirin plus cilostazol is a comparable antithrombotic regimen to aspirin plus ticlopidine after elective coronary stenting, but the rate of target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the cilostazol group than in the ticlopidine group.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]