文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：The Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol vs. Aspirin for Secondary Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

作者：Chai, Erqing[1,2];Chen, Jinhua[3];Li, Changqing[1];Zhang, Xue[4];Fan, Zhiqiang[5];Yang, Shijie[5];Zhao, Kaixuan;Li, Wei[5];Xiao, Zaixing[5];Zhang, Yichuan[6];Tang, Futian[7]

第一作者：Chai, Erqing

通信作者：Chai, ER[1];Chai, ER[2];Tang, FT[3]

机构：[1]Gansu Prov Hosp, Cerebrovasc Dis Ctr, Lanzhou, Peoples R China;[2]Emergency Gen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China;[3]Lanzhou Univ, Sch Clin Med 1, Lanzhou, Peoples R China;[4]Gansu Prov Hosp, Intens Care Unit 1, Lanzhou, Peoples R China;[5]Gansu Univ Chinese Med, Clin Med Coll 1, Lanzhou, Peoples R China;[6]Ningxia Med Univ, Sch Clin Med, Yinchuan, Ningxia, Peoples R China;[7]Lanzhou Univ, Key Lab Gansu Digest Syst Tumor, Hosp 2, Lanzhou, Peoples R China

第一机构：Gansu Prov Hosp, Cerebrovasc Dis Ctr, Lanzhou, Peoples R China

通信机构：[1]corresponding author), Gansu Prov Hosp, Cerebrovasc Dis Ctr, Lanzhou, Peoples R China;[2]corresponding author), Emergency Gen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China;[3]corresponding author), Lanzhou Univ, Key Lab Gansu Digest Syst Tumor, Hosp 2, Lanzhou, Peoples R China.

年份：2022

卷号：13

外文期刊名：FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY

收录：;Scopus(收录号：2-s2.0-85125643868);WOS:【SCI-EXPANDED(收录号:WOS:000772461700001)】；

基金：Funding This study was supported by the Key Laboratory of Cerebrovascular Disease of Gansu Province (No. 20JR10RA431), Innovation and Entrepreneurship Talent Project of Lanzhou (No. 2017-RC-57), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81870329 and 81960673), Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (21JR1RA135), Cuiying Technological Innovation Foundation of Lanzhou University Second Hospital (CY2019-MS03), and Industrial Support Program for Colleges and Universities in Gansu Province (2020C-04).

语种：英文

外文关键词：stroke prevention; efficacy and safety; cilostazol; aspirin; systematic review and meta-analysis

摘要：Background: Cilostazol is often used in Asia-Pacific countries for stroke prevention. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and adverse outcomes of cilostazol monotherapy compared to aspirin monotherapy for secondary stroke prevention. Methods: The researchers conducted a comprehensive research in multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library) of randomized controlled trials from conception to December 2020. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of any stroke, the primary safety outcome was the bleeding risk, and the primary adverse outcome was the rate of headache and dizziness. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate a random-effects prediction. Cilostazol and aspirin were compared using a pooled risk assessment with 95% CIs. Results: Six studies involving 5,617 patients were included in this review. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, cilostazol was associated with significantly lower rates of any strokes (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55-0.82) and significantly lower bleeding rates [risk ratio (RR): 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.74]. However, compared with aspirin monotherapy, cilostazol was associated with significantly higher rates of headache (RR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.41-2.20) and dizziness (RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.08-1.52). Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, cilostazol monotherapy is superior to aspirin monotherapy in reducing the rate of any strokes and the bleeding risk after having a stroke. However, the use of cilostazol monotherapy is associated with several adverse life outcomes such as headaches and dizziness.