Abstract WMP112: Cilostazol versus Aspirin for Secondary Stroke Prevention: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Cilostazol has promise as an alternative to aspirin for secondary stroke prevention given its vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory properties in addition to platelet aggregation inhibition. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the comparative effectiveness and safety of cilostazol compared to aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with previous stroke or TIA. Hypothesis: Cilostazol is more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke with lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding. Methods: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 2019. Randomized clinical trials that compared cilostazol vs aspirin and reported the endpoints of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding were included. A random-effects estimate was computed based on Mantel-Haenszel methods. The pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were compared between cilostazol and aspirin and displayed as forest plots (Figure). Results: The search identified 5 randomized clinical trials comparing cilostazol vs aspirin for secondary stroke prevention that enrolled 7,240 patients from primarily Asian countries (3,615 received cilostazol and 3,625 received aspirin). The pooled results from the random-effects model showed that cilostazol was associated with significantly lower risk of recurrent ischemic stroke (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95%CI, 0.54-0.89), intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.41; 95%CI, 0.25-0.65) and bleeding (HR 0.71; 95%CI, 0.55-0.91). See forest plots. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests cilostazol is more effective than aspirin in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke with lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding. Confirmatory randomized trials of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention to be performed in more generalizable populations are needed.