Cilostazol-based triple versus potent P2Y12 inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Abstract

Although potent P2Y12 inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has replaced clopidogrel-based therapy as the standard treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), there is a concern about the risk of bleeding in East Asian patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of cilostazol-based triple antiplatelet therapy (TAT) with potent P2Y12 inhibitor-based DAPT in Korean patients. A total of 4152 AMI patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: the TAT group (aspirin + clopidogrel + cilostazol, n = 3161) and the potent DAPT group (aspirin + potent P2Y12 inhibitors [ticagrelor or prasugrel], n = 991). Major clinical outcomes at 30days and 2years were compared between the two groups using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. After PSM (869 pairs), there were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of total death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke at 30days and 2years. However, the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding rates were significantly lower in the TAT group compared with the potent DAPT group at 2years (6.4% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.006). In Korean AMI patients undergoing PCI, TAT with cilostazol was associated with lower bleeding than the potent P2Y12 inhibitor-based DAPT without increased ischemic risk. These results could provide a rationale for the use of TAT in East Asian AMI patients.