Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recommend the use of cilostazol in the treatment of patients with infrainguinal peripheral artery disease (PAD) who experience intermittent claudication. However, the role of cilostazol therapy in patients with advanced PAD and critical limb ischemia (CLI) remains unclear. To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that evaluated the effect of cilostazol vs standard antiplatelet therapy on limb-related and arterial patency-related outcomes. We also reviewed literature pertinent to the effect of cilostazol on wound healing in patients with advanced PAD. METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE (CENTRAL), SCOPUS, and US Clinical Trials database search for all trials and studies since 1999 that compared cilostazol with standard antiplatelet therapy in the setting of infrainguinal PAD revascularization procedures (endovascular or open). Aggregate data was collected from four randomized control trials and six retrospective cohort studies. The end point incidence ratios and treatment effects were generated from each study and reported as hazard ratios (HR) using a random-effect model. We also reviewed 10 studies that evaluated the effect of cilostazol on wound healing in patients with advanced PAD. RESULTS: From more than 25,000 total patients, 3136 patients met our inclusion criteria. All patients had at least lifestyle-impacting intermittent claudication, and more than 50% met the definition of CLI (Rutherford class ≥4). Patient age range was 53 to 83 years, and the majority were male (66%). The mean follow-up time averaged 2 years across all studies. Meta-analysis revealed that cilostazol treatment favored amputation-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.91), limb salvage rate (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.66), decreased repeat revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.52), and decreased restenosis (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76). Cilostazol treatment also increased freedom from target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.21-1.53) with no difference in all-cause mortality. Effective wound healing was found to be an inconsistent outcome measure in patients receiving cilostazol therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that cilostazol therapy has a beneficial impact on all limb-related and arterial patency-related outcomes, but no effect on all-cause mortality in patients with advanced PAD and CLI undergoing revascularization procedures. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the effect of cilostazol therapy on wound healing in patients with advanced PAD.