Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

Research ArticleExtracranial Vascular
Open Access

Cilostazol Prevents Progression of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in Patients with Contralateral Carotid Artery Stenting

T. Kato, H. Sakai, T. Takagi and Y. Nishimura
American Journal of Neuroradiology August 2012, 33 (7) 1262-1266; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2955
T. Kato
aFrom the Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital Organization, Toyohashi Medical Center, Toyohashi City, Aichi, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Sakai
aFrom the Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital Organization, Toyohashi Medical Center, Toyohashi City, Aichi, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Takagi
aFrom the Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital Organization, Toyohashi Medical Center, Toyohashi City, Aichi, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Y. Nishimura
aFrom the Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital Organization, Toyohashi Medical Center, Toyohashi City, Aichi, Japan.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The progression of atherosclerosis is related to various factors. Although antiplatelet therapy is used for the management of acute ischemic stroke and for the prevention of recurrent stroke, the antiplatelet agent cilostazol may also reduce restenosis after stent implantation in any vessel. This study was performed to assess the impact of cilostazol on plaque progression in the carotid artery contralateral to a stented artery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients who underwent contralateral CAS who also had ipsilateral 0%–79% ICS were enrolled. ICS was assessed by duplex sonography every 6 months and by MR imaging/angiography, and digital subtraction angiography if necessary, every 12 months according to the NASCET method. Patient age, sex, past history, and perioperative medical conditions were recorded.

RESULTS: While 22.1% of patients experienced disease progression, symptomatic ipsilateral stroke occurred in only 1.1% of patients over 36.2 ± 18.8 months. On multivariate analysis, precarotid stenosis (HR per 10% increase, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.43–3.05; P < .001) and cilostazol use (HR 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03–0.85; P = .03) were independent predictors for the progression of ICS.

CONCLUSIONS: A higher degree of initial stenosis is associated with progression of asymptomatic ICS. Cilostazol may reduce the rate of disease progression in patients with asymptomatic ICS.

ABBREVIATIONS:

CAD
coronary artery disease
CAS
carotid artery stenting
CEA
carotid endarterectomy
CI
confidence interval
CVD
cerebrovascular disease
HR
hazard ratio
ICS
internal carotid artery stenosis
PAD
peripheral artery disease

Large randomized controlled clinical trials have shown that CEA is the “gold standard” for the management of ICS, both in symptomatic and in asymptomatic patients.1–4 However, CAS placement may be an appropriate alternative therapy for patients with ICS. While the SAPPHIRE trial showed that CAS was noninferior to CEA in patients with high surgical risk factors,5 3 other trials failed to prove noninferiority of CAS compared with CEA.6–8 Furthermore, only 1 randomized controlled clinical trial found that CEA and CAS are comparable based on major vascular events in terms of safe and effective stroke prevention in patients without high surgical risk factors.9 ICS is a major risk factor for stroke; therefore, treatments to reduce the long-term risk of stroke, including medical management, CEA, and CAS, are important for patients with this condition.

Although the incidence of progression of asymptomatic carotid artery disease after contralateral CEA has been described in studies using duplex sonography, the definition of progression varies among these studies.10–13 Patients who undergo CAS are given antiplatelet agents in addition to other antiatherosclerotic medications. Antiplatelet agents are effective for the reduction of stent thrombosis after CAS and for the reduction of the risk of vascular events in other arterial beds, which provides a rationale for their long-term use in these patients.14 In patients with coronary and peripheral artery disease, cilostazol has been shown to decrease restenosis and revascularization after catheter intervention.15–26 Furthermore, some previous reports suggested that cilostazol reduced restenosis after CEA and CAS.27–29 However, no study has investigated whether cilostazol can prevent progression of stenosis in the asymptomatic non-stent-implanted carotid artery after contralateral revascularization. Thus, the goal of this study is to identify predictors of progression of ICS after contralateral CAS.

Materials and Methods

Patients and Techniques

Between November 2001 and May 2010, all consecutive patients who underwent successful CAS for ICS in the Department of Neurosurgery at the National Hospital Organization Toyohashi Medical Center were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. Inclusion criteria were patients who could be followed for at least 12 months and who could be assessed for changes of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis after contralateral CAS. Patient age, sex, past history related to atherosclerosis, and perioperative medical conditions were recorded. Patients were excluded if they had a history of previous CEA, irradiation to the cervical portion of the carotid artery, or traumatic dissection.

All patients were screened with preoperative duplex sonography and MR imaging/angiography, followed by DSA at the time of the procedure, to ascertain whether lesions were appropriate for CAS and to assess the severity of stenosis on the opposite side. The criteria for CAS were stenosis greater than 80% in asymptomatic lesions and greater than 50% in symptomatic lesions, as per the NASCET method, and CAS was performed using our standard procedure, which has been previously described.30 Patients were premedicated with dual antiplatelet therapy in some combination of aspirin (100 mg/day), ticlopidine (200 mg/day), clopidogrel (75 mg/day), or cilostazol (200 mg/day), with the choice of agents at the discretion of the attending physicians. Perioperative dual antiplatelet therapy was continued within 1–3 months after CAS, at which point single-agent antiplatelet therapy was continued. In cases of patients with prior CAD or PAD, dual antiplatelet therapy was continued if necessary.

All patients were assessed every 6 months using duplex sonography by well-trained technicians and every 12 months by MR imaging/angiography. Patients were instructed to inform their physician if any new symptoms developed after hospital discharge. All new neurologic events were confirmed by an independent neurologist, and brain MR imaging/angiography was performed if any change in neurologic status was found. Furthermore, if new cervical bruit was present on examination, then duplex sonography was performed at each assessment. MR imaging/angiography was also performed when ICS ≥50% was suspected, and DSA was performed when ICS ≥80% was suspected. A 50% and 80% ICS was indicated by a peak systolic velocity on duplex sonography of 150 cm/s and 230 cm/s, respectively.31 The initial grade of stenosis after contralateral CAS was classified as follows: A, 0%–49% stenosis; B, 50%–79% stenosis; C, 80%–99% stenosis and occlusion. An 80%–99% stenosis was an indication for vascular reconstructive surgery, so these patients were excluded from this study. We determined any progression, if the category was advanced to a higher category of stenosis, by comparing serial assessments.

Values are presented as the mean ± SD. Categoric variables were analyzed by the χ2 or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Continuous variables with normal distributions were analyzed by the Student t test, and those with non-normal distributions were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine which factors correlated with the progression of asymptomatic ICS. Factors related to the progression of asymptomatic ICS were identified by univariate regression analysis (P < .20) in an exploratory manner, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed by age and sex in addition to the extracted factors. Analysis of time to the progression of asymptomatic ICS was based on Kaplan-Meier curves. A probability value <.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using PASW statistics, version 18 (SPSS Japan, Tokyo, Japan).

Results

A total of 125 consecutive patients who underwent CAS and who were followed for at least 12 months were included in this study. Nine patients who initially planned to undergo bilateral CAS because of bilateral severe ICS, and 7 patients who had contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion, were excluded. Another 14 patients were excluded because of transfer to another hospital or death within 1 year. Therefore, 95 patients were enrolled in this study. Mean patient age was 73.0 ± 7.2 years (range 57–88 years), and there were 84 (88.4%) male patients. The mean follow-up period was 36.2 ± 18.8 months (range 12–95 months). There were 68 (71.6%) patients with hypertension, 28 (29.5%) patients with diabetes mellitus, 35 (36.8%) patients with hypercholesterolemia, 43 (45.3%) patients with CAD, and 22 (23.2%) patients who were currently smoking. Forty-six (48.4%) patients experienced symptomatic ischemic neurologic events before contralateral CAS. According to our grading system, 85 patients were categorized as group A (0%–49% stenosis) and another 10 patients were categorized as group B (50%–79% stenosis). During the follow-up period, 12 (14.1%) patients progressed from group A to group B, and 4 (4.7%) patients progressed from group A to group C, while 5 (50.0%) patients progressed from group B to group C. In all cases, 21 (22.1%) patients revealed progression during a period of 36.2 months. One (1.1%) patient experienced symptomatic ipsilateral stroke, and CAS was performed for ipsilateral ICS in 7 (7.4%) patients. Age, sex, follow-up period, and risk factors for atherosclerosis were similar comparing patients who experienced progression and those who did not. Baseline characteristics among these subgroups are summarized in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Baseline characteristics among the subgroups of patients in the present study

A summary of antiplatelet therapy is shown in Table 2. Aspirin was used in 62 patients, ticlopidine was used in 26 patients, clopidogrel was used in 26 patients, and cilostazol was used in 29 patients. The progression of carotid artery stenosis was significantly fewer in patients with cilostazol use compared with patients without cilostazol use (6.9% versus 28.8%; P = .03).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Summary of antiplatelet therapy

Table 3 shows the univariate and multivariate associations of baseline characteristics, past histories, and perioperative status with the progression of carotid artery stenosis after contralateral CAS. In the initial univariate analyses, the following variables were selected for inclusion in the multivariable models: enrollment period (P = .14), precarotid stenosis (P < .001), symptomatic before CAS (P = .17), cilostazol use (P = .02), and restenosis after CAS (P = .03). In the age- and sex-adjusted final multivariate model, the 2 variables identified as independent predictors for the progression of carotid artery stenosis were precarotid stenosis (HR per 10% increase, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.43–3.05; P < .001) and cilostazol use (HR 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03–0.85; P = .03). In addition, restenosis (defined as 50% stenosis or greater) after CAS occurred in 10 (10.5%) patients after 32.9 ± 18.0 months. The rate of restenosis was 0% (0/29) in patients with cilostazol use and 15.2% (10/66) in patients without cilostazol use (P = .03, Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3:

Factors independently associated with the progression of carotid artery stenosis after contralateral carotid artery stenting on multivariate logistic regression models

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4:

Rate of progression of carotid artery stenosis

The Kaplan-Meier curve for freedom from progression of ICS with or without cilostazol use is shown in Fig 1 . The cilostazol (+) group had a higher rate of freedom from progression of ICS compared with the cilostazol (−) group (P = .006).

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

Kaplan-Meier curves showing cumulative freedom from progression of ICS. Freedom from progression of ICS was significantly higher in the cilostazol (+) group compared with cilostazol (−) group (P = .006).

Discussion

The progression rate of asymptomatic ICS varies from 5.4% to 16.0% per year, depending on the definition of stenosis progression used and the population studied.11,12,32–37 In the present study, 22.1% of patients experienced progression of ICS during 36.2 months after contralateral CAS, which is consistent with observations from previous reports. Several studies have described risk factors for ICS progression, including female sex, black race, baseline ICS 50% or greater, systolic blood pressure >160 mm Hg, CAD, smoking, low ankle-brachial pressure index, and echolucent plaques.34–36,38 The degree of precarotid stenosis and cilostazol use were independent predictors for progression of carotid artery stenosis after contralateral CAS in multivariate analysis, whereas restenosis after CAS was a significant predictor only within the univariate analysis. Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory disease,39 and major factors involved in the progression of atherosclerosis include inflammation of a vulnerable plaque, intraplaque hemorrhage, and injury to vascular endothelial cells. The present study suggests a strong relationship between the degree of initial stenosis and the progression of ICS. Therefore, these patients may benefit from therapies that address atherosclerosis and inflammation, as well as from surgical revascularization in appropriate candidates with severe ICS.

In previous studies, the prevalence of moderate and severe ICS has varied from 0% to 7.5% and from 0% to 3.1%, and the prevalence increased with age and was slightly higher in men.40 In Japan, the number of revascularization surgeries for ICS has increased over the past few decades, probably because of the Westernized diet and the development of endovascular therapy. Risk factors for asymptomatic ICS include older age, male sex, cervical bruits, wall thickness on duplex sonography, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, CAD, PAD, and smoking.37,41–44 Within several studies, risk factors in patients with CAD, CVD, or PAD were remarkably consistent across vascular beds, and this polyvascular disease was the strongest predictor of future ischemic events.45,46 In the present study, subjects had already undergone CAS on the other side, and they had a number of core risk factors for atherosclerosis. Despite appropriate control of these risk factors, 22.1% experienced progression. However, the incidence of symptomatic ipsilateral stroke was only 1.1% over 36.2 months. In patients with asymptomatic ICS of 60% or greater, ipsilateral ischemic stroke occurred at a rate of 2.3% per year, and ipsilateral stroke or TIA occurred at a rate of 4.5% per year.2 Similarly, ipsilateral ischemic stroke and all events (stroke, TIA, and amaurosis fugax) occurred 1.5% and 3.6% per year, respectively, in patients with ICS of 60% or greater, whereas ipsilateral ischemic stroke and all events occurred 1.0% and 2.4% per year, respectively, in patients with ICS less than 60%.47 In addition to simple luminal stenosis of the artery, plaque components and plaque morphology are important key factors in the occurrence of ischemic events.

In 2001, the average annual rates of ipsilateral stroke among patients receiving medical therapy for vascular disease fell below those of patients who underwent CEA (CEA data were obtained in 1995). However, current medical intervention alone was estimated as at least 3–8 times more cost effective in preventing stroke, and 4– 8 times more cost effective in preventing stroke and TIA compared with medical intervention and surgery as used in past major randomized trials. In addition, there was a 22% increase in the baseline proportion of patients receiving antiplatelet therapy from 1995 to 2007.48 The fall in the rate of ipsilateral ischemic stroke is probably related to pleiotropic medical interventions associated with the use of antihypertensive, hypoglycemic, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet agents. Several recent studies reported that cilostazol reduced restenosis and repeat revascularization after coronary intervention with either a bare-metal stent or a drug-eluting stent.20,22,26,49,50 Similarly, cilostazol reduced restenosis after endovascular therapy in peripheral arteries,15–18 and some studies reported the effectiveness of cilostazol in the prevention of restenosis after CAS. In 1 study, restenosis during a 29-month period after CAS occurred in none (0/27) of the patients who received cilostazol and in 15.7% (11/70) of patients who did not receive cilostazol.27 Independent risk factors for restenosis and revascularization in the treated carotid artery over 30 months after CAS were cilostazol use (OR 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08–0.95) and stent diameter (OR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54–0.99).28 Progression of symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis of the M1 segment in the middle cerebral artery or basilar artery in the cilostazol group was significantly lower than that in the placebo group.51 Thus, the present findings that cilostazol use and precarotid stenosis were independent predictors for the progression of asymptomatic ICS, and that the rate of restenosis was lower in patients with cilostazol use, are consistent with observations from previous reports. A recent randomized controlled clinical trial reported that cilostazol was noninferior to aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke and that cilostazol was associated with fewer hemorrhagic complications.52 Cilostazol has some beneficial effects in addition to its antiplatelet function; these include suppression of neointimal hyperplasia, induction of vasodilation secondary to relaxation of vascular smooth muscle cells, and protection of endothelial cells.53–56 Thus, these pluripotent effects of cilostazol probably act to inhibit the progression of ICS.

This study was limited in that it was a nonrandomized, retrospective study. Further, the true effect of cilostazol for asymptomatic ICS remains unknown, as the population in this study underwent contralateral CAS, which may result in some population bias. Therefore, larger prospective multicenter studies are necessary to establish the preventive effect of cilostazol on the progression of true asymptomatic ICS.

Conclusions

A higher degree of initial stenosis is associated with progression of asymptomatic ICS. Cilostazol may reduce the rate of disease progression in patients with asymptomatic ICS.

Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

References

  1. 1.↵
    Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med 1991;325:445–53
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. JAMA 1995;273:1421–28
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet 1998;351:1379–87
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Halliday A,
    2. Mansfield A,
    3. Marro J,
    4. et al
    . Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;363:1491–502
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Yadav JS,
    2. Wholey MH,
    3. Kuntz RE,
    4. et al
    . Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1493–501
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mas JL,
    2. Chatellier G,
    3. Beyssen B,
    4. et al
    . Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1660–71
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Ringleb PA,
    2. Allenberg J,
    3. Bruckmann H,
    4. et al
    . 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2006;368:1239–47
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ederle J,
    2. Dobson J,
    3. Featherstone RL,
    4. et al
    . Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375:985–97
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Brott TG,
    2. Hobson RW 2nd.,
    3. Howard G,
    4. et al
    . Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med 2010;363:11–23
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. AbuRahma AF,
    2. Cook CC,
    3. Metz MJ,
    4. et al
    . Natural history of carotid artery stenosis contralateral to endarterectomy: results from two randomized prospective trials. J Vasc Surg 2003;38:1154–61
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Raman KG,
    2. Layne S,
    3. Makaroun MS,
    4. et al
    . Disease progression in contralateral carotid artery is common after endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg 2004;39:52–57
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ballotta E,
    2. Da Giau G,
    3. Meneghetti G,
    4. et al
    . Progression of atherosclerosis in asymptomatic carotid arteries after contralateral endarterectomy: a 10-year prospective study. J Vasc Surg 2007;45:516–22
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Fluri F,
    2. Engelter ST,
    3. Wasner M,
    4. et al
    . The probability of restenosis, contralateral disease progression, and late neurologic events following carotid endarterectomy: a long-term follow-up study. Cerebrovasc Dis 2008;26:654–58
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Chaturvedi S,
    2. Yadav JS
    . The role of antiplatelet therapy in carotid stenting for ischemic stroke prevention. Stroke 2006;37:1572–77
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Iida O,
    2. Nanto S,
    3. Uematsu M,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol reduces restenosis after endovascular therapy in patients with femoropopliteal lesions. J Vasc Surg 2008;48:144–49
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. Ishii H,
    2. Kumada Y,
    3. Toriyama T,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol improves long-term patency after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in hemodialysis patients with peripheral artery disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:1034–40
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    1. Soga Y,
    2. Yokoi H,
    3. Kawasaki T,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy of cilostazol after endovascular therapy for femoropopliteal artery disease in patients with intermittent claudication. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:48–53
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Soga Y,
    2. Iida O,
    3. Hirano K,
    4. et al
    . Mid-term clinical outcome and predictors of vessel patency after femoropopliteal stenting with self-expandable nitinol stent. J Vasc Surg 2010;52:608–15
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    1. Suzuki K,
    2. Iida O,
    3. Soga Y,
    4. et al
    . Long-term results of the S.M.A.R.T. Control(TM) stent for superficial femoral artery lesions, J-SMART registry. Circ J 2011;75:939–44
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Douglas JS Jr.,
    2. Holmes DR Jr.,
    3. Kereiakes DJ,
    4. et al
    . Coronary stent restenosis in patients treated with cilostazol. Circulation 2005;112:2826–32
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.
    1. Ahn Y,
    2. Jeong MH,
    3. Jeong JW,
    4. et al
    . Randomized comparison of cilostazol vs clopidogrel after drug-eluting stenting in diabetic patients–clilostazol for diabetic patients in drug-eluting stent (CIDES) trial. Circ J 2008;72:35–39
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Biondi-Zoccai GG,
    2. Lotrionte M,
    3. Anselmino M,
    4. et al
    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials appraising the impact of cilostazol after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 2008;155:1081–89
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    1. Lee SW,
    2. Park SW,
    3. Kim YH,
    4. et al
    . Drug-eluting stenting followed by cilostazol treatment reduces late restenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus the DECLARE-DIABETES Trial (A Randomized Comparison of Triple Antiplatelet Therapy with Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Diabetic Patients). J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1181–87
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    1. Jennings DL,
    2. Kalus JS
    . Addition of cilostazol to aspirin and a thienopyridine for prevention of restenosis after coronary artery stenting: a meta-analysis. J Clin Pharmacol 2010;50:415–21
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.
    1. Dihu JB,
    2. Abudayyeh I,
    3. Saudye HA,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol: a potential therapeutic option to prevent in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:2035–36
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Lee SW,
    2. Park SW,
    3. Kim YH,
    4. et al
    . A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison study of triple antiplatelet therapy with dual antiplatelet therapy to reduce restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation in long coronary lesions: results from the DECLARE-LONG II (Drug-Eluting Stenting Followed by Cilostazol Treatment Reduces Late Restenosis in Patients with Long Coronary Lesions) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1264–70
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Takigawa T,
    2. Matsumaru Y,
    3. Hayakawa M,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol reduces restenosis after carotid artery stenting. J Vasc Surg 2010;51:51–56
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Yamagami H,
    2. Sakai N,
    3. Matsumaru Y,
    4. et al
    . Periprocedural cilostazol treatment and restenosis after carotid artery stenting: The Retrospective Study of In-Stent Restenosis after Carotid Artery Stenting (ReSISteR-CAS). J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2012;21:193–99
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Yoshimoto T,
    2. Fujimoto S,
    3. Muraki M,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol may suppress restenosis and new contralateral carotid artery stenosis after carotid endarterectomy. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2010;50:525–29
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kato T,
    2. Sakai H,
    3. Tsujimoto M,
    4. et al
    . Prolonged carotid sinus reflex is a risk factor for contrast-induced nephropathy following carotid artery stenting. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:441–45
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Jahromi AS,
    2. Cina CS,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. et al
    . Sensitivity and specificity of color duplex ultrasound measurement in the estimation of internal carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Surg 2005;41:962–72
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Rockman CB,
    2. Riles TS,
    3. Lamparello PJ,
    4. et al
    . Natural history and management of the asymptomatic, moderately stenotic internal carotid artery. J Vasc Surg 1997;25:423–31
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    1. Olin JW,
    2. Fonseca C,
    3. Childs MB,
    4. et al
    . The natural history of asymptomatic moderate internal carotid artery stenosis by duplex ultrasound. Vasc Med 1998;3:101–08
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Mansour MA,
    2. Littooy FN,
    3. Watson WC,
    4. et al
    . Outcome of moderate carotid artery stenosis in patients who are asymptomatic. J Vasc Surg 1999;29:217–25
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    1. Muluk SC,
    2. Muluk VS,
    3. Sugimoto H,
    4. et al
    . Progression of asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a natural history study in 1004 patients. J Vasc Surg 1999;29:208–14
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Liapis C,
    2. Kakisis J,
    3. Papavassiliou V,
    4. et al
    . Internal carotid artery stenosis: rate of progression. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2000;19:111–17
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Cinà CS,
    2. Safar HA,
    3. Maggisano R,
    4. et al
    . Prevalence and progression of internal carotid artery stenosis in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 2002;36:75–82
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Jahromi AS,
    2. Clase CM,
    3. Maggisano R,
    4. et al
    . Progression of internal carotid artery stenosis in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg 2009;50:292–98
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Libby P
    . Inflammation in atherosclerosis. Nature 2002;420:868–74
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. de Weerd M,
    2. Greving JP,
    3. Hedblad B,
    4. et al
    . Prevalence of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general population: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Stroke 2010;41:1294–97
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Qureshi AI,
    2. Janardhan V,
    3. Bennett SE,
    4. et al
    . Who should be screened for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis? Experience from the Western New York Stroke Screening Program. J Neuroimaging 2001;11:105–11
    PubMed
  42. 42.
    1. Marek J,
    2. Mills JL,
    3. Harvich J,
    4. et al
    . Utility of routine carotid duplex screening in patients who have claudication. J Vasc Surg 1996;24:572–77; discussion 577–79
    CrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.
    1. Fine-Edelstein JS,
    2. Wolf PA,
    3. O'Leary DH,
    4. et al
    . Precursors of extracranial carotid atherosclerosis in the Framingham Study. Neurology 1994;44:1046–50
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. O'Leary DH,
    2. Polak JF,
    3. Kronmal RA,
    4. et al
    . Distribution and correlates of sonographically detected carotid artery disease in the Cardiovascular Health Study. The CHS Collaborative Research Group. Stroke 1992;23:1752–60
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Bhatt DL,
    2. Eagle KA,
    3. Ohman EM,
    4. et al
    . Comparative determinants of 4-year cardiovascular event rates in stable outpatients at risk of or with atherothrombosis. JAMA 2010;304:1350–57
    CrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Bhatt DL,
    2. Steg PG,
    3. Ohman EM,
    4. et al
    . International prevalence, recognition, and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in outpatients with atherothrombosis. JAMA 2006;295:180–89
    CrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Nicolaides AN,
    2. Kakkos SK,
    3. Griffin M,
    4. et al
    . Severity of asymptomatic carotid stenosis and risk of ipsilateral hemispheric ischaemic events: results from the ACSRS study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005;30:275–84
    CrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Abbott AL
    . Medical (nonsurgical) intervention alone is now best for prevention of stroke associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis: results of a systematic review and analysis. Stroke 2009;40:e573–83
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Han Y,
    2. Wang S,
    3. Li Y,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol improves long-term outcomes after coronary stent implantation. Am Heart J 2005;150: 568
  50. 50.↵
    1. Lee SW,
    2. Chun KJ,
    3. Park SW,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of triple antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy in patients at high risk of restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation (from the DECLARE-DIABETES and -LONG Trials). Am J Cardiol 2010;105:168–73
    CrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Kwon SU,
    2. Cho YJ,
    3. Koo JS,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol prevents the progression of the symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis: the multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial of cilostazol in symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. Stroke 2005;36:782–86
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Shinohara Y,
    2. Katayama Y,
    3. Uchiyama S,
    4. et al
    . Cilostazol for prevention of secondary stroke (CSPS 2): an aspirin-controlled, double-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:959–68
    CrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Ikeda Y,
    2. Kikuchi M,
    3. Murakami H,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of the inhibitory effects of cilostazol, acetylsalicylic acid and ticlopidine on platelet functions ex vivo. Randomized, double-blind cross-over study. Drug Research 1987;37:563–66
    PubMed
  54. 54.
    1. Tanaka T,
    2. Ishikawa T,
    3. Hagiwara M,
    4. et al
    . Effects of cilostazol, a selective cAMP phosphodiesterase inhibitor on the contraction of vascular smooth muscle. Pharmacology 1988;36:313–20
    PubMed
  55. 55.
    1. Tanaka K,
    2. Gotoh F,
    3. Fukuuchi Y,
    4. et al
    . Effects of a selective inhibitor of cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase on the pial microcirculation in feline cerebral ischemia. Stroke 1989;20:668–73
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Ishiguro M,
    2. Mishiro K,
    3. Fujiwara Y,
    4. et al
    . Phosphodiesterase-III inhibitor prevents hemorrhagic transformation induced by focal cerebral ischemia in mice treated with tPA. PLoS One 2010;5: e15178
  • Received August 9, 2011.
  • Accepted after revision October 18, 2011.
  • © 2012 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 33 (7)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 33, Issue 7
1 Aug 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cilostazol Prevents Progression of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in Patients with Contralateral Carotid Artery Stenting
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
T. Kato, H. Sakai, T. Takagi, Y. Nishimura
Cilostazol Prevents Progression of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in Patients with Contralateral Carotid Artery Stenting
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2012, 33 (7) 1262-1266; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2955

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Cilostazol Prevents Progression of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis in Patients with Contralateral Carotid Artery Stenting
T. Kato, H. Sakai, T. Takagi, Y. Nishimura
American Journal of Neuroradiology Aug 2012, 33 (7) 1262-1266; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2955
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Cilostazol: The "Poor Man's" Replacement of Drug-Eluting Stents and Balloons?
  • Effect of Cilostazol in Preventing Restenosis after Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Carotid Wallstent: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
  • Crossref (6)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Effect of Cilostazol in Preventing Restenosis after Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Carotid Wallstent: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
    K. Takayama, T. Taoka, H. Nakagawa, K. Myouchin, T. Wada, M. Sakamoto, K. Furuichi, S. Iwasaki, S. Kurokawa, K. Kichikawa
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2012 33 11
  • Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating the Effect of Cilostazol on Major Outcomes After Carotid Stenting
    George Galyfos, Georgios Geropapas, Fragiska Sigala, Konstantina Aggeli, Argiri Sianou, Konstantinos Filis
    Journal of Endovascular Therapy 2016 23 1
  • Carotid Plaque Characteristics on Magnetic Resonance Plaque Imaging Following Long-term Cilostazol Therapy
    Mao Yamaguchi Oura, Makoto Sasaki, Hideki Ohba, Shinsuke Narumi, Kazumasa Oura, Ikuko Uwano, Yasuo Terayama
    Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases 2014 23 9
  • Cilostazol
    Thomas Zeller, Dietmar Trenk
    Circulation 2013 127 23
  • Dr. Enomoto responds:
    Yukiko Enomoto
    Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 2016 27 5
  • Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting and Endarterectomy in Patients with Prior Contralateral Carotid Revascularization
    Aline H. Ishida, Pedro J. Furtado Neves, Lindsay Gallo, Branson Taheri, Donald L. Jacobs, Rafael Demarchi Malgor, Emily A. Malgor
    Annals of Vascular Surgery 2025 113

More in this TOC Section

  • Proximal Vertebral Artery Variants and Embryology
  • High-Risk Plaque Features in Carotid MRI
  • Nonstenotic Carotid Plaques and Stroke Review
Show more Extracranial Vascular

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire