Coronary artery disease · 2024
Long-acting cilostazol versus isosorbide mononitrate for patients with vasospastic angina: a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kang Min Gyu, Ahn Jong-Hwa, Hwang Jin-Yong, Hwang Seok-Jae, Koh Jin-Sin, Park Yongwhi, Bae Jae Seok, Chun Kook Jin, Kim Jeong Su, Kim June Hong, Chon Min Ku
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cilostazol has a vasodilatory function that may be beneficial for patients with vasospastic angina (VSA). We conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) for VSA.
METHODS: The study included patients with confirmed VSA between September 2019 and May 2021. Participants were randomly assigned to receive long-acting cilostazol (test group, 200 mg once daily) or conventional ISMN therapy (control group, 20 mg twice daily) for 4 weeks. The clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated using weekly questionnaires.
RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled in the study (long-acting cilostazol, n = 20; ISMN, n = 20). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups. Long acting cilostazol showed better angina symptom control within the first week compared to ISMN [reduction of pain intensity score, 6.0 (4.0-8.0) vs. 4.0 (1.0-5.0), P = 0.005; frequency of angina symptom, 0 (0-2.0) vs. 2.0 (0-3.0), P = 0.027, respectively]. The rate of neurological adverse reactions was lower in the cilostazol group than in the ISMN group (headache or dizziness, 40 vs. 85%, P = 0.009; headache, 30 vs. 70%, P = 0.027).
CONCLUSION: Long-acting cilostazol provided comparable control of angina and fewer adverse neurologic reactions within 4 weeks compared to ISMN. Long-acting cilostazol provides more intensive control of angina within 1 week, suggesting that it may be an initial choice for the treatment of VSA.
METHODS: The study included patients with confirmed VSA between September 2019 and May 2021. Participants were randomly assigned to receive long-acting cilostazol (test group, 200 mg once daily) or conventional ISMN therapy (control group, 20 mg twice daily) for 4 weeks. The clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated using weekly questionnaires.
RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled in the study (long-acting cilostazol, n = 20; ISMN, n = 20). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups. Long acting cilostazol showed better angina symptom control within the first week compared to ISMN [reduction of pain intensity score, 6.0 (4.0-8.0) vs. 4.0 (1.0-5.0), P = 0.005; frequency of angina symptom, 0 (0-2.0) vs. 2.0 (0-3.0), P = 0.027, respectively]. The rate of neurological adverse reactions was lower in the cilostazol group than in the ISMN group (headache or dizziness, 40 vs. 85%, P = 0.009; headache, 30 vs. 70%, P = 0.027).
CONCLUSION: Long-acting cilostazol provided comparable control of angina and fewer adverse neurologic reactions within 4 weeks compared to ISMN. Long-acting cilostazol provides more intensive control of angina within 1 week, suggesting that it may be an initial choice for the treatment of VSA.