The Use and Impact of Cilostazol on Patients Undergoing Endovascular Peripheral Interventions.

Background: Cilostazol is used for the treatment of intermittent claudication. The impact of cilostazol on the outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) remains controversial. This study assesses the use and impact of cilostazol on patients undergoing PVI for peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database files for PVI were reviewed. Patients with PAD who underwent PVI for chronic limb threatening-ischemia or claudication were included and divided based on the use of cilostazol preoperatively. After propensity matching for patient demographics and comorbidities, the short-term and long-term outcomes of the 2 groups (preoperative cilostazol use versus no preoperative cilostazol use) were compared. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine outcomes.

Results: A total of 245,309 patients underwent PVI procedures and 6.6% (N = 16,366) were on cilostazol prior to intervention. Patients that received cilostazol were more likely to be male (62% vs 60%; P < 0.001), White (77% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), and smokers (83% vs. 77%; P < 0.001). They were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 56%; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (14% vs. 23%; P < 0.001). Patient on cilostazol were more likely to be treated for claudication (63% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), undergo prior lower extremity revascularization (55% vs. 51%, P < 0.001) and less likely to have undergone prior minor and major amputation (10% vs. 19%; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive cilostazol. After 3:1 propensity matching, there were 50,265 patients included in the analysis with no differences in baseline characteristics. Patients on cilostazol were less likely to develop renal complications and more likely to be discharged home. Patients on cilostazol had significantly lower rates of long-term mortality (11.5% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001 and major amputation (4.0% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.022). However, there were no significant differences in rates of reintervention, major adverse limb events, or patency after PVI. Amputation-free survival rates were significantly higher for patients on cilostazol, after 4 years of follow up (89% vs. 87%, P = 0.03).

Conclusions: Cilostazol is underutilized in the VQI database and seems to be associated with improved amputation-free survival. Cilostazol therapy should be considered in all patients with PAD who can tolerate it prior to PVI.