, Volume 66, Issue 5, pp 671–692 | Cite as


A Review of its Use in Cerebral Infarction and Myocardial Infarction, and as Thromboprophylaxis in Atrial Fibrillation
  • David Murdoch
  • Greg L. Plosker
Adis Drug Evaluation



Triflusal (Aflen®, Disgren®, Tecnosal®, Triflux®) is a novel platelet antiaggregant with structural similarities to salicylates, but which is not derived from aspirin. It has similar efficacy to aspirin in patients with cerebral or myocardial infarction, but has a reduced risk of haemorrhagic complications. In addition, triflusal plus moderate-intensity anticoagulation has demonstrated efficacy when used as thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. As such, triflusal has a role in the primary prevention of cerebrovascular events in atrial fibrillation, and for the secondary prevention of cerebral and myocardial infarction, primarily as an alternative to aspirin in patients for whom aspirin is unsuitable.

Pharmacological Properties

Triflusal and its principal metabolite, 2-hydroxy-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzoic acid (HTB), inhibit cyclo-oxygenase (COX) isoform 1 and therefore inhibit thromboxane biosynthesis. In addition, both triflusal and HTB inhibit cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) phosphodiesterase, thereby restricting cAMP breakdown in platelets and also restricting calcium mobilisation and calcium-dependent platelet aggregation. Triflusal appears to have a selective activity against platelet COX-1 relative to vascular endothelial COX-2.

After oral administration, triflusal is rapidly hydrolysed to HTB. After a single dose of 900mg in healthy volunteers, values for absorption half-life of 0.40 and 2.44 hours were documented for triflusal and HTB, respectively. Corresponding values for mean maximum plasma concentration were 11.6 and 92.7 mg/L, and for terminal elimination half-life were 0.53 and 34.3 hours. Triflusal elimination is primarily renal: >60% of the parent compound is excreted in the urine, as unchanged triflusal, HTB and an HTB-glycine conjugate, within 48 hours of administration. There are no major differences in the pharmacokinetic profiles of triflusal and HTB in elderly and younger individuals, such that triflusal dosage adjustments are unnecessary in elderly patients.

Therapeutic Efficacy

In large-scale, randomised, double-blind, multicentre studies in patients with nondisabling ischaemic stroke or a transient ischaemic attack (TLA) in the previous 6 months, triflusal 600 mg/day was equally as effective as aspirin 300–330 mg/day, as evident from the incidence of the primary composite endpoint of serious vascular events (12.7–19.8% vs 12.4–28.8%).

The TIM (Triflusal in Myocardial Infarction) study also revealed no significant triflusal-aspirin difference in occurrence of the composite primary endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial reinfarction and nonfatal cerebrovascular events within 35 days of acute myocardial infarction (9.1% vs 10.2%). Subgroup analyses of TIM study data suggested that triflusal may be a superior therapeutic option to aspirin in elderly patients receiving concurrent therapy with either alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) or an ACE inhibitor; however, this possibility requires further investigation.

In patients with nonvalvular or valvular atrial fibrillation, triflusal plus reduced-intensity acenocoumarol therapy (target international normalised ratio [INR] 1.25–2.4) was significantly more effective than monotherapy with either triflusal or standard-intensity acenocoumarol (target INR 2.0–3.0) regarding a lower incidence of the composite primary endpoint of vascular death, TIA, and nonfatal stroke or systemic embolism; this applied even in patients at high risk of developing thromboembolism.

A randomised, multicentre pilot study of triflusal versus standard-intensity acenocoumarol therapy in patients who had undergone bioprosthetic valve replacement found no significant primary endpoint difference between the two treatments, and triflusal was associated with a significantly lower incidence of haemorrhagic adverse events than acenocoumarol.


Large-scale clinical trials reported that, with the exception of a significantly lower rate of haemorrhagic events in triflusal recipients (e.g. 13.7% vs 21.8%; p < 0.001 in the TACIP [Triflusal versus Aspirin in Cerebral Infarction Prevention] study), the tolerability profile of triflusal was generally similar to that of aspirin. These trials documented a treatment withdrawal rate due to adverse events of 2.3–5.1% in triflusal recipients and of 3.0–6.0% in aspirin recipients. The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 34–54% in both groups. In the largest trial, the TIM study, the main triflusal-induced adverse events involved the gastrointestinal tract (26.8% of patients; primarily dyspepsia, constipation and flatulence) and central and peripheral nervous systems (8.9%; e.g. headache), with no significant difference in incidence rates relative to aspirin recipients. In the second-largest trial (TACIP), the most frequently reported nonhaemorrhagic adverse events in triflusal-treated patients were dyspepsia (27.4%), abdominal pain (21.8%), nausea (8.5%) and vomiting (5.1%).

A large meta-analysis of five studies found no significant difference between triflusal and aspirin in the overall incidence of adverse events (55.3% vs 55.6%), whereas serious treatment-related adverse events were significantly less frequent (4.0% vs 5.2%; p = 0.03), and nonhaemorrhagic gastrointestinal adverse events significantly more frequent (44.0% vs 40.1%; p = 0.004), in triflusal than in aspirin recipients.

Bleeding complications were consistently less common, in large-scale clinical trials and a large meta-analysis, in patients treated with triflusal rather than aspirin. For instance, significantly (p < 0.05) lower rates of the following haemorrhagic complications were evident: CNS-related bleeding in the TIM study (0.3% vs 1.0%); haematoma (3.8% vs 6.7%), gastrointestinal (4.6% vs 7.6%) or any bleeding (13.7% vs 21.8%) in the TACIP study; and bleeding-related adverse events (8.5% vs 13.3%), fatal or nonfatal haemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs 1.1%), nonfatal haemorrhagic stroke (0.2% vs 0.6%), intracranial or other major extracranial bleeding (1.2% vs 3.0%), any major extracranial bleeding (0.7% vs 1.8%), and any minor (7.6% vs 11.2%) or gastrointestinal bleeding (2.4% vs 4.3%) in a large meta-analysis.


Aspirin Atrial Fibrillation Acute Myocardial Infarction Dipyridamole Alteplase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. ACC/AHA/ESC pocket guidelines: management of patients with atrial fibrillation [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2005 Oct 28]
  2. 2.
    Deplanque D, Leys D, Parnetti L, et al. Stroke prevention and atrial fibrillation: reasons leading to an inappropriate management. Main results of the SAFE II study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004 Jun; 57(6): 798–806Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The European Stroke Initiative Executive Committee and the EUSI Writing Committee. European Stroke Initiative recommendations for stroke management: update 2003. Cerebrovasc Dis 2003; 16: 311–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albers GW, Amarenco P, Easton JD, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 2004 Sep; 126 (3 Suppl): 483–512SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Albers GW, Amarenco P, Easton JD, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke. Chest 2001 Jan; 119 (1 Suppl): 300–320SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 2004 Aug 3; 110(5): 588–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howard PA. Guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Drugs 1999 Dec; 58(6): 997–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van de Werf F, Ardissino D, Betriu A, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2003 Jan; 24(1): 28–66Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertrand ME, Simoons ML, Fox KAA, et al. Management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2002 Dec; 23(23): 1809–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology /American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002 Oct 2; 40(7): 1366–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laguna P, Martin A, del Arco C, et al. Risk factors for stroke and thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation: what happens in daily clinical practice? The GEFAUR-1 study. Ann Emerg Med 2004 Jul; 44(1): 3–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinberger J. Adverse effects and drug interactions of antithrombotic agents used in prevention of ischaemic stroke. Drugs 2005; 65(4): 461–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paciaroni M, Agnelli G, Caso V, et al. Atrial fibrillation in patients with first-ever stroke: frequency, antithrombotic treatment before the event and effect on clinical outcome. J Thromb Haemost 2005 Jun; 3(6): 1218–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heras M, Chesebro J, Fuster V, et al. High risk of thromboemboli early after bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 25: 1111–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aramendi JI, Mestres C-A, Martinez-Leon J, et al. Triflusal versus oral anticoagulation for primary prevention of thrombo-embolism after bioprosthetic valve replacement (trac): prospective, randomized, co-operative trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005; 27(5): 854–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aramendi JI, Agredo J, Llorente A, et al. Prevention of thromboembolism with ticlopidine shortly after valve repair or replacement with a bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 1998; 7: 610–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Culebras A, Rotta-Escalante R, Vila J, et al. Triflusal vs aspirin for prevention of cerebral infarction: a randomized stroke study. Neurology 2004 Apr 13; 62(7): 1073–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cruz-Fernandez JM, Lopez G-Aranda V, Montoya FM, et al. Managing acute myocardial infarction: clinical implications of the TIM study. Eur Heart J Suppls 1999; 1 Suppl. F: F12–18Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Culebras A. Triflusal: an effective antiplatelet agent with significantly lower hemorrhagic risk than ASA. Todays Ther Trends 2001; 19(4): 271–81Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McNeely W, Goa KL. Triflusal. Drugs 1998 Jun; 55(6): 823–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cruz-Fernández JM. Antiplatelet drugs in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes: focus on cyclooxygenase inhibitors. European Heart Journal Suppls 2001 Aug; 3 Suppl. I: 123–30Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Uriach & Cia, SA. Triflusal: summary of product characteristics. Barcelona, Spain. 2003Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De La Cruz JP. Triflusal [commentary]. Drugs 1998 Jun; 55(6): 834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dalla-Volta S. Pharmacological basis of antiplatelet drugs in acute myocardial infarction: focus on triflusal. Eur Heart J Suppls 1999; 1 Suppl. F: F7–11Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    De La Cruz JP, Pavia J, Garcia-Arnes J, et al. Effects of triflusal and acetylsalicylic acid on platelet aggregation in whole blood of diabetic patients. Eur J Haematol 1988; 40: 232–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albors M, de Castellarnau C, Vila L, et al. Inhibition of thromboxane production and platelet function by triflusal in healthy volunteers. Rev Farmacol Clin Exp 1987; 4(1): 11–6Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    De La Cruz JP, Villalobos MA, Garcia PJ, et al. Effects of triflusal and its main metabolite HTB on platelet interaction with subendothelium in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 47: 497–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sánchez de Miguel L, Millás I, Garcia-Durán M, et al. New mechanisims for the antiaggregating platelet effects of triflusal: role of nitric oxide and neutrophils [abstract no. 241]. Eur Heart J 1997; 18 Suppl.: 19Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Miguel LS, Jiménez A, Montón M, et al. A 4-trifluoromethyl derivative of salicylate, triflusal, stimulates nitric oxide production by human neutrophils: role in platelet function. Eur J Clin Invest 2000 Sep; 30(9): 811–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sanchez de Miguel L, Rico L, Jiménez A, et al. Effect of oral triflusal treatment on nitric oxide production and endothelial nitric oxide synthase protein expression in neutrophils from healthy donors [abstract no. P10/10172]. Eur J Heart Fail 2000 Jun; 2 Suppl. 2: 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alvarez-Sabín J, Chacon P, Molina CA, et al. Triflusal is superior to aspirin suppressing the inflammatory response that follows ischemic stroke [abstract no. 24]. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004; 17 Suppl. 5: 109Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Acarin L, González B, Castellano B. Oral administration of the anti-inflammatory substance triflusal results in the downregulation of constitutive transcription factor NF-kappaB in the postnatal rat brain. Neurosci Lett 2000 Jul 7; 288(1): 41–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Acarin L, González B, Castellano B. Triflusal posttreatment inhibits glial nuclear factor-kappaB, downregulates the glial response, and is neuroprotective in an excitotoxic injury model in postnatal brain. Stroke 2001 Oct; 32(10): 2394–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De La Cruz JP, Pavia J, Bellido I, et al. Platelet antiaggregatory effect of triflusal in human whole blood. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 1988; 10: 273–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De La Cruz JP, Mata JM, Sanchez de la Cuesta F. Triflusal versus aspirin on the inhibition of human platelet and vascular cyclooxygenase. Gen Pharmacol 1992; 23(3): 297–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Falco A, Salvati F, Vitacolonna E, et al. Inhibition of thromboxane biosynthesis by triflusal in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Atherosclerosis 2005 Dec; 183(2): 329–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prietro MA, De La Cruz JP, Del Prado MF, et al. Influence of triflusal on platelet activation after coronary artery bypass graft. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2000 Mar; 11: 191–7Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sánchez de Miguel L, Casado S, Farré J, et al. Comparison of in vitro effects of triflusal and acetylsalycylic acid on nitric oxide synthesis by human neutrophils. Eur J Pharmacol 1998; 343: 57–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garcia-Rafanell J, Planas JM, Puig-Parellada P. Comparison of the inhibitory effects of acetylsalicylic acid and triflusal on enzymes related to thrombosis. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 1979; 237(2): 343–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garcia-Rafanell J, Ramis J, Gomez L, et al. Effect of triflusal and other salicylic acid derivatives on cyclic AMP levels in rat platelets. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 1986; 284: 155–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    González-Correa JA, Arrebola MM, Ureña IM, et al. Effects of triflusal on oxidative stress, prostaglandin production and nitric oxide pathway in a model of anoxia-reoxygenation in rat brain slices. Brain Res 2004 Jun 18; 1011(2): 148–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    González-Correa JA, Arrebola MM, Ureña IM, et al. Protective effect of triflusal and its main metabolite HTB in an in vitro model of anoxia-reoxygenation in rat brain slices: comparison with acetylsalicylic and salicylic acids. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 2005 Jan; 371(1): 81–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fernández de Arriba A, Cavalcanti F, Miralles A, et al. Inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 expression by 4-trifluoromethyl derivatives of salicylate, triflusal, and its deacetylated metabolite, 2-hydroxy-4-trifluoromethylbenzoic acid. Mol Pharmacol 1999 Apr; 55(4): 753–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bayón Y, Alonso A, Sánchez Crespo M. 4-trifluoromethyl derivatives of salicylate, triflusal and its main metabolite 2-hydroxy-4-trifluoromethylbenzoic acid, are potent inhibitors of nuclear factor kappaB activation. Br J Pharmacol 1999 Mar; 126(6): 1359–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hernández M, Fernández de Arriba A, Merlos M, et al. Effect of 4-trifluoromethyl derivatives of salicylate on nuclear factor kappaB-dependent transcription in human astrocytoma cells. Br J Pharmacol 2001 Jan; 132(2): 547–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aceves M, Dueñas A, Gómez C, et al. A new pharmacological effect of salicylates: inhibition of NFAT-dependent transcription. J Immunol 2004 Nov 1; 173(9): 5721–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Whitehead SN, Hachinski V, Cechetto DF. Interaction between a rat model of cerebral ischemia and beta-amyloid toxicity: inflammatory responses. Stroke 2005 Jan; 36(1): 107–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Whitehead S, Cheng G, Hachinski V, et al. Interaction between a rat model of cerebral ischemia and beta-amyloid toxicity. II. Effects of triflusal. Stroke 2005 Aug; 36(8): 1782–9Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ramis J, Mis R, Forn J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of triflusal and its main metabolite HTB in healthy subjects following a single oral dose. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 1991; 16(4): 269–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Valle M, Barbanoj MJ, Donner A, et al. Access of HTB, main metabolite of triflusal, to cerebrospinal fluid in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005 Apr; 61(2): 103–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ferrari E, Reboldi G, Marenco P, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of triflusal in elderly subjects after single and repeated oral administration. Am J Ther 1996; 3: 630–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ramis J, Torrent J, Mis R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of triflusal after single and repeated doses in man. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1990; 28(8): 344–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Matias-Guiu J, Ferro JM, Alvarez-Sab’in J, et al. Comparison of triflusal and aspirin for prevention of vascular events in patients after cerebral infarction. The TACIP study: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. Stroke 2003; 34: 840–8Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Matias-Guiu J, Alvarez-Sabín J, Codina A. Comparative study of the effect of low-dosage acetylsalicylic acid and triflusal in the prevention of cardiovascular events among young adults with ishemic cerebrovascular disease [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol 1997; 25(147): 1669–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Smirne S, Ferini-Strambi L, Cucinotta D, et al. Il triflusal nella prevenzione degli accidenti cerebrovascolari. G Gerontol 1995; 43(10): 563–9Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Matias-Guiu J, Alvarez J, Galiano L, et al. The efficacy and safety of low-dose aspirin versus triflusal in the long-term outcome of young stroke patients [abstract no. 636P]. Neurology 1994 Apr; 44 Suppl. 2: A288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Smirne S, Ferini-Strambi L, Cucinotta D, et al. Triflusal and prevention of cerebrovascular attacks: double-blind clinical study vs ASA [abstact no. 53]. J Neurol 1994 Jun; 241: S130Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Costa J, Ferro JM, Matias-Guiu J, et al. Triflusal for preventing serious vascular events in people at high risk (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (3): CD004296Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cruz-Fernández JM, López-Bescós L, Garcia-Dorado D, et al. Randomized comparative trial of triflusal and aspirin following acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2000 Mar; 21(6): 457–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Plaza L, López-Bescós L, Martín-Jadraque L. Protective effect of triflusal against acute myocardial infarction in patients with unstable angina: results of a Spanish multicenter trial. Cardiology 1993; 82(6): 388–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Guiteras P, Altimiras J, Arís A, et al. Prevention of aortocoronary vein-graft attrition with low-dose aspirin and triflusal, both associated with dipyridamole: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Heart J 1989; 10: 159–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Masotti M, Turá A, Crexells C, et al. Antiplatelet agents and their effect on complications during or soon after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. J Int Med Res 1991; 19: 414–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    López Bescós L, O’Callaghan AC, Castro-Beiras A, et al. Incidence of vascular stroke in patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving fibrinolytic treatment. Eur Heart J Suppls 1999; 1 Suppl. F: F19–23Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Garcia-Dorado D, Velasco Rami J, Virgós Lamela A, et al. Interaction between antiplatelet agents and ACE inhibitors in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Suppls 1999; 1 Suppl. F: F24–28Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pérez-Gómez F, Alegría E, Berjón J, et al. Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004 Oct 19; 44(8): 1557–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Darbà J, Izquierdo I, Pontes C, et al. Economic evaluation of triflusal and aspirin in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20(3): 195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    De la Cruz G, Sorio F, Pérez I, et al. Estudio de seguridad del triflusal, en pacientes asmaticos con intolerancia idiosincratica a aspirina y/o AINEs [abstract]. XVIII Congresco Nacional de la Sociedad Espanoloa de Farmacologia Clinica; 2002 Oct 17–19; Navarra. Rev Med Univ Navarra 2002, 14Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lanas A, Serrano P, Bajador E, et al. Risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with non-aspirin cardiovascular drugs, analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003 Feb; 15: 173–8 2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ibañez L, Vidal X, Vendrell L, et al. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with antiplatelet drugs. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 23: 235–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Pontes C, Pérez J, Ríos J, et al. Aspirin but not triflusal increased antihypertensive therapy requirements during long term antiplatelet treatment [abstract no. 304]. Pharmacol Toxicol 2001; 89 Suppl. 1:79Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fernández De Arriba A, Sanchez Crespo M, Cavalcanti F, et al. Comparative effects of triflusal and aspirin on cardiovascular inflammatory mediators upregulated by NF-kB. XXI Congress of the European Society of Cardiology; 1999 Aug 28–Sep1; Barcelona, 303–9Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Perez Gomez F. Triflusal [commentary]. Drugs 1998 Jun; 55(6): 834–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Silber S, Albertsson P, Avilés FF, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions: the Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005 Apr; 26(8): 804–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bayés de Luna A. May aspirin be replaced in the treatment of myocardial infarction? Eur Heart J 2000; 21(6): 430–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, et al. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 494–502Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Diener HC, Cunha L, Forbes C, et al. European Stroke Prevention Study. 2. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci 1996 Nov; 143: 1–13Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cesarone MR, Laurora G, DeSanctis MT, et al. Effects of triflusal on arteriosclerosis progression assessed with high-resolution arterial ultrasound. Angiology 1999 Jun; 50: 455–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Culebras A. GPIIB/IIIA antagonists and triflusal. IJCP 2003 Apr; 136 Suppl.: 11–4Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Tong DC. Can aspirin ever be surpassed for stroke prevention? [editorial]. Stroke 2003; 34(4): 847–8PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adis International LimitedMairangi Bay, AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations