Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With Large Artery Atherosclerosis Stroke Etiology Undergoing Endovascular Therapy

Clinical efficacy of tirofiban in the endovascular therapy of patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to intracranial atherosclerotic disease: A meta-analysis

OBJECT

The treatment results of combination of arterial injection of tirofiban with endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke due to intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) were inconsistent. This meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of ICAD-LVO treatment by intra-arterial injection of tirofiban combined with EVT.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a systematic literature search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, covering articles published from January 2010 to July 2024. The efficacy outcomes assessed in the meta-analysis included favorable functional outcome and recanalization rates. Safety outcomes included mortality and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis consisted of data from 11 studies, which included 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT), 5 prospective cohort studies, and 5 retrospective cohort studies, encompassing a total of 2869 patients. The findings showed that tirofiban+EVT for ICAD-LVO was associated with significant improvements in favorable functional outcomes (RR, 1.12; 95 %CI, 1.04-1.21; P=0.005) and reductions in mortality rates (RR, 0.72; 95 %CI, 0.62-0.83; P<0.0001), despite no significant differences in the incidence of sICH (RR, 0.75; 95 % CI, 0.55-1.02; P=0.07) and recanalization rates (RR, 1.02; 95 % CI, 0.99-1.05; P=0.15). Subgroup analysis showed that the application of tirofiban significantly increased favorable functional outcomes in patients with anterior circulation stroke (RR, 1.23; 95 % CI, 1.06-1.42; P=0.005), but there was no significant difference in posterior circulation stroke (RR, 1.08; 95 % CI, 0.83-1.41; P=0.55). In addition, the use of tirofiban in patients with posterior circulation stroke might reduce the incidence of sICH (RR, 0.50; 95 % CI, 0.26-0.96; P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Tirofiban combined with EVT may be an effective treatment strategy for the treatment of ICAD-LVO, but only for patients with anterior circulation and remains unclear for patients with posterior circulation.

Preoperative and intraoperative tirofiban during endovascular thrombectomy in large vessel occlusion stroke due to large artery atherosclerosis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of preoperative versus intraoperative tirofiban in patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) due to large artery atherosclerosis (LAA).

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study based on the RESCUE-RE (Registration Study for Critical Care of Acute Ischemic Stroke After Recanalization) trial enrolling patients with anterior circulation LVO classified as LAA within 24 h of onset. Patients were divided into three groups: preoperative tirofiban (PT), intraoperative tirofiban (IT), and no tirofiban (NT). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. The efficacy outcomes included 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score = 0-2) and early partial recanalization (EPR; defined as a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score = 1-2a). The safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH).

RESULTS

A total of 104 matched triplets were obtained through PSM. Compared with NT, PT increased 90-day functional independence (60.8% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.008) and EPR (42.7% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001) rate, with a tendency to increase the asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH) proportion (28.8% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.072). Compared with IT, PT had a higher 90-day functional independence (60.8% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.025) and EPR (42.7% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.001) rate, with no significant difference in sICH (14.4% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.122) and aICH (28.8% vs. 21.2%, p = 0.200). Compared with NT, IT had a lower 90-day mortality rate (9.6% vs. 24.0%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban shows good adjuvant therapy potential in acute ischemic stroke-LVO due to LAA patients. PT is associated with higher rates of EPR and better therapeutic efficacy. In addition, EPR may be a potential way to improve prognosis.

Safety and efficacy of tirofiban combined with intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment in acute large vessel occlusion stroke

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the safety and efficacy of tirofiban for patients with large vessel occlusion stroke after intravenous thrombolysis.

METHODS

This study data was from SUSTAIN, DEVT, and RESCUE BT trials. According to whether the use of tirofiban who underwent endovascular treatment and preceding intravenous thrombolysis was divided into the tirofiban group and the no-tirofiban group. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, any intracranial hemorrhage within 48 h, and 3-month mortality. The efficacy outcome was defined as a score of 0-2 on the modified Rankin Scale scores at 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients with intravenous thrombolysis were included in these SUSTAIN, DEVT, and RESCUE BT trials. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that tirofiban with intravenous thrombolysis was not associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aOR, 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.49-1.57; P=0.65), any intracranial hemorrhage within 48 h (aOR, 1.00; 95 % CI, 0.60-1.66; P=1.00), 3-month mortality (aOR, 1.10; 95 % CI, 0.56-2.19; P=0.78) and 3-month modified Rankin Scale scores 0-2 (aOR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.42-1.25; P=0.25) in patients with acute large vessel occlusion. In the subgroup analysis, we found that tirofiban was not recommended for females (aOR, 0.34; 95 % CI, 0.12-0.93), baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score≤9 (aOR, 0.37; 95 % CI, 0.18-0.76), and cardiogenic embolism (aOR, 0.36; 95 % CI, 0.14-0.97).

CONCLUSION

Tirofiban combined with intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute large vessel occlusion may be safe. Further studies need to confirm the effectiveness of tirofiban after intravenous thrombolysis in different stroke etiology.

Safety and efficacy of tirofiban treatment in the endovascular treatment of patients with acute ischaemic stroke - A meta-analysis

OBJECT

The use of endovascular therapy (EVT) has become a widespread strategy for the clinical management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, the combination of arterial injection of tirofiban with EVT for AIS continues to be a subject of controversy. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of this treatment approach.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a systematic literature search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, covering articles published from January 2010 to January 2023. The efficacy outcomes included favorable functional outcomes, recanalization rates, and safety outcomes including mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis consisted of data from 13 studies, which included 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), 7 prospective cohort studies, and 5 retrospective cohort studies, encompassing a total of 3477 patients. The study results indicate that the intra-arterial (IA) tirofiban+EVT for AIS is associated with significant improvements in favorable functional outcomes (OR, 1.21; 95%CI, 1.05-1.40; P = 0.009) and recanalization rate (OR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.06-1.65; P = 0.01), as well as significant reductions in mortality rates (OR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.53-0.79; P = 0.0001). Subgroup analysis revealed that administering a maintenance dose of intravenous (IV) tirofiban post-EVT was significantly associated with improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality in patients. In addition, there was no increase in the incidence of sICH (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.71-1.20; P = 0.54).

CONCLUSION

The administration of Intra-arterial tirofiban combined with EVT is an effective and safe treatment strategy for AIS, and postoperative maintenance doses of intravenous tirofiban may be more effective than IA only.

The safety and efficacy of intra-arterial low-dose tirofiban administration during endovascular therapy in patients with large ischemic core volume

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intra-arterial (IA) administration of low- dose tirofiban during endovascular therapy in patients with large ischemic core volumes on initial brain CT. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of IA tirofiban. We identified 87 patients (16 and 71 patients in the tirofiban and no-tirofiban groups, respectively) with acute ischemic stroke due to intracranial artery occlusion who underwent endovascular therapy with a low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT scores (2-5). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed no association between IA tirofiban administration and serious postprocedural hemorrhagic complications (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.720; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.099-5.219; p = 0.960), any radiologic hemorrhage (aOR 0.076; 95% CI 0.003-2.323; p = 0.139), or 3-month mortality (aOR, 0.087; 95% CI 0.005-1.501; p = 0.093). However, IA tirofiban was associated with a lower 90-day mRS score (aOR, 0.197; 95% CI 0.015-1.306; p = 0.017) and change of NIHSS compared with baseline (aOR, 0.698; 95% CI 0.531-0.917; p = 0.010). IA tirofiban administration during endovascular therapy in patients with large ischemic core volumes may be effective and safe.

Efficacy and safety of tirofiban combined with endovascular therapy for basilar artery occlusion stroke due to large artery atherosclerosis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant tirofiban in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion due to large-artery atherosclerotic (LAA) receiving endovascular therapy (EVT).

METHODS

This was a non-randomized, multicenter study using data from the Endovascular Treatment for Acute BASILAR Artery Occlusion (BASILAR) registry. Patients with acute basilar artery occlusion due to LAA within 24h of symptom onset who underwent EVT were included. Patients were divided into tirofiban and non-tirofiban groups according to whether tirofiban was used. The primary outcome was the ordinal modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. Safety outcomes were mortality within 90 days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 48 h.

RESULTS

A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 275 patients were in the tirofiban group and 142 patients in the non-tirofiban group. Compared with patients in the non-tirofiban group, patients in the tirofiban group were associated with a favorable shift in functional outcome at 90 days (6[4-6] vs 5 [2-6]; adjusted common OR, 2.51; 95 % CI, 1.64-3.83). The mortality was lower in the tirofiban group than the non-tirofiban group (40.7 % vs 58.5 %; adjusted OR, 0.35; 95 % CI, 0.21-0.56). The rate of sICH was 12.2 % in the non-tirofiban group and 5.2 % in the tirofiban group (adjusted OR, 0.37; 95 % CI, 0.17-0.80; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Tirofiban plus EVT might improve functional outcomes with a good safety for patients with acute basilar artery occlusion due to LAA. The results need to be confirmed in a randomized trial.

The Efficacy and Safety of Tirofiban Use in Endovascular Thrombectomy for Intravenous Thrombolysis Applicable Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke-a Post Hoc Analysis from the Direct-MT Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tirofiban use in endovascular thrombectomy for intravenous thrombolysis applicable patients of large vessel occlusion stroke with data from Direct-MT trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Direct-MT was the first randomized controlled trial to prove the non-inferiority of thrombectomy alone to bridging therapy (intravenous thrombolysis before thrombectomy) for large vessel occlusion stroke. Patients who underwent endovascular procedure were included and divided into thrombectomy-alone group and bridging therapy group. The effect of tirofiban use on 90 days MRS distribution, MRS 0-2 and mortality, successful reperfusion, the ASPECTS and outcome lesion volume of index stroke, re-occlusion of the treated vessel, futile recanalization and safety outcomes were further evaluated in both groups after adjustment for relevant confounding factors. The interaction between tirofiban and rt-PA was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 639 patients included in this analysis, 180 patients underwent thrombectomy with tirofiban use (28.2%). Patients with tirofiban use had lower percentage of bridging therapy (41.1% vs 54.3%, P = 0.003), higher proportion of large artery atherosclerosis (P < 0.001) and more emergent stenting (30.56% vs 6.97%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for confounding factors, the 90-day modified Rankin Scale distribution, successful final recanalization rate, outcome lesion volume of index stroke on CT and intracranial hemorrhage risk showed no difference after tirofiban use in thrombectomy-alone group and in bridging therapy group. No interaction effect between tirofiban and rt-PA was detected.

CONCLUSION

Based on data from Direct-MT trial, tirofiban is a safe medication for intravenous thrombolysis applicable patients with large vessel occlusion stroke undergoing thrombectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3, cohort study of randomized trial.

Subtyping treatment response of tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke based on neuroimaging features

In a previously published clinical trial, we demonstrated that tirofiban was effective and safe in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients who did not undergo early recanalization treatments. We aimed to evaluate neuroimaging characteristics and their clinical significance to guide tirofiban treatment. In this post hoc analysis, location of infarcts (anterior circulation stroke [ACS] vs. posterior circulation stroke [PCS]), degree of cerebral artery stenosis (≤69% vs. ≥70% or occlusion), total infarct volume, and ASPECTS were used to predict the treatment effects of tirofiban, defined as the proportions of excellent and favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score of 0-1, 0-2) at 90 days. ACS patients were more likely to achieve excellent (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.25-3.45; p = 0.004) and favorable functional outcome (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.24-4.22; p = 0.008) when treated with tirofiban. However, there was no significant difference in PCS patients between tirofiban and the control group. For patients with severe stenosis (≥70% or occlusion), tirofiban treatment improved the proportion of good outcomes (OR 2.84; 95% CI 1.44-5.60; p = 0.002 for mRS 0-1; OR 2.42; 95% CI 1.22-4.77; p = 0.011 for mRS 0-2). Meanwhile, we found that tirofiban improved outcome in patients with ASPECTS 8-10 and was independent of total infarct volume. These findings support the hypothesis that patients with ACS and severe stenosis may be recommended for tirofiban treatment, which can be predicted independent of total infarct volume.

Efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy: A frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tirofiban is an antiplatelet treatment approved for acute coronary syndrome, but it has not been rigorously evaluated for efficacy and safety in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT).

METHODS

Electronic databases were systematically searched for studies conducted from January 1, 2015, to July 31, 2021, that evaluated tirofiban administration for patients with AIS treated with EVT in comparison with control. Risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for favorable functional outcomes (FFOs), mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), each 90 days after AIS. Bayesian hierarchical modeling was performed to obtain posterior RR and its 95% highest posterior density (HPD) for validation.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, tirofiban users exhibited increased FFOs (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30), decreased mortality (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92), and no difference in SICH (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.23). Tirofiban users in the postbolus infusion subgroup exhibited increased FFOs (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.35), decreased mortality (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.88), and no increase in SICH (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.72-1.29). The bolus-only subgroup showed no differences in FFO, mortality, or SICH between the tirofiban and control groups. Consistent results were obtained for posterior density of FFO (posterior RR, 1.20; 95% HPD, 1.06-1.34), mortality (posterior RR, 0.77; 95% HPD, 0.63-0.92), and SICH (posterior RR, 0.98; 95% HPD, 0.71-1.26).

CONCLUSION

For patients with AIS treated with EVT, tirofiban improved FFOs, decreased mortality, and did not increase SICH compared with controls; postbolus infusion for administering tirofiban was more favored than the bolus-only regimen.

Tirofiban-induced thrombocytopenia

Tirofiban is a small non-peptide ligand-mimetic Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor which can reversibly bind to the arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) recognition site of GP IIb/IIIa to prevent platelet aggregation. It reduces the incidence of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Although generally considered safe, tirofiban has been reported to be associated with thrombocytopenia in several case reports and clinical trials. The pathogenesis for this adverse reaction is not entirely understood, is thought to be due to immune-mediated reaction. This side effect caused by tirofiban is especially concerning given how frequently it is used in the practice of contemporary cardiovascular care. The present review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, management, and risk factors associated with tirofiban-induced thrombocytopenia.

Anticoagulation Options for Cranial Procedures: A Comparative Review of Aspirin, Plavix, and Aggrastat

Anticoagulation therapy is critical to avoiding thrombotic events in patients following cranial surgery. Although Aspirin, Plavix, and Aggrastat are used as anticoagulants for this purpose, there is no consensus on which agent is the most effective and safe. In this comparative study, we analyze the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of these three anticoagulants in the context of cranial surgeries. This review focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of each anticoagulant, such as its pharmacokinetics, indications, contraindications, and possible consequences. The outcomes of this study will help physicians choose the best anticoagulant for their patients based on individual patient characteristics and the kind of cranial procedure. Aggrastat's potential to be included as a recommended anticoagulant for cranial procedures warrants further study.

Rescue therapy after thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion due to underlying atherosclerosis: review of literature

In this review article, we summarized the current advances in rescue management for reperfusion therapy of acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion due to underlying intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS). It is estimated that 24-47% of patients with acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion have underlying ICAS and superimposed in situ thrombosis. These patients have been found to have longer procedure times, lower recanalization rates, higher rates of reocclusion and lower rates of favorable outcomes than patients with embolic occlusion. Here, we discuss the most recent literature regarding the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, angioplasty alone, or angioplasty with stenting for rescue therapy in the setting of failed recanalization or instant/imminent reocclusion during thrombectomy. We also present a case of rescue therapy post intravenous tPA and thrombectomy with intra-arterial tirofiban and balloon angioplasty followed by oral dual antiplatelet therapy in a patient with dominant vertebral artery occlusion due to ICAS. Based on the available literature data, we conclude that glycoprotein IIb/IIIa is a reasonably safe and effective rescue therapy for patients who have had a failed thrombectomy or have residual severe intracranial stenosis. Balloon angioplasty and/or stenting may be helpful as a rescue treatment for patients who have had a failed thrombectomy or are at risk of reocclusion. The effectiveness of immediate stenting for residual stenosis after successful thrombectomy is still uncertain. Rescue therapy does not appear to increase the risk of sICH. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to prove the efficacy of rescue therapy.

Angioplasty, stenting, or both - rescue maneuvers and reperfusion after endovascular therapy for intracranial atherosclerosis-related occlusion

PURPOSE

Data concerning reperfusion strategies of intracranial atherosclerosis-related occlusion (ICARO) and clinico-angiographic outcomes remain scarce, particularly in Caucasians. We aim to compare the reperfusion rate and functional outcome between reperfusion strategies in the setting of the ICARO.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) registries at three high-volume stroke centers were retrospectively analyzed for consecutive ICARO patients from January 2015 to December 2019. We defined ICARO as any fixed high-degree (> 70%) focal narrowing or stenosis of any degree with a perpetual tendency for reocclusion. We categorized reperfusion strategies into four groups: EVT [group 1], balloon angioplasty [(BAp), group 2], placement of self-expandable stents [(SES), group 3], and BAp combined with implantation of SES; or direct placement of balloon mounted stents (BMS) [(BAp-SES/BMS), group 4]. We evaluated the association with the successful reperfusion [mTICI 2b - 3] and favorable outcome [mRS 0-2] with logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 2550 EVT, 124 patients (median age, 70 (61-80) years; 76 men) with ICARO and 130 reperfusion attempts [36 EVT, 38 BAp, 17 SES, and 39 BAp + SES/BMS] were analyzed. SES implantation showed the highest frequency of post-procedural symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage [(18%, 3/17), p = .03]; however, we observed no significant differences in the mortality rate. Overall, we achieved successful reperfusion in 71% (92/130) and favorable outcomes in 42% (52/124) of the patients. BAp + SES/BMS was the only independent predictor of the final successful reperfusion [aOR, 4.488 (95% CI, 1.364-14.773); p = .01], which was significantly associated with the 90-day favorable outcome [aOR, 10.837 (95% CI, 3.609-32.541); p =  < .001] after adjustment for confounding variables between the reperfusion strategies.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with ICARO, the rescue angioplasty stenting effectively contributed to higher odds of successful reperfusion with no increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage.

Effects of Antecedent Intravenous Thrombolysis on Endovascular Treatment of Acute Stroke Using Tirofiban

PURPOSE

To investigate whether preceding intravenous thrombolysis combined with tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular treatment is safe and effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive data were identified for patients who experienced acute ischemic stroke and were admitted to 2 comprehensive stroke centers from January 2015 to August 2021. All patients were divided into 2 groups-a thrombolytic with tirofiban group and a tirofiban-alone group-on the basis of whether intravenous thrombolysis before emergency endovascular angioplasty was used. Multivariate regression and propensity adjustment analyses were performed to characterize differences in safety and clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Of 373 eligible patients, 111 (29.7%) were treated with thrombolysis with tirofiban. There was a significant difference in the rate of any intracerebral hemorrhage (35.1% vs 24.8%; P = .04) but not in the rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (16.2% vs 11.5%; P = .23) and reocclusion at 24 hours (5.4% vs 7.6%; P = .51) between the 2 groups. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that intravenous thrombolysis was not associated with any or symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, artery occlusion, functional outcome, or death at the 3-month follow-up (all adjusted P > .05). After propensity adjustment, the thrombolytic with tirofiban group showed nonsignificant rates of clinical and safety outcomes compared with those of the tirofiban-alone group (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban may be used without increasing the risk of adverse events in selected patients who experienced ischemic stroke and were treated with intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular therapy.

Tirofiban for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Intravenous Thrombolysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Tirofiban has been used as a rescue when thrombectomy is not successful in endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS), but the use of tirofiban after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban combined with IVT in AIS compared with not receiving tirofiban.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for all relevant studies published up to August 31, 2021. The safety endpoints included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and mortality. The efficacy endpoint was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at the 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Seven articles (1,036 patients) were included. Of these, 444 patients received tirofiban, and 592 patients did not. Meta-analysis showed that tirofiban did not increase the risk of sICH (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.50-1.93; p = 0.96), any ICH (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63-1.39; p = 0.75) or mortality (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.39-1.15; p = 0.15) and tended to be associated with a favorable functional outcome (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.99-1.78; p = 0.06) in patients with AIS. Subgroup analysis showed that bridging therapy combined with tirofiban could reduce mortality (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23-0.98; p = 0.04). Tirofiban significantly improved the favorable functional outcome in patients with IVT only (non-EVT) (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.30-3.02; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous tirofiban could be safe for patients with AIS undergoing IVT, regardless of receiving EVT. Intravenous tirofiban may reduce mortality rates for patients undergoing bridging therapy. It also could increase the likelihood of a favorable functional outcome, especially for patients receiving IVT only.

Comparison of predictors of failure of early neurological improvement after successful endovascular treatment for posterior and anterior circulation large vessel occlusion: Data from ANGEL-ACT registry

PURPOSE

To identify and compare the predictors of failure of early neurological improvement (fENI)after successful EVT for anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (ACLVO) and posterior circulation LVO (PCLVO).

METHODS

Subjects were selected from the ANGEL-ACT registry. fENI was defined as unchanged or worsened in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (NIHSS) between admission and 24 h after EVT. Predictors of fENI after successful EVT (mTICI 2b-3) were determined via center-adjusted analyses. Univariable and multivariable comparisons between ACLVO and PCLVO were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1447 patients, 1128 were with ACLVO, and 319 were with PCLVO. Among the patients with ACLVO, there were 409 patients (36.3%) with fENI and 719 patients (63.7%) with ENI. We observed that pre-stroke mRS scale score of 2 (odd ratio[OR] 95% confidence interval[CI], 6.93[1.99-24.10], P = 0.002), initial NIHSS score (OR per point[95%CI], 0.97[0.95-0.99], P = 0.012), diabetes (OR[95%CI], 1.56[1.08-2.25], P = 0.017), previous ICH (OR[95%CI] 9.21[1.76-48.15], P = 0.008), local anesthesia (OR[95%CI] 1.63[1.10-2.42], P = 0.014), onset-to-puncture time (OR[95%CI], 1.001[1.000-1.001], P = 0.009), symptomatic ICH (OR[95%CI] 3.90[2.27-6.69], P < 0.001), and continued use of tirofiban within 2 h after EVT (OR[95%CI], 0.69[0.51-0.93], P = 0.014) were independent predictors of fENI of ACLVO after EVT. Among the patients with PCLVO, there were 112 patients (35.1%) with fENI and 207 patients (64.9%) with ENI. In contrast, admission SBP (OR[95%CI], 0.98[0.97-0.99], P = 0.012), and vascular dissection within 2 h after EVT (OR[95%CI], 7.23[1.33-39.13], P = 0.022) were independent predictors of fENI of PCLVO after EVT.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, successful EVT can lead to similar outcomes in PCLVO and ACLVO. Some predictors of fENI in both anterior circulation and posterior circulation were identified in our study, which should be highly considered in the clinical practice in LVO patients undergoing EVT.

Prospective pilot study of tirofiban in progressive stroke after intravenous thrombolysis

Background

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is a standard procedure for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Improving the therapeutic efficacy of IVT is an important task for neurologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early low-dose tirofiban treatment in AIS patients with early neurological deterioration (END) after IVT.

Methods

In this prospective and randomized pilot study, 73 AIS patients with END were recruited from a local hospital in China. Of these, 14 patients were treated with regular antiplatelet agents (aspirin plus clopidogrel) and 59 patients were treated with tirofiban within 24 h of IVT, followed by regular antiplatelet therapy. Neurological deficits and functional recovery were assessed with NIHSS and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 7 and 90 days. During the 90-day follow-up period, both hemorrhagic (e.g., intracerebral hemorrhage) and non-hemorrhagic (e.g., pneumonia) events were recorded.

Results

Treatment with tirofiban compared with regular antiplatelet therapy: (1) improved functional recovery of AIS patients to mRS (≤2) at both 7 and 90 days (odds ratios [ORs], 1.37 and 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–1.61 and 1.26–2.12; P = 0.008 and < 0.001, respectively), and (2) reduced NIHSS scores from 11.14 ± 2.38 to 5.95 ± 3.48 at day 7 (P < 0.001) and from 8.14 ± 2.74 to 4.08 ± 3.50 at day 90 (P < 0.001). Tirofiban treatment did not increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications. Multivariate regression analysis showed that tirofiban treatment independently predicted a favorable functional outcome (P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion

Early treatment with low-dose tirofiban in AIS patients with neurologic deterioration after IVT potentially improved functional recovery and attenuated neurologic deficits as early as 7 days and did not increase the risk of various hemorrhagic complications. However, the therapeutic efficacy of tirofiban treatment in END patients needs to be determined by future randomized clinical trials with a large study population.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn/, Identifier ChiCTR2200058513.

Continuous intravenous tirofiban can improve the 90-day functional outcome and decrease 90-day mortality without increasing bleeding risk in acute ischemic stroke patients treated by endovascular therapy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of continuous intravenous administration of tirofiban in endovascular therapy is still unclear. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the 90-day functional prognosis in acute ischemic stroke patients (AIS) treated by endovascular treatment and intravenous administration of tirofiban.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases with the subject terms "tirofiban", "brain ischemia", and some related free words. Inclusion criteria were: (1) cohort study or randomized control trials; (2) AIS patients who received endovascular therapy; (3) the intervention or exposure was intravenous tirofiban monotherapy or combined with intra-arterial tirofiban; (4) containing data on modified Rankin Scale at 90 days and including at least one of the following indicators: mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and recanalization. A summary odds ratio was calculated.

RESULTS

Twelve eligible studies, consisting of 3268 AIS participants, were identified. There was a significant trend of favorable outcomes (measured by mRS at three months) in the tirofiban group (ORs = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.09-1.70). In addition, compared with the non-tirofiban group, intravenous tirofiban was significantly associated with decreased risk of 90-day mortality (ORs = 0.73; 95% CI:0.59-0.89) and increased recanalization rate (ORs = 1.50; 95% CI:1.08-2.09) but no significant difference in rates of sICH (ORs = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.70-1.24) or ICH (ORs = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.62-1.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous tirofiban appears to be safe and effective when used following intra-arterial tirofiban or as monotherapy in AIS patients treated by endovascular therapy, which can improve the 90-day functional outcome, decrease the 90-day mortality and increase the possibility of early recanalization without increasing rates of sICH and ICH.

Efficacy outcomes and safety measures of intravenous tirofiban or eptifibatide for patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

To review the literature for randomized control trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies investigating the safety and efficacy of tirofiban and eptifibatide in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for available papers published up to September 2021. The efficacy was evaluated based on the 3-month favorable outcome [modified Rankin scale (mRS) = 0-1], functional outcome (mRS = 0-2), and the last available National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score measured in each study. Twelve studies (two RCTs and 10 prospective cohorts) and 2926 patients were included. Treatment with tirofiban or eptifibatide had no effects on the favorable outcome (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.89-1.35, P = 0.411), functional outcome (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.28, P = 0.010), and last available NIHSS (WMD = - 2.32, 95% CI - 5.14 to 0.50, P = 0.106), but might increase mortality (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, P = 0.121). The sensitivity analyses showed that the meta-analyses were robust. There was no significant publication bias. Tirofiban did not increase the risk of ICH (P = 0. 423) and sICH (P = 0. 990) but increased the risk of fatal ICH (RR = 3.59, 95% CI 1.62-7.96, P = 0.002). Thrombolysis/thrombectomy did not influence any of the outcomes. Adding tirofiban or eptifibatide to thrombolysis/thrombectomy was not significantly associated with a favorable outcome (mRS = 0-1) nor functional outcome (mRS = 0-2) in patients with AIS at 3 months, but might be associated with mortality, possibly due to fatal ICH. The NIHSS was also not significantly different between the intervention and control groups after treatments.