Safety and Efficacy of Low-Dose Tirofiban Combined With Intravenous Thrombolysis and Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Matched-Control Analysis From a Nationwide Registry

Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in ischemic stroke patients without endovascular therapy: A meta-analysis

Platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa antagonists have been employed in selective patients after endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS), yet application in patients without EVT is debated. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on AIS patients without EVT assessed the effectiveness and safety of platelet GP IIb/IIIa antagonists compared with traditional antiplatelet or thrombolysis therapy. Articles were retrieved from databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane. The risk of bias and certainty level of evidence were assessed. Fifteen studies were included. GP IIb/IIIa antagonists increased the proportion of patients with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-1 (odd ratio [OR] 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.81, p = 0.03), mRS 0-2 (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12-1.46, p = 0.0004), and Barthel Index (BI) 95-100 (OR 1.25, p = 0.005); decreased the proportion of stroke progression within 5 days (OR 0.66, p = 0.006); and lowered the mean mRS score at 90 days (mean difference [MD] -0.43, p = 0.002) and the National Institute of Health stroke scale score at 7 days (MD -1.64, p < 0.00001) compared with conventional treatment. Proportions of stroke recurrence within 90 days (OR 1.20, p = 0.60), any intracranial hemorrhage (aICH) (OR 1.20, p = 0.12), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.91, p = 0.88), and death (OR 0.87, p = 0.25) had no statistical difference between both groups. This meta-analysis finds that compared with traditional antiplatelet or thrombolysis therapy, GP IIb/IIIa antagonists administered within 24-96 h of ischemic stroke onset significantly improve functional prognosis of patients with AIS not receiving EVT, as indicated by mRS and BI at 90 days, and do not increase the incidence of aICH, sICH, and death.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of adjunctive use of tirofiban in patients treated with endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke at different embolic sites

BACKGROUND

The use of tirofiban as an adjunct to endovascular therapy (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke has been controversial. We aimed to assess the differences in safety and efficacy of EVT adjuvant to tirofiban in patients with anterior circulation stroke (ACS) and posterior circulation stroke (PCS).

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that compared treatment with tirofiban combined with EVT and EVT alone were included in our meta-analysis. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and 3-month mortality. The efficacy outcomes were good functional outcome, excellent functional outcome, and successful recanalization (mTICI ≥ 2b). We performed subgroup analyses of anterior and posterior circulation strokes.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 4608 patients. For safety outcomes, tirofiban significantly reduced 3-month mortality in the ACS subgroup (odd ratio [OR] = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65-0.98, P = .03) without increasing the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.88-1.44, P = .35). In the PCS subgroup, tirofiban significantly reduced 3-month mortality (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.50-0.80, P = .0001) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.95, P = .03). For efficacy outcomes, in the ACS subgroup, tirofiban significantly improved good functional outcome (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.06-1.45, P = .008) but did not improve recanalization (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.93-1.47, P = .17) and excellent functional outcome (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.97-1.46, P = .10). In the PCS subgroup, tirofiban significantly improved recanalization rate (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.43-2.65, P < .0001) and did not improve good functional outcome (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.81-1.30, P = .81) and excellent functional outcome (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.58-1.20, P = .34).

CONCLUSION

In acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing EVT, tirofiban improves good functional outcomes in ACS patients and increases recanalization rates in PCS patients on the 1 hand, reduces mortality, and does not increase the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage on the other. Tirofiban is safe and effective in both anterior circulation stroke and posterior circulation stroke patients undergoing EVT. More large multicentre randomized controlled studies are needed in the future.

Conservative versus aggressive antiplatelet strategy for emergent carotid stenting during stroke thrombectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding optimal antiplatelet regimen for emergent carotid stenting during stroke thrombectomy. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of an aggressive periprocedural antiplatelet strategy focused on preserving stent patency, in comparison with conservative antiplatelet strategy consisting of aspirin monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database in a comprehensive stroke center, including all cases of emergent carotid stenting for tandem lesions stroke between 01.03.2012-01.06.2021. Aggressive antiplatelet strategy consisted of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel loading doses, with added intravenous (IV) tirofiban if in-stent thrombosis was observed during thrombectomy. Clinical and radiological outcomes were compared between conservative and aggressive antiplatelet treatment groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis based on propensity scores.

RESULTS

We included 132 cases (76.5% atheroma, 22.7% dissection, 0.7% carotid web). Forty-five patients (34%) cases received conservative antiplatelet therapy. The remaining 87 (65.9%) received aggressive antiplatelet therapy: 66 (75.8%) treated with DAPT, 21 (24.1%) with DAPT and tirofiban. Periprocedural heparin was avoided in all cases. In adjusted analysis of the weighted samples, aggressive antiplatelet strategy was associated with improved carotid stent patency (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.80, p = 0.021), higher proportion of moderate clinical outcome (mRS ≤ 3, aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.01-7.30, p = 0.04), with no significant differences in mortality and hemorrhagic transformation (HT) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, aggressive periprocedural antiplatelet strategy led to improved stent patency and clinical outcomes, without increased HT. Further prospective randomized research is warranted to identify the optimal combination of antiplatelet agents for emergent carotid stenting in the setting of acute stroke.

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.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical thrombectomy is now widely used in acute ischaemic stroke, but its adjunctive antiplatelet aggregation regimen is controversial. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) who underwent mechanical thrombectomy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science. Randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing the tirofiban group and non-tirofiban group (control group) in patients with AIS who underwent mechanical thrombectomy. The primary safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), 3-month mortality, and re-occlusion rate. The primary efficacy outcomes were good functional outcome (mRS 0-2), excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1), and successful recanalization (mTICI≥2b).

RESULTS

We included 22 studies with a total of 6062 patients. For safety outcomes, the tirofiban group had a non-significantly higher rate of sICH (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.73-1.10, P = 0.29) and a significantly lower rate of re-occlusion (OR = 0.40, 95 % CI = 0.19-0.82, P = 0.01) and 3-month mortality (OR = 0.71, 95 % CI = 0.61-0.82, P < 0.00001) compared to the control group. In terms of efficacy outcomes, significant improvement in good functional outcomes (mRS 0-2) (OR = 1.24, 95 % CI = 1.11-1.39, P = 0.0002) and recanalization rate (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.17-1.62, P = 0.0001) compared to tirofiban, but not significant improvement in excellent functional outcomes(OR = 1.14, 95 % CI = 0.93-1.39, P = 0.21). In addition, compared with cardiogenic stroke, the large atherosclerotic stroke had a higher rate of good functional outcome (OR = 1.58, 95 % CI = 1.18-2.11, P = 0.002) and a lower rate of 3-month mortality (OR = 0.58, 95 % CI = 0.39-0.85, P = 0.005). Subgroup analysis by route of administration showed a significant improvement in good functional outcome in the intravenous group (OR = 1.27, 95 % CI = 1.08-1.50, P = 0.004), while no significant difference was found between the arterial and arteriovenous groups.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with tirofiban in patients with AIS with mechanical thrombectomy is effective in improving functional prognosis, arterial recanalization rates, and reducing 3-month mortality and re-occlusion rates, particularly in patients with large atherosclerotic stroke, without increasing the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Intravenous administration of tirofiban significantly improves the clinical prognosis compared to arterial administration. Tirofiban is effective and safe in patients with AIS.

Adjusted horizontal stacked bar graphs (“Grotta bars”) for consistent presentation of observational stroke study results

Background:

Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores are used to measure functional outcomes after stroke. Researchers create horizontal stacked bar graphs (nicknamed “Grotta bars”) to illustrate distributional differences in scores between groups. In well-conducted randomized controlled trials, Grotta bars have a causal interpretation. However, the common practice of exclusively presenting unadjusted Grotta bars in observational studies can be misleading in the presence of confounding. We demonstrated this problem and a possible solution using an empirical comparison of 3-month mRS scores among stroke/TIA patients discharged home versus elsewhere after hospitalization.

Patients and methods:

Using data from the Berlin-based B-SPATIAL registry, we estimated the probability of being discharged home conditional on prespecified measured confounding factors and generated stabilized inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weights for each patient. We visualized mRS distributions by group with Grotta bars for the IPT-weighted population in which measured confounding was removed. We then used ordinal logistic regression to quantify unadjusted and adjusted associations between being discharged home and the 3-month mRS score.

Results:

Of 3184 eligible patients, 2537 (79.7%) were discharged home. In the unadjusted analyses, those discharged home had considerably lower mRS compared with patients discharged elsewhere (common odds ratio, cOR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.11–0.15). After removing measured confounding, we obtained substantially different mRS distributions, visually apparent in the adjusted Grotta bars. No statistically significant association was found after confounding adjustment (cOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.60–1.12).

Discussion and conclusion:

The practice of presenting only unadjusted stacked bar graphs for mRS scores together with adjusted effect estimates in observational studies can be misleading. IPT weighting can be implemented to create Grotta bars that account for measured confounding, which are more consistent with the presentation of adjusted results in observational studies.

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.

Association of Intravenous Tirofiban with Functional Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Receiving Endovascular Thrombectomy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that intravenous tirofiban improves functional outcomes without promoting the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in stroke secondary to basilar artery occlusion (BAO) receiving endovascular thrombectomy.

METHODS

Patients with acute BAO stroke who were treated with endovascular thrombectomy and had tirofiban treatment information were derived from "BASILAR": a nationwide, prospective registry. All eligible patients were divided into tirofiban and no-tirofiban groups according to whether tirofiban was used intravenously. The primary endpoint was the 90-day severity of disability as assessed by the modified Rankin scale score. Safety outcomes were the frequency of ICH and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 645 patients included in this cohort, 363 were in the tirofiban group and 282 were in the no-tirofiban group. Thrombectomy with intravenous tirofiban reduced the 90-day disability level over the range of the modified Rankin scale (adjusted common odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.45-2.97; p < 0.001). The 90-day mortality of patients in the tirofiban group was lower than that in the no-tirofiban group (41.6% vs. 52.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.77; p < 0.001). The frequency of any ICH (6.7% vs. 13.7%; p = 0.004) and symptomatic ICH (4.8% vs. 10.1%; p = 0.01) in the tirofiban group was significantly lower than that in the no-tirofiban group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute BAO stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, intravenous tirofiban might be associated with favorable outcome, reduced mortality, and a decreased frequency of ICH.

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.

Early tirofiban administration for patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis or bridging therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety of tirofiban administered in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with or without mechanical thrombectomy (MT).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials and observational studies published between 2001 and 2021 that provided outcomes of AIS patients who underwent IVT alone or IVT bridging with or without tirofiban. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 90 days. The secondary outcomes included the rates of (1) an excellent outcome defined as a mRS score of 0 or 1 at 90 days, (2) any type of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), (3) symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), (4) mortality, and (5) successful recanalization.

RESULTS

We included 722 patients with IVT bridging therapy in 3 trials; there were 171 patients in the tirofiban group and 551 patients in the nontirofiban group. We included 846 patients with IVT alone in 7 studies; there were 471 patients in the tirofiban group and 375 patients in the nontirofiban group. The patients treated with tirofiban had a reduced risk of mortality compared to the patients treated without tirofiban during IVT bridging (OR, 0.46; 95 % CI, 0.24-0.89; p = 0.02), but no significant differences were found in safety outcomes on sICH, ICH, recanalization or efficacy outcomes on modified Rankin scale 0-2 (p > 0.05). Pooled results showed that tirofiban combined with IVT alone did not increase the risks of sICH, ICH or mortality but was significantly associated with excellent (OR, 2.68; 95 % CI, 1.58-4.55; P = 0.0003) and favorable (OR, 2.36; 95 % CI, 1.58-3.52; p < 0.0001) functional outcomes at 90 days.

CONCLUSION

In AIS patients who underwent IVT or bridging therapy, early administration of tirofiban may be effective and safe, but further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy.

Safety and efficacy of different tirofiban administration routes on acute ischemic stroke patients with successful recanalization: A propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effect of different administration routes of a low dose of tirofiban on acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with successful recanalization after endovascular treatment (EVT).

METHODS

This is a cohort study that retrospectively analyzed data of patients with AIS who underwent EVT and achieved successful recanalization from a prospective registry. Eligible patients were divided into three groups according to their use of tirofiban. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline bias. Safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and symptomatic ICH (sICH). Efficacy outcomes included arterial reocclusion, in-hospital mortality, 3-month mortality, and 3-month functional outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 821 patients with 306 in the no tirofiban group, 202 in the IA + IV tirofiban group, and 313 in the IV tirofiban group. After PSM, each group included 101 patients with balanced baseline characteristics. There was no difference between the IV tirofiban group and the no tirofiban group in terms of safety and efficacy outcomes (all p > 0.05). Compared with no tirofiban, IA + IV tirofiban group did not increase ICH (30.7% vs. 37.6%, p > 0.05) and sICH (6.9% vs. 17.8%, p > 0.05) whereas reduced 3-month mortality (14.3% vs. 28.7%, p < 0.05) and improved 3-month modified Rankin Scale (median 3 vs. 4, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A low dose of tirofiban, regardless of their administration routes, was safe for AIS patients who achieved successful recanalization with EVT, whereas only IA + IV tirofiban improved clinical outcomes.

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban During Intravenous Thrombolysis Bridging to Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The safety and efficacy of tirofiban in intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) bridging to mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is unknown. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in IVT bridging to mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (case-control studies and cohort studies) comparing the tirofiban and non-tirofiban groups in AIS intravenous thrombolysis bridging to mechanical thrombectomy (Published by November 20, 2021). Our primary safety endpoints were symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage (sICH), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), postoperative re-occlusion, and 3-month mortality; the efficacy endpoints were 3-month favorable functional outcome (MRS ≤ 2) and successful recanalization rate (modified thrombolytic therapy in cerebral infarction (mTICI) 2b or 3).

Results

A total of 7 studies with 1,176 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A comprehensive analysis of the included literature showed that the difference between the tirofiban and non-tirofiban groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR = 1.19, 95% Cl [0.69, 2.03], p = 0.53, I² = 22%) and favorable functional outcome at 3 months (OR = 1.13, 95% Cl [0.81, 1.60], p = 0.47, I² = 17%) in patients with IVT bridging mechanical thrombectomy of AIS was not statistically significant. Also, the differences in the incidence of sICH (OR = 0.97, 95% Cl [0.58, 1.62], p = 0.89) and ICH (OR = 0.83, 95% Cl [0.55, 1.24], p = 0.36) between the two groups were not statistically significant. However, the use of tirofiban during IVT bridging mechanical thrombectomy reduced the rate of postoperative re-occlusion (OR = 0.36, 95% Cl [0.14, 0.91], p = 0.03) and mortality within 3 months (OR = 0.54, 95% Cl [0.33, 0.87], p = 0.01) in patients.

Conclusion

The use of tirofiban during IVT bridging mechanical thrombectomy for AIS does not increase the risk of sICH and ICH in patients and reduces the risk of postoperative re-occlusion and mortality in patients within 3 months. However, this result needs to be further confirmed by additional large-sample, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials.

Systematic Review Registration

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022297441.

A comparison between different endovascular treatment strategies for acute large vessel occlusion due to intracranial artery atherosclerosis: data from ANGEL-ACT Registry

PURPOSE

The aim of our study is to compare the characteristics and clinical outcomes among the different endovascular treatment (EVT) strategies for large vessel occlusion underlying intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS-LVO) in a recent nationwide registry.

METHODS

Patients with isolated ICAS-LVO were enrolled in our analysis and were categorized into three groups: first-line mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with rescue angioplasty and/or stenting (MT + RS), direct angioplasty and/or stenting without thrombectomy (DA), and MT alone. Baseline and periprocedural characteristics, successful recanalization, and 90-day functional outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Of 396 patients with isolated ICAS-LVO in our study, successful recanalization was achieved in 94.5%, 100%, and 90.9% of patients in the MT + RS, DA, and MT groups, respectively. The 90-day functional independence in the three groups was 50.8%, 59.0%, and 45.1%. The main efficacy and safety outcomes showed no significant differences among the groups. First-pass recanalization (FPR) was more observed in the MT group (43.4%), the recanalization rate per attempt in the MT group gradually decreased until the fourth attempt, and further maneuvers showed recanalization rates of ≈0% per attempt. MT + RS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.10, p < 0.0001) and DA (aOR 0.18, p = 0.0013) were associated with lower FPR rate than MT alone in the multivariable logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

The technical feasibility and favorable outcomes of several EVT strategies for ICAS-LVO were established in our study. First-line MT with a bailout angioplasty is a reasonable option for ICAS-LVO, and DA is an effective option for the cases when ICAS-LVO is strongly suspected before EVT procedure.

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.

Intravenous Thrombolysis Before Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Whether intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy provides additional benefit for functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke remains uncertain. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare the outcomes of direct mechanical thrombectomy (dMT) to mechanical thrombectomy with bridging using intravenous thrombolysis (bridging therapy [BT]) in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Methods and Results

We performed a literature search in the PubMed, Excerpta Medica database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2003, to April 26, 2021. We included randomized clinical trials and observational studies that reported the 90‐day functional outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing dMT compared with BT. The 12 included studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies) yielded 3924 participants (mean age, 68.0 years [SD, 13.1 years]; women, 44.2%; 1887 participants who received dMT and 2037 participants who received BT). A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trial and observational data revealed similar 90‐day functional independence (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90–1.19), mortality (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78–1.36), and successful recanalization (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76–1.14) for patients treated with dMT or BT. Compared with those in the BT group, patients in the dMT group were less likely to experience symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51–0.91; P=0.008) or any intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61–0.84; P<0.001).

Conclusions

In this meta‐analysis of patients with acute ischemic stroke, we found no significant differences in 90‐day functional outcome or mortality between dMT and BT, but a lower rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage for dMT. These findings support the use of dMT without intravenous thrombolysis bridging therapy.

Registration

URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: 42021234664.

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.