Efficacy Of Tirofiban Research Articles

Renal function affects the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke thrombectomy patients.

Acute ischemic stroke poses a significant health threat, and thrombectomy has become a routine treatment. Tirofiban has emerged as a promising adjunct therapy to minimize reocclusion after thrombectomy. We aimed to investigate whether renal function influences the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients undergoing endovascular therapy. Patients' clinical data collected from the stroke unit were analyzed. The modified Rankin scale score and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) were used as outcome measures. A total of 409 patients (mean age: 66.5 years, 292 males [71.4%]) were included. Tirofiban significantly improved 3-month functional outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.408, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.120-5.175), reduced 3-month mortality (aOR = 0.364, 95% CI 0.155-0.856), and decreased the incidence of sICH (aOR = 0.339, 95% CI 0.149-0.767) in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m². However, no significant improvement in prognosis was observed with tirofiban in patients with eGFR < 90 mL/min/1.73 m². Interaction analysis suggested a potential influence of renal function on tirofiban efficacy. Renal function may impact the efficacy of tirofiban. Administration of tirofiban in direct thrombectomy patients with normal renal function is safe and improves prognosis. However, the prognostic benefits of tirofiban are limited in patients with impaired renal function.

Safety and efficacy of tirofiban in preventing neurological deterioration in acute ischemic stroke (TREND): Protocol for an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, masked endpoint trial.

Antithrombotic therapy prevents adverse ischemic events following acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Intravenous tirofiban provides desirable antiplatelet effects, especially in patients who are vulnerable to neurological deterioration (ND). The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that intravenous administration of tirofiban, initiated within 24 h of ictus and continued for consecutive 72 h, would be more effective than aspirin in reducing the risk of ND within 72 h of enrollment among patients with potentially atherothrombotic ischemic stroke. The Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban in Preventing Neurological Deterioration in Acute Ischemic Stroke (TREND) trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, masked endpoint study. Its eligibility criteria included AIS secondary to potential atherosclerosis, a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ranging from 4 to 20 points, ineligibility for recanalization therapy, and administration within 24 h postsymptom onset. Randomization was performed at a 1:1 ratio to allocate 420 patients into two groups to receive an intravenous tirofiban bridge to oral antiplatelet drugs or direct oral antiplatelet drugs. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with a ≥4-point increase in NIHSS score within 72 h of intervention compared to the score at enrollment. The key secondary outcomes include changes in NIHSS score, modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 90 days, and dichotomized mRS scores (0-2 vs. 3-6 and 0-1 vs. 2-6) at 90 days. The safety variables are symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, any intracerebral hemorrhage, and systemic hemorrhage within 72 h after randomization and 90-day mortality. The TREND trial may identify the suitability of intravenous tirofiban as a routine clinical strategy to prevent ND in patients with AIS within 24 h of the onset of symptoms. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT04491695).

Use of Tirofiban to Prevent Ischemic Events in Patients with CYP2C19 Loss-of-Function Alleles during Flow Diversion of Intracranial Aneurysm: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

To analyze the effect of tirofiban on ischemic events in CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers during pipeline embolization device (PED) implantation. Demographic information, imaging data, ischemic complications, CYP2C19 genotyping, and platelet function test results were collected from patients with PED-treated intracranial aneurysms at three centers. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors for ischemic events. Patients were grouped according to LOF alleles and antiplatelet drugs, the baseline information of LOF allele carriers and non-carriers were compared, and the efficacy of tirofiban was analyzed by comparing the incidence of ischemic events in each group. In total, 278 patients were included in the study, 24 of whom had an ischemic event. 157 (56.5%) patients carried the LOF allele and were more likely to develop resistance to clopidogrel (P < 0.001) and hypertension (P = 0.010). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the independent risk factors for ischemic events were age of > 55years (OR = 3.308, P = 0.028), LOF alleles (OR = 3.960, P = 0.036), and clopidogrel nonresponsiveness (OR = 3.301, P = 0.014). For LOF allele carriers, prophylactic use of tirofiban after PED implantation helped to reduce ischemic events (4.3% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.039). This study supports CYP2C19 genotyping before flow diversion because LOF alleles increase the risk of ischemic events. Prophylactic use of tirofiban may help reduce ischemic events in LOF allele carriers.

Tirofiban in the treatment of cancer-associated ischemic stroke.

It is still unknown whether early tirofiban treatment improves prognosis in patients with cancer-related ischemic stroke without intravenous thrombolytic therapy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with cancer-associated ischemic stroke. A retrospective analysis was performed on 75 patients with cancer and mild to moderate ischemic stroke, 34 of whom received tirofiban treatment and 41 aspirin treatment. The aspirin group received aspirin 100 mg QD, while the tirofiban group received continuous intravenous administration of tirofiban at a dosage of 0.1 μg/kg/min for 48 hours before switching to oral aspirin. The 24-hour and 7-day National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores for the tirofiban group were lower than those for the aspirin group (p=0.017 and p=0.035, respectively). The proportion of intracerebral hemorrhage occurring within 7 days did not differ significantly between the two groups (p>0.05), and neither did the 90-day Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores nor the incidence of ischemic stroke. Early administration of tirofiban in the treatment of mild to moderate ischemic stroke is safe, which can reduce 24-hour and 7-day NIHSS scores and has potential value.

Influence of tirofiban on stroke outcome after mechanical thrombectomy in acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion

BackgroundEven undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT), patients with acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (AVBAO) still have a high rate of mortality. Tirofiban is a novel antiplatelet agent which is now widely empirically used in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban as adjunctive therapy for MT in AVBAO.MethodsFrom October 2016 to July 2021, consecutive AVBAO patients receiving MT were included in the prospective stroke registry. The short-term outcomes were (1) symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH); (2) in-hospital death; (3) National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at discharge. The Long-term outcomes were: (1) modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months; (2) death at 3 months.ResultsA total of 130 eligible patients were included in the study, 64 (49.2%) patients received tirofiban. In multivariate regression analysis, no significant differences were observed in all outcomes between the tirofiban and non-tirofiban group [sICH (adjusted OR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.12–7.82, p = 0.97), in-hospital death (adjusted OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.17–1.89, p = 0.36), NIHSS at discharge (95% CI, -2.14–8.63, p = 0.24), mRS (adjusted OR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.40–3.62, p = 0.75), and death at 3 months (adjusted OR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.24–2.90, p = 0.77)].ConclusionsIn AVBAO, tirofiban adjunctive to MT was not associated with an increased risk of sICH. Short-term (in-hospital death, NIHSS at discharge) and long-term outcomes (mRS and death at 3 months) seem not to be influenced by tirofiban use.

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban in Severe Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Mechanical Thrombectomy.

Tirofiban has recently shown encouraging efficacy and safety among acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with mechanical thrombectomy (MT). However, the benefits of tirofiban varied among studies depending on the patient's condition, which was often not well analyzed. This study aimed to identify the characteristics of patients who may obtain the largest benefits from tirofiban. The efficacy endpoint was a favorable outcome defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0~2 at 90 days. The safety endpoints were intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and mortality at 90 days. Adjusted logistic regression analysis and subgroup analyses were utilized to investigate the factors associated with tirofiban and the outcome. All of 285 patients fit the inclusion criteria. Tirofiban was associated with a higher rate of favorable outcome (aOR 2.033, 95% CI, 1.002~4.123, p = 0.043) but not with an increased risk of ICH, sICH or mortality (p &gt; 0.05). Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed that tirofiban was associated with favorable outcomes in patients with NIHSS &gt; 14 (aOR 2.778, 95% CI 1.056~7.356, p = 0.038) but not in patients with NIHSS ≤ 14 (aOR 1.719, 95% CI 0.646~4.578, p = 0.278). No significant heterogeneity was found in the effect of tirofiban across the subgroups of age, sex, ASPECTS, time from onset to puncture, use of t-PA or stroke etiology (p for interaction &gt; 0.05). The administration of tirofiban was associated with favorable outcomes in severe ischemic stroke patients, and further studies are needed to confirm this finding.

Clinical safety and possible efficacy of tirofiban in combination with intravenous thrombolysis by recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for early treatment of capsular warning syndrome (CWS).

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of tirofiban with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in treating patients with capsular warning syndrome (CWS) who failed to respond to the treatment of intravenous thrombolysis alone. Tirofiban was approved for the treatment of CWS patients with fluctuating symptoms or no substantial improvement after intravenous thrombolysis within 24 h in our hospital from October 2019 to June 2021. Patients were evaluated with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at admission, at 72 h post-thrombolysis, at 1-week, and at 3-months with the modified Rankin Scales (MRS) score. A total of 12 patients received tirofiban and eight patients received control treatment with a history of CWS in our cohort. Among the patients, 13 patients smoked more than one pack of cigarettes a day, 17 had hypertension, 17 had hypercholesterolemia, 7 had diabetes, 1 had the history of cerebral infarction, 2 had atrial fibrillation, 7 had mild big vascular stenosis, 13 had lesions of the perforating branch by imaging, and 19 had acute capsular infarction. In both the tirofiban and control groups, NIHSS scores were significantly reduced after intravenous thrombolysis or 1-week after onset compared with before intravenous thrombolysis (P < 0.001). Before and after intravenous thrombolysis, there were no differences between the tirofiban group and control group (P = 0.970, P = 0.384, respectively). The tirofiban group, however, showed remarkably lower scores in both 1-week NIHSS and 3-month MRS than the control (P = 0.012, P = 0.003, respectively). Our study revealed that tirofiban did not increase the risk of hemorrhage and had favorable clinical efficacy as a remedial treatment for CWS patients with poor prognosis for intravenous thrombolysis, therefore indicating great potential for broader use.

Safety and efficacy of tirofiban after early neurological deterioration in patients with branch atheromatous disease receiving alteplase

ObjectivesNo standard treatment exists for branch atheromatous disease (BAD), and patients' conditions often worsen after thrombolytic therapy. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of tirofiban after early neurological deterioration (END) development in patients receiving intravenous alteplase.Materials and methodsBleeding incidence, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and modified Rankin scale (mRS) score were assessed for patients with BAD receiving alteplase within 4.5 h of stroke onset.ResultsAmong 193 patients, 119 (61.64%) did not experience exacerbation after thrombolytic treatment, 74 (38.34%) had END, 34 were treated with tirofiban after END, and 40 received standard treatment. On day 7 or at discharge, no cases of symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage were noted, and no patient died during the 90-day follow-up. Fifty-two of 74 patients (70.27%) had a good mRS score at 90 days. Among patients with END who received tirofiban, 27 (79.41%) had a good mRS score at 90 days, which was significantly better than that of the 18 cases that did not receive tirofiban after exacerbation (45%; P &amp;lt; 0.001). NIHSS scores were significantly lower 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days after tirofiban treatment in patients with exacerbation after thrombolytic therapy than in those without tirofiban treatment.ConclusionsPatients with BAD have elevated risks of END after thrombolytic therapy. Compared with conventional oral antiplatelet aggregation drugs, tirofiban rescue therapy resulted in significantly better NIHSS and mRS scores without increased symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage rates.

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with High-Bolus Dose Tirofiban: The FASTER (Favorite Approach to Safe and Effective Treatment for Early Reperfusion) Multicenter Registry.

Objectives To investigate the safety and clinical efficacy of tirofiban during primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCI). Background Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) use during pPCI has declined over years, mainly for the increased hemorrhagic risk associated to their use and for the availability of potent, fast-acting oral antiplatelet drugs. However, several pharmacodynamic studies showed suboptimal platelet inhibition with P2Y12-blockers, such as prasugrel or ticagrelor. Methods Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing pPCI were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter registry conducted in high-volume centers in Italy. All patients received intraprocedural tirofiban. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of in-hospital bleedings according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition. In-hospital major adverse coronary events (MACE, defined as death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization), final TIMI flow, myocardial blush grade, and ST-segment resolution were also evaluated. Results A total of 472 patients (mean age 61 ± 11 years, 83% males) were enrolled in 16 Italian centers from October 2015 to June 2018. Mean basal thrombus grade score was 3.47 ± 1.25. PCI was performed by transradial approach in 88% of patients. We observed a very low rate of 30 days BARC bleedings (2.1%) and MACE (0.8%). Complete (>70%) ST-segment resolution was observed in 67% of patients. Conclusions In the FASTER registry, the use of tirofiban during primary PCI, performed with a transradial approach in most cases, in patients with high thrombus burden was associated with high rates of complete ST-segment resolution and low rates of in-hospital bleeding and MACE.

The Clinical Efficacy of Tirofiban Combined with Ticagrelor and Aspirin in Treating Acute Myocardial Infarction by Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Its Effect on Patients' Cardiac Function.

Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of tirofiban combined with ticagrelor and aspirin in acute myocardial infarction treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention and its effect on patients' cardiac function. Methods We selected 102 patients with acute myocardial infarction who came to The First Hospital of LanZhou University for treatment from July 2018 to May 2021. On the basis of conventional treatment, patients were separated into a joint group (tirofiban combined with ticagrelor and aspirin) comprising 55 cases and a control group (conventional ticagrelor and aspirin dual treatment) involving 47 cases. Blood flow classification of the two groups of patients was immediately recorded and compared after the myocardial infarction thrombolysis test (TIMI). Left ventricular function-related indicators, platelet-related parameters, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), red blood cell distribution width (RDW), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) before treatment and 7 days after PCI were evaluated and compared between the groups before treatment and 3 months after treatment. ELISA was utilized to detect the serum levels of inflammatory factors, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) before and after treatment. Incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and adverse reaction incidence was put into comparison between the two groups in the course of the 3-month follow-up period. Compared with the control group, the joint group accounted for more patients with TIMI blood flow classification level 3 (P < 0.05) and showed more drastic improvement on the left ventricular function, platelet-related parameters, and serum inflammatory factors (P < 0.05). Moreover, patients of the joint group suffered less fluctuation from RDW, NLR, and PLR (P < 0.05), and their incidence of MACE was drastically lower in contrast with the control group (P < 0.05). No notable changes were presented in terms of incidence of adverse reaction (P > 0.05). For patients who suffered from acute myocardial infarction and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, the application of tirofiban combined with ticagrelor and aspirin could effectively reduce the incidence of no reflow or slow blood flow, improve myocardial perfusion function, and have marked curative effects. It is worthy of clinical promotion and application.

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 3months, 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.

There is no difference in safety and efficacy mechanical thrombectomy alone or mechanical thrombectomy with tirofiban for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis

BackgroundMechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a widely proven method to treat acute ischemic stroke (AIS) during mechanical thrombectomy and acute stenting and angioplasty is a topic discussed till this day regarding safety and efficacy. However, intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa agents such as Tirofiban have become a more common thing. We report the analysis of all AIS patients treated with Tirofiban + MT vs. MT alone. MethodsUsing a prospectively collected endovascular database at a CSC between 2013 and 2019, workflow, and outcomes were recorded. Patients are given Tirofiban undergoing mechanical thrombectomy and patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy alone were analyzed to obtain baseline demographics, modified Ranking Scale (mRS) at discharge, and 90 days follow up, pre and post thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI), mortality rate, and hemorrhage rates. ResultsThere was a total of 169 patients during the study period (average age 68.18 ± 14, 41.42% female). Analysis of 36 patients from the Tirofiban + MT group (average age 69.25 ± 14.18, 27.77% female), and 133 patients from the MT alone was performed (average age 67.89 ± 13.99, 45.11%), see Table 3 for baseline characteristics and outcomes. Four patients (11.11%) in the Tirofiban + MT group had symptomatic hemorrhage versus fourteen patients (10.53%) in the MT alone group (p = .919). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (p = .622). ConclusionsTirofiban in addition to MT does not increase the risk of symptomatic hemorrhage or mortality. More extensive studies are warranted to prove the safety and efficacy of tirofiban and MT in AIS with tandem lesions.

The Safety of Intra-arterial Tirofiban during Endovascular Therapy after Intravenous Thrombolysis.

The safety and efficacy of tirofiban during endovascular therapy in patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant IV tPA remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of intra-arterial tirofiban use during endovascular therapy in patients treated with IV tPA. Using a multicenter registry, we enrolled patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular therapy. Safety outcomes included postprocedural parenchymal hematoma type 2 and/or thick subarachnoid hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, and 3-month mortality. Efficacy outcomes included the successful reperfusion rate, postprocedural reocclusion, and good outcomes at 3 months (mRS scores of 0-2). The tirofiban effect on the outcomes was evaluated using a multivariable analysis while adjusting for potential confounders. Among enrolled patients, we identified 314 patients with stroke (279 and 35 patients in the no tirofiban and tirofiban groups, respectively) due to an intracranial artery occlusion who underwent endovascular therapy with intravenous thrombolysis. A multivariable analysis revealed no association of intra-arterial tirofiban with postprocedural parenchymal hematoma type and/or thick subarachnoid hemorrhage (adjusted OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.20-4.10; P = .918), intraventricular hemorrhage (adjusted OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.02-2.85; P = .467), and 3-month mortality (adjusted OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.04-1.87; P = .299). Intra-arterial tirofiban was not associated with good outcome (adjusted OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 0.89 -6.12; P = .099). Using intra-arterial tirofiban during endovascular therapy after IV tPA could be safe.

The Application of Tirofiban in the Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban during endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies (published before May 1, 2020; no language restrictions) comparing tirofiban administration to blank control during EVT in patients with AIS. Our primary end points were the 3-month functional outcome, recanalization rate, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and 3-month mortality. Results: The incidence of 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–2 score of the tirofiban group was higher than that of the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% CI [1.09, 1.48], p = 0.002) with heterogeneity (I² = 34%, p = 0.11). Data pooled from the 6 studies describing the details of retriever stent in EVT revealed that tirofiban was associated with higher incidence of 3-month mRS 0–2 score (OR = 1.48, 95% CI [1.11, 1.96], p = 0.007). The recanalization rate was higher in the tirofiban group compared to the control group (OR = 1.66, 95% CI [1.16, 2.39], p = 0.006). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.73, 1.31], p = 0.86) and intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.59, 1.97], p = 0.80) between tirofiban and non-tirofiban group. Besides, the tirofiban administration was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.62, 0.91], p = 0.003). Conclusions: The application of tirofiban in EVT of AIS may improve functional outcomes and reduce mortality at 3 months. Besides, tirofiban does not seem to increase the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and intracranial hemorrhage, either in the anterior or posterior circulation stroke.

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban During Mechanical Thrombectomy for Stroke Patients with Preceding Intravenous Thrombolysis.

PurposeWhether tirofiban is safe and effective for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with preceding intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) remains unclear. We aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban during MT for patients with preceding IVT.Patients and MethodsPatients who underwent MT and preceding IVT were derived from the ANGEL registry and were dichotomized into tirofiban and non-tirofiban group according to whether rescue tirofiban was performed. The safety endpoints were sICH, total ICH and distal embolization. The efficacy endpoints were arterial recanalization, three-month functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS]: 0–2) and mortality.ResultsWe included 207 MT patients with preceding IVT from the entire registry. Among them, there were 55 in tirofiban group and 152 in non-tirofiban group, and 17 (8.2%) patients suffered sICH and 36 (17.4%) suffered ICH within 24 hours post-MT; 11 (5.3%) distal embolization of thrombus; 111 (53.6%) achieved functional independence and 34 (16.4%) died after three-month follow-up. No significant differences in safety outcomes on sICH, ICH and distal embolization of thrombus and efficacy outcomes on recanalization and long-term functional independence were found between tirofiban and non-tirofiban group for the entire cohort (p>0.05 for all groups). Tirofiban was correlated with long-term mortality reduction for patients underwent MT and preceding IVT (adjusted hazard ratio 0.28 [0.08–0.94], adjusted p=0.03).ConclusionIn AIS patients who underwent MT and preceding IVT, rescue tirofiban was not correlated with increased risk of safety endpoints on sICH, ICH or distal embolization of thrombus, and might be associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality. Further study is needed to confirm the effect of early antiplatelet therapy with tirofiban for patients underwent MT and preceding IVT.

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban in Rescue Treatment for Acute Intracranial Intraprocedural Stent Thrombosis.

Background and Purpose: The incidence of acute intraprocedural stent thrombosis (AIST) during stenting of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) has seldom been reported and evidence regarding the treatment of AIST is lacking. We aim to investigate the incidence of AIST during stenting of ICAS in our institute, assess the preliminary efficacy and safety of rescue treatment of tirofiban for these patients.Methods: From September 2016 to May 2019, all symptomatic ICAS patients who underwent intracranial stenting in our institute were prospectively registered into this study, of which patients with AIST were retrospectively reviewed to extract baseline characteristics, perioperative management, procedural details, angiographic, and clinical outcomes. Rescue treatment of tirofiban for AIST was assessed by recanalization of the culprit vessel and periprocedural death, hemorrhage, and ischemic stroke.Results: Acute intraprocedural stent thrombosis developed in 12 (6.2%) patients within 30 min after stent placement of 194 patients. All 12 cases were successfully recanalized with modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) 3 and Arterial Occlusive Lesion (AOL) 3 after rescue treatment of tirofiban alone. There was no perioperative death or any hemorrhagic complication. Three patients suffered perioperative ischemic stroke.Conclusions: We observed a non-negligible rate of AIST during intracranial stenting procedures for ICAS. Intra-arterial bolus followed by intravenous tirofiban infusion seems to be efficacious and safe for AIST during stent placement for ICAS, without increasing the rate of hemorrhagic complications and death.

The Safety and Efficiency of Tirofiban in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Treated with Mechanical Thrombectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

Introduction Limited comparative studies have reported the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients after mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Additionally, the available studies are inconsistent with each other, which makes application of tirofiban unclear in neuro-intervention. Here, we performed a comparative retrospective study to investigate whether tirofiban combined with MT improves short- and long-term prognosis in AIS patients and whether its use is associated with complications. Method Retrospective data were collected for AIS patients admitted between January 2013 and January 2019 at three stroke centers. According to whether tirofiban was used during the operation, patients were divided into tirofiban group and control group. Multivariate and COX regression analyses were performed to determine the association of tirofiban treatment with safety and efficiency in subjects treated with MT. Result A total of 174 patients were analyzed, of whom 89 (51.1%) were treated with tirofiban. There were no differences in the incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (10.2% vs. 10.6%, p=0.918), parenchymal hemorrhage type 2 (18.0% vs. 16.5%, p=0.793), and reocclusion at 24 h (3.4% vs. 10.6%, p=0.060) between the tirofiban group and control group. Multivariate regression showed that tirofiban was not associated with intracerebral hemorrhage, early neurological deterioration, neurological improvement at 7 days, functional independence at 3-month and 9-month follow-up, or death at 9-month follow-up (adjusted p > 0.05 for all). However, AIS patients treated with MT + tirofiban showed a trend towards acquiring faster functional independence, with a median time to acquire functional independence of 4.0 months compared with 6.5 months in the control group (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval 0.98–2.27; long rank p=0.066). Conclusion Tirofiban may help AIS patients given MT to gain functional independence faster, without increasing the risk of complications.

Safety and efficacy of tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke patients not receiving endovascular treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the safety and efficacy of tirofiban when used for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients not undergoing endovascular treatment. An electronic search was performed for English-language studies on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases up to 31st July 2019. All types of studies comparing tirofiban monotherapy or combined intravenous (IV) thrombolysis and tirofiban therapy with controls for AIS patients were included. Six studies were included in the review. Three evaluated tirofiban monotherapy while three compared IV thrombolysis and tirofiban therapy with controls. Meta-analysis indicates that tirofiban monotherapy does not significantly increase the incidence of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) (Odds Ration [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 0.72-1.82, p = 0.57; I2 = 0%), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.09-3.03, p = 0.46; I2 = 0%) and mortality (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13-2.07, p = 0.36; I2 = 63%) in AIS patients. Similarly, our analysis indicates no significant increase in the rates of ICH (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33-2.07, p = 0.68; I2 = 0%), sICH (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16-5.16, p = 0.91; I2 = 0%) and mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.42-5.38, p= 0.54; I2 = 0%) in AIS patients treated with combined IV thrombolysis and tirofiban therapy. Meta-analysis for functional outcome was not possible. To conclude, tirofiban appears to be safe when used following IV thrombolysis or as monotherapy in AIS patients. Conclusions regarding improvement in functional improvement cannot be drawn. Further trials are needed to strengthen the evidence on this topic.

Safety and efficacy of Tirofiban in STEMI-patients

BackgroundTirofiban is recommended as bail out therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, evidence regarding safety and efficacy of tirofiban is unclear. Tirofiban has been shown to improve ST-resolution, to decrease infarct size (IS) and to reduce incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). However, bleeding is enhanced in tirofiban treated patients. In this study, we aim to investigate efficacy and safety of Tirofiban in STEMI-patients. Methods610 STEMI patients were analyzed. MACCE (death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke) and TIMI bleeding events were registered during hospital course and 12 month follow-up. ResultsTirofiban patients were slightly younger (tirofiban 63 ± 13 years vs. control 65 ± 14 years; p = 0.04). They had higher peak-high-sensitive troponin T [Hs-TnT] (tirofiban 6561 ± 11,065 vs. control 4594 ± 11,200, p-value = 0.047) and peak-creatine kinase [CK] (tirofiban 2742 ± 5097 vs. control 1416 ± 2160, p-value < 0.0001). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was more complex in tirofiban treated patients as radiation time (tirofiban 18 ± 15 vs. control 14 ± 13; p-value = 0.02) and use of contrast agent (tirofiban 240 ± 106 vs. control 209 ± 99; p-value = 0.01) was higher in tirofiban patients. However, there were no differences in MACCE (HR 0.877, 95% CI 0.62–1.25, p = 0.47) and bleeding (major: HR 1.494, 95% CI 0.65–3.44, p = 0.34; minor: HR 1.294, 95% CI 0.67–2.52, p = 0.45). ConclusionMACCE and bleeding events were similar. However, PCI was more complex and infarcts larger in tirofiban treated patients.

Abstract WP18: Tirofiban Cannot Prevent the Early Re-Occlusion After Endovascular Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients

Endothelial injury is inevitable after Endovascular thrombectomy (ET) in acute ischemic stroke, which may lead to early re-occlusion and attenuate the beneficial effects of ET. Tirofiban, a Glycoprotein(GP) IIb/IIIa antagonist, is often used to prevent local platelet aggregation and early re-occlusion. However, its effectiveness in preventing early re-occlusion is still unknown. Here, we investigate the efficacy of tirofiban in preventing early re-occlusion after ET. This observational study was based on a registry study. AIS patients treated with ET were recruited if they met one of the following criteria: treated with permanent intracranial stenting, balloon angioplasty, or &gt;3 passes with retriever during thrombectomy. If used, a low dose bolus tirofiban (0.25 to 0.5 mg) was administrated intraarterially, followed by intravenous tirofiban continuously at a rate of 0.2 to 0.25 mg/h for 12 to 24 hours. Re-occlusion was defined as an in-situ re-thrombosis assessed by TCD and/or CTA within 7 days after ET. The primary outcome was the incidence of early re-occlusion within 7 days post-treatment. Eight one subjects (aged 60.6±12.2 years old) were included. There were 48 subjects treated with tirofiban and 33 subjects not treated with tirofiban. The median NIHSS at admission was 18 (12.5-25.5). Compared with 3 subjects (9.1%) treated without tirofiban, 4 subjects (8.0%) treated with tirofiban experience re-occlusion ( p =0.905). In Multivariate logistic regression analysis, tirofiban was also not associated with early re-occlusion ( p &gt;0.05). 15 subjects (31.3%) experienced ICH in tirofiban group, compared with 13 (39.4%) in non-tirofiban group ( p =0.449). For sICH, 2 subjects (4.2%) from the tirofiban group versus 6 (18.2%) subjects from the tirofiban group ( p =0.089). At 3 months follow-up, compared with subjects treated without tirofiban, more subjects treated with tirofiban achieved independent walking ability (mRS 0-3) (18.2% vs. 2.0%, P =0.033). For a long term follow-up with a median time of 16 (2.5-28.0) months, no significant differences were found between two groups ( p &gt;0.05). In conclusion, adjunct tirofiban in AIS patients treated with ET may not prevent early re-occlusion. But it may improve the functional outcome at 3 months after ET.