Tirofiban Group Research Articles

Effect of Intravenous Tirofiban Versus Placebo on First-Pass Successful Reperfusion in Endovascular Stroke Thrombectomy: Insights From the RESCUE BT Randomized Clinical Trial.

First-pass successful reperfusion (FPSR), defined as a successful/complete reperfusion achieved after a single thrombectomy pass, is predictive of favorable outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion. It is unknown whether intravenous tirofiban is effective in increasing the rate of FPSR in acute anterior large-vessel occlusion stroke. Patients who had acute large-vessel occlusion stroke presenting within 24 hours and underwent endovascular thrombectomy were analyzed from the RESCUE BT (Intravenous Tirofiban for Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke) clinical trial, of which the main analysis was neutral. The RESCUE BT trial randomized patients to receive either intravenous tirofiban or placebo before endovascular thrombectomy. The primary end point was FPSR, defined as successful reperfusion (extended thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale 2b50, 2c, or 3) at first thrombectomy attempt. A modified Poisson regression analysis assessed the association between intravenous tirofiban treatment and FPSR. Of 948 enrolled patients, 463 patients were randomized to the tirofiban group and 485 to the placebo group. The mean age was 67 years, and 41.0% of the patients were women. FPSR was achieved more often in the tirofiban group (30.5% versus 23.5%; adjusted risk ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.01-1.51]; P=0.04). FPSR was associated with a favorable shift to lower modified Rankin Scale disability levels at 90 days (common odds ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.08-1.86]; P=0.01). In this post hoc analysis of the RESCUE BT trial, treatment with intravenous tirofiban before endovascular thrombectomy was associated with increased FPSR in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. FPSR was associated with reduced 90-day levels of disability. URL: http://chictr.org; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR-INR-17014167.

Association of functional outcomes between intravenous tirofiban and endovascular thrombectomy in imaging-screened patients with large vessel occlusion stroke: a secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial.

In the RESCUE BT (endovascular treatment with versus without tirofiban for stroke patients with large vessel occlusion) trial, enrollment in extended time window was based on noncontrast computed tomography. To assess whether perioperative intravenous tirofiban would further enhance the clinical benefit of endovascular therapy in the RESCUE BT trial according to advanced imaging criteria based on current American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) guidelines. This is a secondary analysis of the RESCUE BT trial. Patients who were eligible for endovascular thrombectomy in the 6h window and met the criteria of the DAWN or DEFUSE 3 trials in the extended window according to the AHA/ASA guidelines were analyzed. The primary outcome was the distribution of the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Safety outcomes included the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 48h and 90-day mortality. A total of 652 patients (319 in tirofiban group and 333 in placebo group) who meeting the AHA/ASA guidelines were included in this analysis, with median interquartile ranges (IQR) age of 68 (58-75) years, 278 (42.6%) were women. The median 90-day mRS score was 3 (IQR, 1-4) in the tirofiban group, and 3 (IQR, 1-4) in the placebo group. The adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for a lower level of disability with tirofiban than with placebo was 1.08 (95% CI: 0.83-1.42). The incidence of sICH [10.1% versus 6.3%; adjusted OR 1.70; (95% CI: 0.95-3.04)] was not significantly different between groups. However, intravenous tirofiban might be associated with lower disability level [adjusted common OR, 1.74 (95% CI: 1.14-2.65); P =0.01] in patients with large artery atherosclerosis. There was no significant difference in the severity of disability at 90 days with intravenous tirofiban compared to placebo in patients who underwent endovascular therapy according to AHA/ASA guidelines. The authors observed potential benefits of tirofiban in patients with large artery atherosclerosis, but there was an increased risk of sICH in patients with cardioembolism stroke.

Benefits of recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide to improve ventricular function and hemodynamics in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Abstract. This study aimed to assess the impact of recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rh-BNP) on ventricular function and hemodynamics in post-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We compared the outcomes of 65 STEMI patients treated with rh-BNP to an equal cohort given tirofiban following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data collected pre- and post-intervention included biochemical markers, TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) grade, hemodynamics, thrombotic score (TS), left ven-tricular ejection fraction (LVEF), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, liver and kidney function, and ECG. The TIMI level (p=0.03), the ratio of TIMI myocardial perfusion grade III (p=0.04), and the thrombus score (p<0.001) in the rh-BNP group after the intervention markedly exceeded those in the tirofiban group. After correction, the TIMI frame count (CTFC) (p=0.02), the incidence of slow flow (p=0.02), thrombus score (p<0.001), stent length (p=0.02) as well as times of administration of sodium nitroprusside medication in the rh-BNP group were markedly below those in the tirofiban group (p=0.01). Creatine ki-nase (CK) (p<0.001), CK-MB (p=0.01), and N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (p<0.02) in the rh-BNP group were markedly below those the in tirofiban group 24 hours after intervention; and the sum-STR (p<0.03) immediately after intervention markedly exceeded that in the tirofiban group. No significant differences were found in major cardiac adverse events (MACE) between the treatments. At the 30-day follow-up, rh-BNP showed a more effective enhancement of blood flow status, with the safety profiles of both treatments be-ing comparable. The findings suggest that the rh-BNP has significant potential for treating PPCI-related slow flow.

Leukoaraiosis in patients with tirofiban before endovascular thrombectomy: a post hoc analysis of a multicentre randomized clinical trial

Background and purposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous tirofiban before endovascular thrombectomy in subgroups of acute ischemic stroke patients with different degrees of leukoaraiosis (LA). MethodsPatients of the RESCUE BT trial whose LA grade could be assessed were included. Eligible patients were dichotomized into two strata according to the van Swieten scale (VSS) score, absent-to-moderate LA (VSS score <3) and severe LA (VSS score ≥ 3). Furthermore, patients were divided into tirofiban and placebo groups in each stratum. The primary outcome was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Safety outcome was radiological intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours. Results861 patients were included, 439 patients with absent-to-moderate LA and 422 patients with severe LA. There were no significant differences in 90-day mRS score between the tirofiban and placebo groups in either stratum (absent-to-moderate LA: adjusted OR 0.92 (95%CI, 0.66-1.28), P=0.62; severe LA: adjusted OR 0.99 (95% CI, 0.69-1.42), P=0.96). In the severe LA stratum, the occurrence of radiologic intracranial hemorrhage was greater in the tirofiban group compared to the placebo group. (35.7% vs 26.4%; adjusted OR, 1.72 (95% CI, 1.12-2.66); P=0.014). However, no difference was observed in the absent-to-moderate LA stratum (33.2% vs 29.3%; adjusted OR, 1.15 (95% CI, 0.76-1.75); P=0.51). ConclusionThere was no significant difference in disability severity at 90 days when treating AIS patients using intravenous tirofiban before endovascular therapy, in either absent-to-moderate or severe LA strata. It should be noted that intravenous tirofiban before endovascular therapy increases the incidence of radiologic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with severe LA.

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

ObjectiveThis study assesses the safety and efficacy of tirofiban for patients with large vessel occlusion stroke after intravenous thrombolysis. MethodsThis 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionTirofiban 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.

Risk Factors, Antithrombotic Management, and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endovascular Treatment of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms.

Patients receiving endovascular treatment for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) face varying risks and benefits with antithrombotic management. This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative and long-term effects of antithrombotic strategies, identify the populations that would benefit, and explore the predictive factors affecting the long-term outcomes. UIA patients undergoing endovascular treatment including stent-assisted coiling or flow diversion between June 2019 and June 2022 were enrolled. We compared perioperative and long-term complications between tirofiban and dual antiplatelet therapy groups. Optimal candidates for each antithrombotic treatment were identified using multivariate logistic regression. Nomograms were developed to determine the significant predictors for thromboembolic complications during follow-up. Among 181 propensity-score matched pairs, the tirofiban group showed a trend toward a lower rate of thromboembolic complications than the DAPT group without elevating major bleeding risk in either period. Homocysteine (Hcy) level ≥10 μmol/L was a significant independent factor associated with thromboembolic complication in both periods. Subgroup analysis highlighted that in patients with high Hcy levels, tirofiban and sustained antiplatelet treatment for ≥12 months were protective factors, while a history of stroke was an independent risk factor for thromboembolic events in follow-up. Four variables were selected to construct a prognostic nomogram, history of hypertension, prior stroke, Hcy level, and the duration of antiplatelet therapy. Perioperative low-dose tirofiban and extended antiplatelet therapy demonstrated a favorable trend in long-term outcomes for UIA patients with preoperative Hcy levels ≥10 μmol/L undergoing endovascular treatment. The prognostic model offers reliable risk prediction and guides antithrombotic strategy decisions.

Intravenous thrombolysis plus tirofiban versus tirofiban alone in Caucasian patients with acute anterior choroidal or paramedian pontine infarction.

Tirofiban has been shown to be superior to aspirin in achieving functional independence at 3 months for acute ischemic stroke of atheromatous or microatheromatous origin. As intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) has previously been shown to be nonsuperior to aspirin in achieving functional independence at 3 months for anterior choroidal or paramedian pontine infarction (ACI/PPI), we aimed to compare the outcomes of Caucasian patients receiving IVT plus tirofiban (IVT + T) with those receiving tirofiban alone for acute ACI/PPI. A retrospective study was conducted in patients aged ≥ 18 years with ACI/PPI treated in our stroke unit between December 1, 2020, and April 30, 2023, who received therapeutic intervention within 9 hours of symptom onset or after awakening with stroke symptoms. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤ 1 at 3 months was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≤ 2 at day 7 or discharge and post-procedural neurological deterioration (PPND) within 72 hours. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH) and major systemic bleeding (MSB) were the safety measures of the study. A total of 24 patients were enrolled in the tirofiban group and 43 patients in the IVT + T group. Compared to tirofiban alone, IVT + T was associated with a higher probability of achieving mRS ≤1 at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.06-37.52; P = 0.003) and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale ≤2 at day 7 or discharge (aOR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.05-12.99; P = 0.041). No significant difference was seen between the two groups in preventing postprocedural neurological deterioration. One case of SICH and two cases of MSB occurred in the IVT + T group and no cases in the tirofiban group. One case of inhospital mortality was recorded in the IVT + T group. Our results showed that IVT + T may be safe and effective in Caucasian patients with acute ACI/PPI.

Tirofiban versus aspirin to prevent in-stent thrombosis after emergent carotid artery stenting in acute ischemic stroke

BackgroundSeveral antithrombotic treatments during emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) have been proposed, but an appropriate protocol to balance risk–benefit is not well known.ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of tirofiban...

Effects of Tirofiban on Neurological Deterioration in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke

Evidence supports using antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. However, neurological deterioration remains common under the currently recommended antiplatelet regimen, leading to poor clinical outcomes. To determine whether intravenous tirofiban administered within 24 hours of stroke onset prevents early neurological deterioration in patients with acute noncardioembolic stroke compared with oral aspirin. This investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial with blinded end-point assessment was conducted at 10 comprehensive stroke centers in China between September 2020 and March 2023. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 80 years with acute noncardioembolic stroke within 24 hours of onset and had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 4 to 20. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive intravenous tirofiban or oral aspirin for 72 hours using a central, web-based, computer-generated randomization schedule; all patients then received oral aspirin. The primary efficacy outcome was early neurological deterioration (increase in NIHSS score ≥4 points) within 72 hours after randomization. The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage within 72 hours after randomization. A total of 425 patients were included in the intravenous tirofiban (n = 213) or oral aspirin (n = 212) groups. Median (IQR) age was 64.0 years (56.0-71.0); 124 patients (29.2%) were female, and 301 (70.8%) were male. Early neurological deterioration occurred in 9 patients (4.2%) in the tirofiban group and 28 patients (13.2%) in the aspirin group (adjusted relative risk, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.65; P = .002). No patients in the tirofiban group experienced intracerebral hemorrhage. At 90-day follow-up, 3 patients (1.3%) in the tirofiban group and 3 (1.5%) in the aspirin group died (adjusted RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.27-8.54; P = .63), and the median (IQR) modified Rankin scale scores were 1.0 (0-1.25) and 1.0 (0-2), respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.90-1.83; P = .17). In patients with noncardioembolic stroke who were seen within 24 hours of symptom onset, tirofiban decreased the risk of early neurological deterioration but did not increase the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage or systematic bleeding. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04491695.

Intravenous Tirofiban Versus Alteplase Before Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Pooled Analysis of the DEVT and RESCUE BT Trials.

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous tirofiban versus alteplase before endovascular treatment (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke patients with intracranial large vessel occlusion. This was a post hoc analysis using data from 2 multicenter, randomized trials: the DEVT trial (Direct Endovascular Treatment for Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke) from May 2018 to May 2020 and the RESCUE BT trial (Intravenous Tirofiban Before Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke) from October 2018 to October 2021. Patients with acute intracranial large vessel occlusion within 4.5 hours from last known well were dichotomized into 2 groups: tirofiban plus EVT versus alteplase bridging with EVT. The primary outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2) at 90 days. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and 3-month mortality. Multivariable logistic regression (adjusting for baseline systolic blood pressure, occlusion site, onset-to-puncture time, anesthesia, and first choice of EVT) and propensity score overlap weighting (balance in demographic covariates, stroke characteristics, and initial management between groups) were performed. One-hundred and eighteen alteplase-treated patients in the DEVT trial and 98 tirofiban-treated patients in the RESCUE BT trial were included (median age, 70 years; 115 [53.2%] men). The rate of functional independence was 60.2% in the tirofiban group compared with 46.6% in the alteplase group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.60-2.63]). Compared with alteplase, tirofiban was not associated with increased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (6.8% versus 9.2%; P=0.51) and mortality (17.8% versus 19.4%; P=0.76). The propensity score overlap weighting analyses showed consistent outcomes. Among patients with intracranial large vessel occlusion within 4.5 hours of onset, tirofiban plus EVT was comparable to alteplase bridging with EVT regarding the efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings should be interpreted as preliminary and require confirmation in a randomized trial. URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique identifiers: ChiCTR-IOR-17013568 and ChiCTR-INR-17014167.

Adjunct Intraarterial or Intravenous Tirofiban Versus No Tirofiban After Successful Recanalization of Basilar Artery Occlusion Stroke: The BASILAR Registry.

Approximately half of patients who achieve successful reperfusion do not achieve functional independence. The present study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes and safety of intraarterial or intravenous tirofiban as adjunct therapy in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion who had achieved successful recanalization with endovascular treatment. In the national, prospective BASILAR (Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study) registry, 458 patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into 3 groups based on tirofiban administration (no tirofiban, n=262; intravenous tirofiban, n=101; intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban, n=95). Their clinical outcomes were compared with 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were obtained by logistic regression models and propensity score matching. Safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH, and mortality. Among 458 included patients, 184 (40.2%) achieved a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-3). There were no differences between the intravenous tirofiban group and the no tirofiban group in terms of safety and clinical outcomes (all P>0.05). Compared with the no tirofiban group, the intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban group had higher odds of 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 3 (aOR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.30-4.64], P=0.006) and lower 3-month mortality (aOR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.19-0.71], P=0.002) without an increase in any ICH (aOR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.09-1.01], P=0.07) or symptomatic ICH (aOR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.03-0.90], P=0.05). Similar results of intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban on improving clinical outcomes were detected in novel cohorts constructed by propensity score matching. Intraarterial+intravenous rather than intravenous tirofiban improved clinical outcomes without increasing the frequency of symptomatic ICH among patients with basilar artery occlusion after successful endovascular treatment. Further studies are needed to delineate the roles of intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban in patients with basilar artery occlusion receiving endovascular treatment.

The impact of intraarterial, intravenous, and combined tirofiban on endovascular treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerotic occlusion.

Adjunctive tirofiban administration in patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) has been investigated in several studies. However, the findings are conflict. This study aimed to compare the effect of different administration pathways of tirofiban on patients undergoing EVT for acute LVO with intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD). Patients were selected from the ANGEL-ACT Registry (Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Multicenter Registry Study) and divided into four groups: intra-arterial (IA), intravenous (IV), and intra-arterial plus intravenous (IA+IV) and non-tirofiban. The primary outcome was 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, and the secondary outcomes included the rates of mRS 0-1, 0-2, and 0-3 at 90-day, successful recanalization. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and other safety endpoints. The multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for potential baseline confounders were performed to compare the outcomes. A propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1:1:1 ratio was conducted among four groups, and the outcomes were then compared in the post-matched population. A total of 502 patients were included, 80 of which were in the IA-tirofiban group, 73 in IV-tirofiban, 181 in (IA+IV)-tirofiban group, and 168 in the non-tirofiban group. The median (IQR) 90-day mRS score in the four groups of IA, IV, IA+IV, and non-tirofiban was, respectively 3(0-5) vs. 1(0-4) vs. 1(0-4) vs. 3(0-5). The adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45-1.30, P = 0.330), with IV-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.78-2.36, P = 0.276), and with (IA+IV)-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.64-1.64, P = 0.912). The adjusted OR for mRS 0-1 and mRS 0-2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.51 (95% CI, 0.27-0.98, P = 0.042) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.26-0.94, P = 0.033). The other outcomes of each group were similar with non-tirofiban group, all P was >0.05. After PSM, the common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.18-0.94, P = 0.036), and the OR for mRS 0-1 and mRS 0-2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.28 (95% CI, 0.11-0.74, P = 0.011) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.09-0.67, P = 0.006). Intra-arterial administration of tirofiban was associated with worse outcome than non-tirofiban, which suggested that intra-arterial tirofiban had a harmful effect on patients undergoing EVT for ICAD-LVO. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT03370939.

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.

Perioperative complications of arteriovenous tirofiban administration versus oral dual antiplatelet therapy for stent-assisted embolization treated aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A retrospective, controlled cohort analysis.

Major perioperative complications of stent-assisted embolization treated for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients include the formation of thromboembolic events (TEs) and hemorrhagic events (HEs), for which antiplatelet protocols play a key role. We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis to compare the differences between arteriovenous tirofiban administration with traditional oral dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). A total of 417 consecutive patients were enrolled. General clinical characteristics, as well as the perioperative ischemic and hemorrhagic events, were retracted in digital documents. Logistic regression was conducted to identify both risk and protective factors of perioperative TEs and HEs. Perioperative TEs occurred in 21 patients, with an overall perioperative TEs rate of approximately 5.04%; among these patients, the incidence of perioperative TEs in the tirofiban group was less than that in the DAPT group. Additionally, 66 patients developed perioperative HEs, with an incidence of approximately 15.83%; among these patients, the incidence of perioperative HEs was less than that in the DAPT group. No significant differences were seen between the two groups in terms of the mRS score at the time of discharge. This study indicated that an improved perioperative antiplatelet drug tirofiban was an independent protective factor for perioperative TEs in stent-assisted embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms, but it did not impart an elevated risk of perioperative HEs and had no significant effects on the near-term prognosis of the patients.

Safety Profile of Intra-Arterial Tirofiban as a Rescue Therapy during Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Abstract Purpose This article studies the safety profile and role of intra-arterial (IA) tirofiban as a rescue therapy in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. Methods This is a retrospective observational study conducted among AIS patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) eligible for endovascular revascularization and in whom IA tirofiban is given as rescue therapy. If the target vessel shows reocclusion following initial recanalization, flow limiting or significant residual stenosis after thrombectomy, or requires balloon angioplasty or stenting, IA tirofiban at a dose of 0.4 μg/kg/min was administered through the microcatheter in the target vessel followed by intravenous infusion of 0.1 μg/kg/min. The primary safety measure of the study was the incidence of symptomatic hemorrhage. Results The total number of patients in the study group was 82, 36 were in the tirofiban group and 46 were in the non-tirofiban group. Immediate successful reperfusion was achieved in 31 patients (86.1%) and 41 patients (89%) in the tirofiban and non-tirofiban groups, respectively. Note that 19.4 and 25% of patients in the tirofiban group required adjunct techniques of angioplasty and stenting, respectively. Also, 2.7% patient in the tirofiban group had a symptomatic hemorrhage, while 8.7% in the non-tirofiban group had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. On multinomial logistic regression, history of transient ischemic attack, truncal occlusion and watershed infarct pattern predicted the usage of IA tirofiban during mechanical thrombectomy. Conclusion Usage of IA tirofiban with or without adjunct techniques as a rescue therapy during mechanical thrombectomy in LVO improved recanalization rates without increasing the risk of symptomatic hemorrhage.

Early tirofiban versus heparin for bridging dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing coronary endarterectomy combined with coronary artery bypass grafting: a multicenter randomized controlled trial protocol (the THACE-CABG trial)

BackgroundFor complete revascularization, patients with diffuse coronary artery disease should have a coronary endarterectomy and a coronary artery bypass graft (CE-CABG). Sadly, CE can lead to a lack of endothelium, which raises the risk of thrombotic events. Even though daily dual antiplatelet therapies (DAPT) have been shown to reduce thrombotic events, the risk of perioperative thrombotic events is high during the high-risk period after CE-CABG, and there is no consistent protocol to bridge DAPT. This trial aims to compare safety and efficacy between tirofiban and heparin as DAPT bridging strategies after CE-CABG.MethodsIn phase I, 266 patients undergoing CE-CABG will be randomly assigned to tirofiban and heparin treatment groups to compare the two treatments in terms of the primary safety endpoint, chest tube drainage in the first 24 h. If the phase I trial shows tirofiban non-inferiority, phase II will commence, in which an additional 464 patients will be randomly assigned. All 730 patients will be studied to compare major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) between the groups in the first 30 days after surgery.DiscussionGiven the possible benefits of tirofiban administration after CE-CABG, this trial has the potential to advance the field of adult coronary heart surgery.Trial registrationchictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2200055697. Registered 6 January 2022. https://www.chictr.org.cn/com/25/showproj.aspx?proj=149451. Current version: 20,220,620.

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

BackgroundThis 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). MethodsThis 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. ResultsA 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). ConclusionTirofiban 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.

Comparison of Intracoronary Tirofiban And Intravenous Tirofiban for Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Cerebrovascular Accident

Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and and Cerebrovascular Accidents (CVA) have become primary areas of interest due to the ongoing focal research in cardiovascular diseases. Objective: To assess the frequency of major adverse cardiac events and cerebrovascular accidents for intracoronary tirofiban and intravenous tirofiban. Methods: It was a comparative study conducted at the Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore from March 2019 to March 2020. A total of 250 patients of both genders, aged between 20 to 65 years were enrolled in this study who had STEMI and have high thrombus burden or TIMI flow grade &lt; 3 during primary PCI. They were divided into two groups namely intracoronary tirofiban group and intravenous tirofiban. The impact of intracoronary tirofiban versus intravenous tirofiban outcomes were assessed. Results: Statistically insignificant difference in MACE (myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident &amp; revascularization) between intracoronary &amp; intravenous tirofiban groups was noted. The frequency distribution for cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) showed that haemorrhage was found similar in both groups. Ischemic stroke, in patients of the intracoronary tirofiban group compared with intravenous tirofiban group, was 1 (0.8%) vs 3 (2.4%) with p-value 0.348 respectively. Reversible ischemic neurological deficit (RIND) was found in 3 (2.4%) in the intracoronary and 4 (3.2%) in the intravenous group. Transient ischemic attack (TIA) found in the intracoronary was 8(6.4%) whereas in the intravenous group was 9 (7.2%). Conclusions: The results of our study make us conclude that tirofiban when given intracoronary or intravenous does not show any significant difference for major adverse cardiac events and cerebrovascular accidents.

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

BackgroundTirofiban 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). MethodsElectronic 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. ResultsCompared 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). ConclusionFor 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.

Safety and efficacy of arterial injection of tirofiban in treating ischemic stroke beyond the window period

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of intraarterial administration of tirofiban for stroke treatment beyond the conventional window period and evaluate its impact on prognosis.Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on ninety (90) acute ischemic stroke patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, Haikou, China from July 2021 to October 2022. The patients were divided into Tirofiban group (50) and non-Tirofiban group (40) based on whether the patients received arterial clopidogrel. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel index (BI) scores were used to evaluate adverse drug reactions and its impact on prognosis for patients with symptoms onset within 6 - 24 h.Results: No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of age, gender, medical history, personal history, blood indicators and neurologic function scores (p &gt; 0.05). The median NIHSS score on admission and after 24 h of treatment was 4 in both groups and 3 in both groups after 72 h of treatment. However, after 7 days of treatment, the median NIHSS score was lower in Tirofiban group (2.0) than in non-Tirofiban group (2.5; p &gt; 0.05). Tirofiban group demonstrated higher rates of effective treatment and good prognosis compared to non-Tirofiban group. Importantly, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse reactions between the two groups (p &gt; 0.05).Conclusion: Tirofiban, given via the arteries, improves neurological functions following hyper-acute stroke even beyond the window period and without adverse reactions. It is a safe and effective antiplatelet drug for late-life treatment. For future studies, it will be necessary to broaden the treatment scope and gather more robust and reliable data in order to enhance data quality.