Tirofiban for Stroke without Large or Medium-Sized Vessel Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The effects of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke but who have no evidence of complete occlusion of large or medium-sized vessels have not been extensively studied. METHODS: In a multicenter trial in China, we enrolled patients with ischemic stroke without occlusion of large or medium-sized vessels and with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 5 or more and at least one moderately to severely weak limb. Eligible patients had any of four clinical presentations: ineligible for thrombolysis or thrombectomy and within 24 hours after the patient was last known to be well; progression of stroke symptoms 24 to 96 hours after onset; early neurologic deterioration after thrombolysis; or thrombolysis with no improvement at 4 to 24 hours. Patients were assigned to receive intravenous tirofiban (plus oral placebo) or oral aspirin (100 mg per day, plus intravenous placebo) for 2 days; all patients then received oral aspirin until day 90. The primary efficacy end point was an excellent outcome, defined as a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days. Secondary end points included functional independence at 90 days and a quality-of-life score. The primary safety end points were death and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 606 patients were assigned to the tirofiban group and 571 to the aspirin group. Most patients had small infarctions that were presumed to be atherosclerotic. The percentage of patients with a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days was 29.1% with tirofiban and 22.2% with aspirin (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.53, P = 0.02). Results for secondary end points were generally not consistent with the results of the primary analysis. Mortality was similar in the two groups. The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was 1.0% in the tirofiban group and 0% in the aspirin group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving heterogeneous groups of patients with stroke of recent onset or progression of stroke symptoms and nonoccluded large and medium-sized cerebral vessels, intravenous tirofiban was associated with a greater likelihood of an excellent outcome than low-dose aspirin. Incidences of intracranial hemorrhages were low but slightly higher with tirofiban. (Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China; RESCUE BT2 Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number, ChiCTR2000029502.).

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

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant tirofiban in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion due to large-artery atherosclerotic (LAA) receiving endovascular therapy (EVT). METHODS: This was a non-randomized, multicenter study using data from the Endovascular Treatment for Acute BASILAR Artery Occlusion (BASILAR) registry. Patients with acute basilar artery occlusion due to LAA within 24h of symptom onset who underwent EVT were included. Patients were divided into tirofiban and non-tirofiban groups according to whether tirofiban was used. The primary outcome was the ordinal modified Rankin scale score at 90 days. Safety outcomes were mortality within 90 days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 48 h. RESULTS: A total of 417 patients were included, of whom 275 patients were in the tirofiban group and 142 patients in the non-tirofiban group. Compared with patients in the non-tirofiban group, patients in the tirofiban group were associated with a favorable shift in functional outcome at 90 days (6[4-6] vs 5 [2-6]; adjusted common OR, 2.51; 95 % CI, 1.64-3.83). The mortality was lower in the tirofiban group than the non-tirofiban group (40.7 % vs 58.5 %; adjusted OR, 0.35; 95 % CI, 0.21-0.56). The rate of sICH was 12.2 % in the non-tirofiban group and 5.2 % in the tirofiban group (adjusted OR, 0.37; 95 % CI, 0.17-0.80; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Tirofiban plus EVT might improve functional outcomes with a good safety for patients with acute basilar artery occlusion due to LAA. The results need to be confirmed in a randomized trial.

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.

Antiplatelet Therapy in Neurointervention.

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the use of antiplatelet medication in neurointervention, with a focus on the clinical indications for antiplatelet use in both preventing and reducing platelet aggregation. This review will cover current antiplatelet medications, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. We will provide an overview of different endovascular devices and discuss the antiplatelet regimes in neurointervention, highlighting gaps in evidence and scope for future studies.Two randomized controlled trials have evaluated antiplatelet use in the setting of acute large vessel occlusion stroke, with neither demonstrating benefit in their overall cohorts. Evidence on antiplatelet medication for both acute and elective stenting for acute stroke and treatment of cerebral aneurysms is currently based on large case series, and practice in neurointervention has increasingly utilized dual antiplatelet regimes with clopidogrel and second-line agents like prasugrel and ticagrelor. Clopidogrel function testing has an increasing role in neurointerventional procedures, particularly for high metal surface area stents such as the braided flow diverter type stents. Intravenous glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibitors have been utilized for both acute bridging and rescue therapy.Antiplatelet decision making is complex, and there are few randomized control trials to guide clinical practice. Comparative trials to guide decision making remain important in both the acute and elective settings. Standardised protocols incorporating platelet function testing may play a role in assisting decision making until more robust clinical evidence is available, particularly in the context of acute neurointerventional stenting for stroke and ruptured cerebral aneurysms.

Endovascular Thrombectomy for Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: An Evolution of Trials.

The last decade's progress in demonstrating the clinical benefit of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with large vessel occlusion stroke has transformed the paradigm of care for these patients. This review presents the milestones in implementing EVT as standard of care, demonstrates the current state of evidence, provides guidance for identifying the candidate patient for EVT, and highlights unsolved and controversial issues. Ongoing trials investigate broadening of EVT indications for patients who present with large core infarction, adjunctive intra-arterial thrombolysis, medium vessel occlusion, low NIHSS, and tandem occlusion.

Effects of tirofiban on large vessel occlusion stroke are modified by etiology and renal function.

OBJECTIVE: Renal function can modify the outcomes of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke across stroke etiologies in disparate degrees. The presence of renal function deficit can also impair the pharmacokinetics of tirofiban. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the roles of renal function in determining efficacy and safety of intravenous tirofiban before endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO). METHODS: This study was a post hoc exploratory analysis of the RESCUE-BT trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving functional independence (modified Rankin scale 0-2) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). RESULTS: Among 908 individuals with available serum creatinine, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) status was noted more commonly in patients with cardioembolic stroke (CE), while large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) was predominant in patients with normal renal function. In LAA with normal renal function, tirofiban was associated with higher rates of functional independence at 90 days (41.67% vs 59.80%, p = 0.003). However, for LVO patients with renal dysfunction, tirofiban did not improve functional outcomes for any of the etiologies (LAA, p = 0.876; CE, p = 0.662; others, p = 0.894) and significantly increased the risk of sICH among non-LAA patients (p = 0.020). Mediation analysis showed tirofiban reduced thrombectomy passes (12.27%) and drug/placebo to recanalization time (14.25%) mediated its effects on functional independence. CONCLUSION: This present study demonstrated the importance of evaluating renal function before administering intravenous tirofiban among patients with LVO who are planned to undergo EVT.

Association of tirofiban treatment with outcomes following endovascular therapy in cardioembolic stroke: insights from the RESCUE BT randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of tirofiban in endovascular therapy for cardioembolic ischemic stroke patients remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the role of intravenous tirofiban before endovascular therapy in cardioembolic stroke. METHODS: This post hoc analysis utilized data from the RESCUE BT (Endovascular Treatment With versus Without Tirofiban for Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke) trial, which was an investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomized to receive either tirofiban or a placebo in a 1:1 ratio before undergoing endovascular therapy. The study included patients aged 18 years or older, presenting with occlusion of the internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery (MCA) M1/M2 within 24 h of the last known well time, and with a stroke etiology of cardioembolism. The primary efficacy outcome was global disability at 90 days, assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). The safety outcome included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 48 h and mortality within 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 406 cardioembolic stroke patients were included in this study, with 212 assigned to the tirofiban group and 194 assigned to the placebo group. Tirofiban treatment did not correlate with a favorable shift towards a lower 90-day mRS score (adjusted common odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI 0.64-1.3; p = 0.617). However, the tirofiban group had a significantly higher risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 48 h (adjusted OR, 3.26; 95% CI 1.4-7.57; p = 0.006) compared to the placebo group. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for mortality within 90 days was 1.48 (95% CI 0.88-2.52; p = 0.143). CONCLUSIONS: Tirofiban treatment was not associated with a lower level of disability and increased the incidence of sICH after endovascular therapy in cardioembolic stroke patients.

Effect of endovascular treatment within 6 hours for acute basilar artery occlusion.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment (EVT) plus standard medical treatment (SMT) in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) within 6 hours of the estimated occlusion time, based on a Chinese population. METHODS: The authors selected patients from the Endovascular Treatment of Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR) registry, which was a nationwide prospective registry, within 6 hours after the estimated time of onset of a stroke in acute BAO. Patients were divided into the SMT-alone group or the EVT+SMT group according to treatment modalities. The primary outcome was a favorable functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score between 0 and 3 at 90 days. Safety outcomes included death at 90 days and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. RESULTS: The authors assessed 590 patients for eligibility. Of these patients, 127 received SMT alone and 463 were treated with EVT plus SMT. EVT was associated with a higher rate of a favorable functional outcome (adjusted OR 3.804, 95% CI 1.890-7.658; p < 0.001) and a lower proportion of deaths at 90 days (adjusted OR 0.364, 95% CI 0.223-0.594; p < 0.001). Lower age (adjusted OR 0.978, 95% CI 0.960-0.997; p = 0.022); lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (adjusted OR 0.926, 95% CI 0.902-0.950; p < 0.001); higher baseline posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (adjusted OR 1.681, 95% CI 1.424-1.984; p < 0.001); absence of diabetes mellitus (adjusted OR 0.482, 95% CI 0.267-0.871; p = 0.016); and modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scores 2b-3 (adjusted OR 5.117, 95% CI 2.304-11.367; p < 0.001) were independent factors for a favorable outcome in the EVT+SMT group. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the study design, patients with acute BAO who received EVT within 6 hours were associated with improved favorable outcome and decreased deaths compared with patients who received SMT. Predictors of desirable outcome in patients undergoing EVT included lower age, lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, higher baseline posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, absence of diabetes mellitus, and modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scores 2b-3.

Association of Tirofiban With Functional Outcomes After Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Due to Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of IV infusion of tirofiban before endovascular thrombectomy for patients with large vessel occlusion due to intracranial atherosclerotic disease. The secondary objective was to identify potential mediators for the clinical effect of tirofiban. METHODS: Post hoc exploratory analysis of the Endovascular Treatment With versus Without Tirofiban for Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke (RESCUE BT) trial, which was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial at 55 centers in China from October 2018 to October 2021. Patients with occlusion of the internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery due to intracranial atherosclerosis were included. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving functional independence (defined as modified Rankin scale 0-2) at 90 days. Binary logistic regression and causal mediation analyses were used to estimate the treatment effect of tirofiban and the potential mediators. RESULTS: This study included 435 patients, of whom 71.5% were men. The median age was 65 (interquartile range [IQR] 56-72) years, with a median NIH Stroke Scale of 14 (IQR 10-19). Patients in the tirofiban group had higher rates of functional independence at 90 days than patients in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 1.68; 95% CI 1.11-2.56, p = 0.02) without an increased risk of mortality or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Tirofiban was associated with fewer thrombectomy passes (median [IQR] 1 [1-2] vs 1 [1-2], p = 0.004), which was an independent predictor of functional independence. Mediation analysis showed tirofiban-reduced thrombectomy passes explained 20.0% (95% CI 4.1%-76.0%) of the effect of tirofiban on functional independence. DISCUSSION: In this post hoc analysis of the RESCUE BT trial, tirofiban was an effective and well-tolerated adjuvant medication of endovascular thrombectomy for patients with large vessel occlusion due to intracranial atherosclerosis. These findings need to be confirmed in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The RESCUE BT trial was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR-INR-17014167. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that tirofiban plus endovascular therapy improves 90-day outcome for patients with large vessel occlusion due to intracranial atherosclerosis.

Association between intravenous tirofiban and intracranial hemorrhage in acute large vessel occlusion stroke: insight from the RESCUE BT randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to investigate the association between intravenous tirofiban and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) secondary to large vessel occlusion (LVO) receiving endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) within 24 h of time last known well (LKW). METHODS: Patients with AIS-LVO who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous tirofiban or placebo before EVT within 24 h of time LKW and had follow-up brain non-contrast computed tomography within 24 h after stopping tirofiban treatment were derived from "RESCUE BT": a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. All eligible patients were divided into SICH and NO-SICH groups. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 945 patients included in this cohort, there were 76 (8.0%) in the SICH group and 869 (92.0%) in the NO-SICH group. The incidence of SICH was not higher in patients receiving intravenous tirofiban compared with placebo (adjusted risk ratio (RR), 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97-2.36; P = 0.07). Subgroup analyses showed that age greater than 67-year-old (adjusted RR, 2.18; 95% CI 1.18-4.00), NIHSS greater than 16 (adjusted RR, 1.88; 95% CI 1.06-3.34), and cardioembolism (adjusted RR, 3.73; 95% CI 1.66-8.35) were associated with increased SICH risk. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute large vessel occlusion stroke, intravenous tirofiban before EVT within 24 h of time from last known well is not associated with increased risk of SICH. Patients who are older, have more severe neurological deficits, or with cardioembolism are at higher risk of SICH with intravenous tirofiban. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn ; Unique identifier: ChiCTR-INR-17014167.

Specialist Perspectives on the Imaging Selection of Large Vessel Occlusion in the Late Window.

BACKGROUND: The proper imaging modality for use in the selection of patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) presenting in the late window remains controversial, despite current guidelines advocating the use of advanced imaging in this population. We sought to understand if clinicians with different specialty training differ in their approach to patient selection for EVT in the late time window. METHODS: We conducted an international survey of stroke and neurointerventional clinicians between January and May 2022 with questions focusing on imaging and treatment decisions of large vessel occlusion (LVO) patients presenting in the late window. Interventional neurologists, interventional neuroradiologists, and endovascular neurosurgeons were defined as interventionists whereas all other specialties were defined as non-interventionists. The non-interventionist group was defined by all other specialties of the respondents: stroke neurologist, neuroradiologist, emergency medicine physician, trainee (fellows and residents) and others. RESULTS: Of 3000 invited to participate, 1506 (1027 non-interventionists, 478 interventionists, 1 declined to specify) physicians completed the study. Interventionist respondents were more likely to proceed directly to EVT (39.5% vs. 19.5%; p < 0.0001) compared to non-interventionist respondents in patients with favorable ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score). Despite no difference in access to advanced imaging, interventionists were more likely to prefer CT/CTA alone (34.8% vs. 21.0%) and less likely to prefer CT/CTA/CTP (39.1% vs. 52.4%) for patient selection (p < 0.0001). When faced with uncertainty, non-interventionists were more likely to follow clinical guidelines (45.1% vs. 30.2%) while interventionists were more likely to follow their assessment of evidence (38.7% vs. 27.0%) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Interventionists were less likely to use advanced imaging techniques in selecting LVO patients presenting in the late window and more likely to base their decisions on their assessment of evidence rather than published guidelines. These results reflect gaps between interventionists and non-interventionists reliance on clinical guidelines, the limits of available evidence, and clinician belief in the utility of advanced imaging.