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.

Endovascular treatment for acute basilar artery occlusion due to different stroke etiologies of large artery atherosclerosis and cardioembolism.

Introduction: Stroke etiology may affect the prognosis of acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO). This study aimed to estimate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment (EVT) in BAO strokes due to the underlying stroke etiologies of large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) and cardioembolism (CE). Patients and methods: Patients with LAA and CE subtypes from the registry EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR) were selected for this analysis. We estimated the EVT treatment effect relative to standard medical treatment (SMT) in these patients by using a propensity score approach with inverse probability of treatment weighted estimation. Outcomes included 90-day favorable functional outcomes (modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0-3), functional independence (mRS 0-2), all-cause mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Results: A total of 744 patients were included in the final analysis. After weighting with inverse probability of treatment estimation, the patients who, based on their characteristics, were treated with EVT rather than SMT, demonstrated higher rates of favorable functional outcomes in both the LAA (29.2% vs 11.7%, adjusted OR with 95% CI: 4.34 [2.15-8.78], p < 0.001) and the CE subtype (36.0% vs 8.1%, adjusted OR with 95% CI: 9.14 [1.96-42.55], p = 0.005). A similar finding was also observed for functional independence. EVT patients also demonstrated lower rates of mortality than SMT. Among EVT patients, no significant difference was observed in mortality or sICH between LAA and CE groups, but LAA patients had lower rates of favorable functional outcome and functional independence (29.2% vs 37% and 24.2% vs 32.9%, respectively), where the latter remained significant after adjustment for imbalances in baseline data (p = 0.04). Conclusions: In acute BAO strokes, both LAA and CE patients who, based on their characteristics, were treated with EVT rather than SMT, demonstrated better outcomes. Among EVT patients, LAA and CE subtypes displayed important baseline and treatment differences, and LAA patients were less likely to achieve functional independence at 3 months, but mortality and sICH were similar between LAA or CE subtypes. These results need to be confirmed in future clinical trials.

Effect of Intravenous Tirofiban vs Placebo Before Endovascular Thrombectomy on Functional Outcomes in Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: The RESCUE BT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Tirofiban is a highly selective nonpeptide antagonist of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor, which reversibly inhibits platelet aggregation. It remains uncertain whether intravenous tirofiban is effective to improve functional outcomes for patients with large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy. Objective: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of intravenous tirofiban before endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was implemented at 55 hospitals in China, enrolling 948 patients with stroke and proximal intracranial large vessel occlusion presenting within 24 hours of time last known well. Recruitment took place between October 10, 2018, and October 31, 2021, with final follow-up on January 15, 2022. Interventions: Participants received intravenous tirofiban (n = 463) or placebo (n = 485) prior to endovascular thrombectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was disability level at 90 days as measured by overall distribution of the modified Rankin Scale scores from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death). The primary safety outcome was the incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours. Results: Among 948 patients randomized (mean age, 67 years; 391 [41.2%] women), 948 (100%) completed the trial. The median (IQR) 90-day modified Rankin Scale score in the tirofiban group vs placebo group was 3 (1-4) vs 3 (1-4). The adjusted common odds ratio for a lower level of disability with tirofiban vs placebo was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36). Incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was 9.7% in the tirofiban group vs 6.4% in the placebo group (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -0.2% to 6.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy, treatment with intravenous tirofiban, compared with placebo, before endovascular therapy resulted in no significant difference in disability severity at 90 days. The findings do not support use of intravenous tirofiban before endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR-IOR-17014167.

Safety and Efficacy of Endovascular Treatment for Progressive Stroke in Patients With Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion.

Background and Purpose: It is unknown the benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) for progressive stroke in patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EVT with standard medical therapy (SMT) in a population of BAO patients with progressive stroke. Methods: The EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR) is a national prospective registry of consecutive patients with acute BAO within 24 h of symptom onset. According to the applied therapy, all patients were divided into SMT and EVT groups. Subsequently, the EVT group was divided into early (≤6 h) and late groups (>6 h) according to the time window. The efficacy outcome was favorable functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 3) at 90 days. The safety outcomes included mortality within 90 days and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) after EVT. Results: The EVT cohort presented more frequently with a favorable functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 5.49; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-14.61, p = 0.01) and with a decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.54, p < 0.001). What's more, EVT still safe (P = 0.584, P = 0.492, respectively) and effective (P = 0.05) in patients with progressive stroke when the treatment time window exceeds 6 h. Conclusions: EVT was more effective and safer than SMT for progressive stroke in patients with BAO. Besides, EVT remains safe and effective in patients with progressive stroke when the treatment time window exceeds 6 h. Predictors of desirable outcome in progressive stroke patients undergoing EVT included lower baseline NIHSS score, higher baseline pc-ASPECTs, successful recanalization and shorter puncture to recanalization time.