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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. REGISTRATION: 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.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS AND RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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.

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.