Clinical study of tirofiban compared to low molecular weight heparin in the antithrombotic treatment of progressive pontine infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of tirofiban and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in the treatment of patients undergoing acute progressive pontine infarction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with acute progressive pontine infarction who were hospitalized in the Neurology Department from June 2021 to June 2023 were included in the study and randomly divided into two groups, namely the experimental group (tirofiban group) and the control group (LMWH group). All patients in both groups were required to receive conventional comprehensive treatment and dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin + clopidogrel at the beginning of admission. The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and Barthel Index (BI) were used to evaluate the neurological deficits on the first day of admission, the next day with stroke progression, and at discharge after treatment with tirofiban and LMWH, respectively in the two groups. The modified Rankin Scale was employed to assess prognosis on the 90th day after treatment. Clinical adverse events were followed up for 90 days, comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of the two treatment methods. RESULTS: There was no statistical significance in NIHSS score and Barthel Index between the tirofiban group and the LMWH group on the first day of admission and the next day with stroke progression (p > 0.05). After stroke progression, tirofiban and LMWH were separately used for treatment in the two groups. We found that the NIHSS score of the tirofiban group was lower than that of the LMWH group, and the Barthel Index score was higher than that of the LMWH group at discharge (p < 0.05). After three months of follow-up, the mRS score of the tirofiban group was dramatically higher than that of the LMWH group (p < 0.05). No significant harmful or adverse reactions, such as bleeding events, were found in the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tirofiban may be more effective and safer than LMWH in controlling the progression of acute pontine infarction, but further and large-sample studies are still needed to confirm this finding.

Efficacy and Safety of Tirofiban Before Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerotic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acute stent thrombosis (AST) is not uncommon and even catastrophic during intracranial stenting angioplasty in patients with symptomatic high-grade intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether adjuvant intravenous tirofiban before stenting could reduce the risk of AST and periprocedural ischemic stroke in patients receiving stent angioplasty for symptomatic ICAS. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 9, 2020, to February 18, 2022, at 10 medical centers in China. Patients intended to receive stent angioplasty for symptomatic high-grade ICAS were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive intravenous tirofiban or not before stenting in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcomes included the incidence of AST within 30 minutes after stenting, periprocedural new-onset ischemic stroke, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. The outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression analysis to obtain an odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of 200 participants (122 men [61.0%]; median [interquartile ranges] age, 57 [52-66] years) were included in the analysis, with 100 participants randomly assigned to the tirofiban group and 100 participants to the control (no tirofiban) group. The AST incidence was lower in the tirofiban group than that in the control group (4.0% vs 14.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.82; p = 0.02). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of periprocedural ischemic stroke (7.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.98) or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage between the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: This study suggests that adjuvant intravenous tirofiban before stenting could lower the risk of AST during stent angioplasty in patients with symptomatic high-grade ICAS. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: URL: chictr.org.cn; Unique identifier: ChiCTR2000031935. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with symptomatic high-grade ICAS, pretreatment with tirofiban decreases the incidence of acute stent thrombosis. This study is Class II due to the unequal distribution of involved arteries between the 2 groups.

Impact of rise and fall phases of shear on platelet activation and aggregation using microfluidics.

Blood flow disorders are often the result of the non-physiological narrowing of blood arteries caused by atherosclerosis and thrombus. The blood then proceeds through rising-peak-decreasing phases as it passes through the narrow area. Although abnormally high shear is known to activate platelets, the shear process that platelets undergo in small arteries is complex. Thus, understanding how each shear phase affects platelet activation can be used to improve antiplatelet therapy and decrease the risk of side effects like bleeding. Blood samples were sheared (68.8 ms,5200 s-1) in vitro by the microfluidic technique, and platelet activation levels (P-selectin and integrin αIIbß3) and von Willebrand factor (vWF) binding to platelets were analyzed by flow cytometry. Post-stenosis platelet aggregation was dynamically detected using microfluidic technology. We studied TXA2, P2Y12-ADP, and integrin αIIbß3-fibrinogen receptor pathways by adding antiplatelet drugs, such as acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, an active ingredient of aspirin that inhibits platelet metabolism), ticagrelor (hinders platelet activation), and tirofiban (blocks integrin αIIbß3 receptor) in vitro, respectively, to determine platelet activation function mediated by transient non-physiological high shear rates. We demonstrated that platelets can be activated under transient pathological high shear rates. The shear rise and fall phases influenced shear-induced platelet activation by regulating the binding of vWF to platelets. The degree of platelet activation and aggregation increased with multiple shear rise and fall phases. ASA did not inhibit shear-mediated platelet activation, but ticagrelor and tirofiban effectively inhibited shear-mediated platelet activation. Our data demonstrated that the shear rise and fall phases play an important role in shear-mediated platelet activation and promote platelet activation and aggregation in a vWF-dependent manner. Blocking integrin αIIbß3 receptor and hindering P2Y12-ADP were beneficial to reducing shear-mediated platelet activation.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of tirofiban for acute ischemic stroke without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion: A Markov modelling analysis from the Chinese and United States perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The RESCUE BT2 trial recently showcased the efficacy of tirofiban in treating acute ischemic stroke (AIS) without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion. To further assess the value of tirofiban from the perspectives of Chinese and US healthcare system, a study was conducted to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A hybrid model, integrating a short-term decision tree with a long-term Markov model, was developed to assess cost-effectiveness between tirofiban and aspirin for stroke patients without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion. Efficacy data for tirofiban was sourced from the RESCUE BT2 trial, while cost information was derived from published papers. Outcomes measured included respective cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the results. Additionally, we performed probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) through 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the uncertainties associated with the results. RESULTS: The study revealed that tirofiban treatment in AIS patients without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion led to a considerable reduction of 2141 Chinese Yuan (CNY) in total cost, along with a lifetime gain of 0.14 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). In the US settings, tirofiban also exhibited a lower cost ($197,055 versus $201,984) and higher effectiveness (4.15 QALYs versus 4.06 QALYs) compared to aspirin. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that post-stroke care costs and stroke utility had the greatest impact on ICER fluctuation in both Chinese and US settings. However, these variations did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold. PSA demonstrated tirofiban's superior acceptability over aspirin in over 95% of potential scenarios. CONCLUSION: Tirofiban treatment for AIS without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion appeared dominant compared to aspirin in both China and the US.

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.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

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).

BACKGROUND: For 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. METHODS: In 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. DISCUSSION: Given the possible benefits of tirofiban administration after CE-CABG, this trial has the potential to advance the field of adult coronary heart surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2200055697. Registered 6 January 2022. https://www.chictr.org.cn/com/25/showproj.aspx?proj=149451 . Current version: 20,220,620.

Statistical analysis plan for the multicenter, open, randomized controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous tirofiban vs aspirin in acute ischemic stroke due to tandem lesion, undergoing recanalization therapy by endovascular treatment (ATILA trial).

RATIONALE: In-stent reocclusion after endovascular therapy has a negative impact on outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to tandem lesions (TL). Optimal antiplatelet therapy approach in these patients to avoid in-stent reocclusion is yet to be elucidated. AIMS: To assess efficacy and safety of intravenous tirofiban versus intravenous aspirin in patients undergoing MT plus carotid stenting in the setting of AIS due to TL. SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATES: Two hundred forty patients will be enrolled, 120 in every treatment arm. METHODS AND DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled (aspirin group), assessor-blinded clinical trial will be conducted. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be randomized at MT onset to the experimental or control group (1:1). Intravenous aspirin will be administered at a 500-mg single dose and tirofiban at a 500-mcg bolus followed by a 200-mcg/h infusion during the first 24 h. All patients will be followed for up to 3 months. STUDY OUTCOMES: Primary efficacy outcome will be the proportion of patients with carotid in-stent thrombosis within the first 24 h after MT. Primary safety outcome will be the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. DISCUSSION: This will be the first clinical trial to assess the best antiplatelet therapy to avoid in-stent thrombosis after MT in patients with TL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as NCT05225961. February, 7th, 2022.

Subtyping treatment response of tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke based on neuroimaging features.

In a previously published clinical trial, we demonstrated that tirofiban was effective and safe in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients who did not undergo early recanalization treatments. We aimed to evaluate neuroimaging characteristics and their clinical significance to guide tirofiban treatment. In this post hoc analysis, location of infarcts (anterior circulation stroke [ACS] vs. posterior circulation stroke [PCS]), degree of cerebral artery stenosis (≤69% vs. ≥70% or occlusion), total infarct volume, and ASPECTS were used to predict the treatment effects of tirofiban, defined as the proportions of excellent and favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score of 0-1, 0-2) at 90 days. ACS patients were more likely to achieve excellent (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.25-3.45; p = 0.004) and favorable functional outcome (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.24-4.22; p = 0.008) when treated with tirofiban. However, there was no significant difference in PCS patients between tirofiban and the control group. For patients with severe stenosis (≥70% or occlusion), tirofiban treatment improved the proportion of good outcomes (OR 2.84; 95% CI 1.44-5.60; p = 0.002 for mRS 0-1; OR 2.42; 95% CI 1.22-4.77; p = 0.011 for mRS 0-2). Meanwhile, we found that tirofiban improved outcome in patients with ASPECTS 8-10 and was independent of total infarct volume. These findings support the hypothesis that patients with ACS and severe stenosis may be recommended for tirofiban treatment, which can be predicted independent of total infarct volume.

Does Endovascular Thrombectomy(ET) plus tirofiban benefit stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Endovascular thrombectomy (ET) has been shown to prevent disability in a proportion of patients. The use of tirofiban in patients undergoing ET after acute stroke has resulted in improved patient function and reduced mortality to some extent. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of the current period, an overview of the most recent studies on the potential efficacy of using tirofiban to help acute stroke patients improve function and reduce mortality was provided. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we explore the safety and efficacy of ET combined with tirofiban in patients with acute stroke. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library database from the construction of the library to the present relevant RCTs/non-RCTs. The following key words were used for finding relevant studies from the databases"tirofiban""thrombectomy"" Stroke"" balloon angioplasty""stenting". RESULTS: Total of 14 trials with 4366 individuals enrolled were included in the Meta-analysis including 2732(62.6) who received ET alone and 1634(37.4 %) who received tirofiban plus ET. The primary outcome of 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin scale (mRS) score≤2) was 42.2 % (1043/2473) in the ET alone group vs. 46.2 % (684/1480) in the tirofiban with ET group (risk ratio (RR), 1.10 [95 % CI, 1.02-1.18]; P=0.02),mortality at 90 days (RR, 0.86 [95 % CI, 0.76-0.98]; P = 0.02). There is no significant between-group differences were found in excellent outcome (mRS score ≤1) (RR, 1.08 [95 % CI, 0.95-1.23]; P = 0.22), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.11 [95 % CI, 0.92-1.34]; P = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the use of ET combined with tirofiban in patients with acute stroke is safe and has the potential to reduce mortality and improve functional independence at 90 days.

The Efficacy and Safety of Tirofiban Use in Endovascular Thrombectomy for Intravenous Thrombolysis Applicable Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke-a Post Hoc Analysis from the Direct-MT Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tirofiban use in endovascular thrombectomy for intravenous thrombolysis applicable patients of large vessel occlusion stroke with data from Direct-MT trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct-MT was the first randomized controlled trial to prove the non-inferiority of thrombectomy alone to bridging therapy (intravenous thrombolysis before thrombectomy) for large vessel occlusion stroke. Patients who underwent endovascular procedure were included and divided into thrombectomy-alone group and bridging therapy group. The effect of tirofiban use on 90 days MRS distribution, MRS 0-2 and mortality, successful reperfusion, the ASPECTS and outcome lesion volume of index stroke, re-occlusion of the treated vessel, futile recanalization and safety outcomes were further evaluated in both groups after adjustment for relevant confounding factors. The interaction between tirofiban and rt-PA was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 639 patients included in this analysis, 180 patients underwent thrombectomy with tirofiban use (28.2%). Patients with tirofiban use had lower percentage of bridging therapy (41.1% vs 54.3%, P = 0.003), higher proportion of large artery atherosclerosis (P < 0.001) and more emergent stenting (30.56% vs 6.97%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for confounding factors, the 90-day modified Rankin Scale distribution, successful final recanalization rate, outcome lesion volume of index stroke on CT and intracranial hemorrhage risk showed no difference after tirofiban use in thrombectomy-alone group and in bridging therapy group. No interaction effect between tirofiban and rt-PA was detected. CONCLUSION: Based on data from Direct-MT trial, tirofiban is a safe medication for intravenous thrombolysis applicable patients with large vessel occlusion stroke undergoing thrombectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, cohort study of randomized trial.

Efficacy and Safety Outcomes for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Treated with Intravenous Infusion of Tirofiban After Emergent Carotid Artery Stenting.

INTRODUCTION: Emergent stenting of the extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) in stroke patients requires antiplatelet therapy to prevent in-stent thrombosis with a higher risk of intracranial haemorrhage. AIM OF THE STUDY: Assess the efficacy and safety of emergent carotid stenting with intravenous tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: Primary endpoint: symptomatic hemorrhage. Secondary endpoints: 90-day functional outcome and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 62 patients, 21 (34%) received tirofiban as a single antiplatelet, and 41 (66%) received combined therapy. Premedication with anticoagulants and antiplatelets was significantly more frequent in the tirofiban-only group. The rate of symptomatic haemorrhage was significantly lower in the tirofiban-only group than in the combined group (4.8% vs. 27%, p = 0.046). The patients with tirofiban alone had a significantly better functional outcome at day 90 than the combined group (52% vs. 24%, p = 0.028). Mortality was equal (24%) in both groups. Pre-interventional NIHSS score (p = 0.003), significant blood pressure fluctuations (p = 0.012), tandem occlusion (p = 0.023), and thrombolysis (p = 0.044) showed relevant influence on the rate of symptomatic hemorrhage in the entire patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: A single antiplatelet therapy with tirofiban regardless of the premedication may improve the functional outcome in patients with stroke due to acute extracranial carotid lesion and emergent carotid stenting with lower rates of serious intracranial haemorrhage. For patients with high pre-interventional NIHSS score, tandem occlusion and after pre-interventional thrombolysis, caution is advised. Additionally, strict blood pressure monitoring should be conducted during the first 72 h after intervention.

Tirofiban combined with Aspirin in the Treatment of Acute Penetrating Artery Territory Infarction (STRATEGY): protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Perforating artery territorial infarction (PAI) caused by branch atheromatous disease (BAD) is prone to recurrence and early progression without an effective and well-documented antiplatelet treatment regimen. Tirofiban, an adjunctive antiplatelet agent, has shown great potential to treat acute ischaemic stroke. However, whether the combination of tirofiban and aspirin can improve the prognosis of PAI remains unclear. AIM: To explore an effective and safe antiplatelet regimen for reducing the risk of recurrence and early neurological deterioration (END) in PAI caused by BAD by comparing the tirofiban and aspirin combination with placebo and aspirin combination. METHODS: Tirofiban combined with Aspirin in the Treatment of Acute Penetrating Artery Territory Infarction (STRATEGY) trial is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in China. Eligible patients shall be randomly assigned to receive standard aspirin with tirofiban or placebo on the first day and standard aspirin from days 2 to 90. The primary endpoint is a new stroke or END within 90 days. The primary safety endpoint is severe or moderate bleeding within 90 days. DISCUSSION: The STRATEGY trial will assess whether tirofiban combined with aspirin is effective and safe in preventing recurrence and END in patients with PAI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05310968.

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.

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.

Aspiration Thrombectomy Versus Stent-Retriever Thrombectomy for the First-Pass Therapy of Intracranial Atherosclerosis-Related Large Vessel Occlusion: A Post Hoc Analysis of The Endovascular Treatment With Versus Without Tirofiban for Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to scrutinize the clinical outcomes associated with first-pass mechanical thrombectomy strategies in the management of intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS)-related large vessel occlusion (LVO). METHODS: Within this post-hoc analysis of the The Endovascular Treatment With vs Without Tirofiban for Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke (RESCUE BT) trial, we compared data pertaining to patients with ICAS-LVO situated in the anterior circulation who underwent initial therapeutic interventions utilizing either aspiration thrombectomy or stent-retriever thrombectomy. The analysis encompassed the assessment of intraprocedural recanalization, rescue procedures involving balloon angioplasty or stenting, 48-hour reocclusion rates, occurrences of cerebral hemorrhagic complications, and 90-day Modified Rankin Scale scores. RESULTS: Among the 948 patients encompassed in the RESCUE BT trial, a total of 230 patients with ICAS-LVO in the anterior circulation were enrolled in the study. Of these, 111 underwent aspiration thrombectomy as the first-pass therapy, while 119 patients underwent stent-retriever thrombectomy as the initial intervention. The difference in first pass recanalization rates between aspiration thrombectomy and stent-retriever thrombectomy was not statistically significant (17.1% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.555), and mechanical thrombectomy success rates (90.1% vs. 90.8%, P = 0.864), the use of balloon angioplasty or stenting for rescue therapy (54.6% vs. 45.9%, P = 0.189; 23.4% vs. 25.2%, P = 0.752), and favorable 90-day Modified Rankin Scale outcomes (53.2% vs. 40.3%, P = 0.051) showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both aspiration thrombectomy and stent-retriever thrombectomy can be considered as primary therapeutic options for patients presenting with ICAS-LVO in the anterior circulation.

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.