Can Tirofiban Improve the Outcome of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

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.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical thrombectomy is now widely used in acute ischaemic stroke, but its adjunctive antiplatelet aggregation regimen is controversial. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) who underwent mechanical thrombectomy.

METHODS

We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of science. Randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing the tirofiban group and non-tirofiban group (control group) in patients with AIS who underwent mechanical thrombectomy. The primary safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), 3-month mortality, and re-occlusion rate. The primary efficacy outcomes were good functional outcome (mRS 0-2), excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1), and successful recanalization (mTICI≥2b).

RESULTS

We included 22 studies with a total of 6062 patients. For safety outcomes, the tirofiban group had a non-significantly higher rate of sICH (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.73-1.10, P = 0.29) and a significantly lower rate of re-occlusion (OR = 0.40, 95 % CI = 0.19-0.82, P = 0.01) and 3-month mortality (OR = 0.71, 95 % CI = 0.61-0.82, P < 0.00001) compared to the control group. In terms of efficacy outcomes, significant improvement in good functional outcomes (mRS 0-2) (OR = 1.24, 95 % CI = 1.11-1.39, P = 0.0002) and recanalization rate (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.17-1.62, P = 0.0001) compared to tirofiban, but not significant improvement in excellent functional outcomes(OR = 1.14, 95 % CI = 0.93-1.39, P = 0.21). In addition, compared with cardiogenic stroke, the large atherosclerotic stroke had a higher rate of good functional outcome (OR = 1.58, 95 % CI = 1.18-2.11, P = 0.002) and a lower rate of 3-month mortality (OR = 0.58, 95 % CI = 0.39-0.85, P = 0.005). Subgroup analysis by route of administration showed a significant improvement in good functional outcome in the intravenous group (OR = 1.27, 95 % CI = 1.08-1.50, P = 0.004), while no significant difference was found between the arterial and arteriovenous groups.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with tirofiban in patients with AIS with mechanical thrombectomy is effective in improving functional prognosis, arterial recanalization rates, and reducing 3-month mortality and re-occlusion rates, particularly in patients with large atherosclerotic stroke, without increasing the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Intravenous administration of tirofiban significantly improves the clinical prognosis compared to arterial administration. Tirofiban is effective and safe in patients with AIS.

Anaesthetic and peri-operative management for thrombectomy procedures in stroke patients

PURPOSE

To provide recommendations for the anaesthetic and peri-operative management for thrombectomy procedure in stroke patients DESIGN: A consensus committee of 15 experts issued from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Française d'Anesthésie et Réanimation, SFAR), the Association of French-language Neuro-Anaesthetists (Association des Neuro-Anesthésistes Réanimateurs de Langue Francaise, ANARLF), the French Neuro-Vascular Society (Société Francaise de Neuro-Vasculaire, SFNV), the French Neuro-Radiology Society (Société Francaise de Neuro-Radiologie, SFNR) and the French Study Group on Haemostasis and Thrombosis (Groupe Français d'Études sur l'Hémostase et la Thrombose, GFHT) was convened, under the supervision of two expert coordinators from the SFAR and the ANARLF. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline elaboration process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were required to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide their assessment of quality of evidence.

METHODS

Four fields were defined prior to the literature search: (1) Peri-procedural management, (2) Prevention and management of secondary brain injuries, (3) Management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatments, (4) Post-procedural management and orientation of the patient. Questions were formulated using the PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) and updated as needed. Analysis of the literature was then conducted and the recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

The SFAR/ANARLF/SFNV/SFNR/GFHT guideline panel drew up 18 recommendations regarding anaesthetic management of mechanical thrombectomy procedures. Due to a lack of data in the literature allowing to conclude with high certainty on relevant clinical outcomes, the experts decided to formulate these guidelines as "Professional Practice Recommendations" (PPR) rather than "Formalized Expert Recommendations". After two rounds of rating and several amendments, a strong agreement was reached on 100% of the recommendations. No recommendation could be formulated for two questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement among experts was reached to provide a sizable number of recommendations aimed at optimising anaesthetic management for thrombectomy in patients suffering from stroke.

Risk factors of hemorrhagic transformation in acute ischaemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Hemorrhagic transformation (HT) following reperfusion therapies for acute ischaemic stroke often predicts a poor prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify risk factors for HT, and how these vary with hyperacute treatment [intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT)].

Methods

Electronic databases PubMed and EMBASE were used to search relevant studies. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.

Results

A total of 120 studies were included. Atrial fibrillation and NIHSS score were common predictors for any intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) after reperfusion therapies (both IVT and EVT), while a hyperdense artery sign (OR = 2.605, 95% CI 1.212-5.599, I ² = 0.0%) and number of thrombectomy passes (OR = 1.151, 95% CI 1.041-1.272, I ² = 54.3%) were predictors of any ICH after IVT and EVT, respectively. Common predictors for symptomatic ICH (sICH) after reperfusion therapies were age and serum glucose level. Atrial fibrillation (OR = 3.867, 95% CI 1.970-7.591, I ² = 29.1%), NIHSS score (OR = 1.082, 95% CI 1.060-1.105, I ² = 54.5%) and onset-to-treatment time (OR = 1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.005, I ² = 0.0%) were predictors of sICH after IVT. Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS) (OR = 0.686, 95% CI 0.565-0.833, I ² =77.6%) and number of thrombectomy passes (OR = 1.374, 95% CI 1.012-1.866, I ² = 86.4%) were predictors of sICH after EVT.

Conclusion

Several predictors of ICH were identified, which varied by treatment type. Studies based on larger and multi-center data sets should be prioritized to confirm the results.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=268927, identifier: CRD42021268927.

Prospective pilot study of tirofiban in progressive stroke after intravenous thrombolysis

Background

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is a standard procedure for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Improving the therapeutic efficacy of IVT is an important task for neurologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early low-dose tirofiban treatment in AIS patients with early neurological deterioration (END) after IVT.

Methods

In this prospective and randomized pilot study, 73 AIS patients with END were recruited from a local hospital in China. Of these, 14 patients were treated with regular antiplatelet agents (aspirin plus clopidogrel) and 59 patients were treated with tirofiban within 24 h of IVT, followed by regular antiplatelet therapy. Neurological deficits and functional recovery were assessed with NIHSS and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 7 and 90 days. During the 90-day follow-up period, both hemorrhagic (e.g., intracerebral hemorrhage) and non-hemorrhagic (e.g., pneumonia) events were recorded.

Results

Treatment with tirofiban compared with regular antiplatelet therapy: (1) improved functional recovery of AIS patients to mRS (≤2) at both 7 and 90 days (odds ratios [ORs], 1.37 and 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–1.61 and 1.26–2.12; P = 0.008 and < 0.001, respectively), and (2) reduced NIHSS scores from 11.14 ± 2.38 to 5.95 ± 3.48 at day 7 (P < 0.001) and from 8.14 ± 2.74 to 4.08 ± 3.50 at day 90 (P < 0.001). Tirofiban treatment did not increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications. Multivariate regression analysis showed that tirofiban treatment independently predicted a favorable functional outcome (P ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion

Early treatment with low-dose tirofiban in AIS patients with neurologic deterioration after IVT potentially improved functional recovery and attenuated neurologic deficits as early as 7 days and did not increase the risk of various hemorrhagic complications. However, the therapeutic efficacy of tirofiban treatment in END patients needs to be determined by future randomized clinical trials with a large study population.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn/, Identifier ChiCTR2200058513.

Safety and efficacy of different tirofiban administration routes on acute ischemic stroke patients with successful recanalization: A propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effect of different administration routes of a low dose of tirofiban on acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with successful recanalization after endovascular treatment (EVT).

METHODS

This is a cohort study that retrospectively analyzed data of patients with AIS who underwent EVT and achieved successful recanalization from a prospective registry. Eligible patients were divided into three groups according to their use of tirofiban. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline bias. Safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and symptomatic ICH (sICH). Efficacy outcomes included arterial reocclusion, in-hospital mortality, 3-month mortality, and 3-month functional outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 821 patients with 306 in the no tirofiban group, 202 in the IA + IV tirofiban group, and 313 in the IV tirofiban group. After PSM, each group included 101 patients with balanced baseline characteristics. There was no difference between the IV tirofiban group and the no tirofiban group in terms of safety and efficacy outcomes (all p > 0.05). Compared with no tirofiban, IA + IV tirofiban group did not increase ICH (30.7% vs. 37.6%, p > 0.05) and sICH (6.9% vs. 17.8%, p > 0.05) whereas reduced 3-month mortality (14.3% vs. 28.7%, p < 0.05) and improved 3-month modified Rankin Scale (median 3 vs. 4, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A low dose of tirofiban, regardless of their administration routes, was safe for AIS patients who achieved successful recanalization with EVT, whereas only IA + IV tirofiban improved clinical outcomes.