Abstract:Background and purpose: Adjunctive tirofiban administration in patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) has been investigated in several studies. However, the findings are conflict. This study aimed to compare the effect of different administration pathways of tirofiban on patients undergoing EVT for acute LVO with intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD). Methods: Patients were selected from the ANGEL-ACT Registry (Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Multicenter Registry Study) and divided into four groups: intra-arterial (IA), intravenous (IV), and intra-arterial plus intravenous (IA+IV) and non-tirofiban. The primary outcome was 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, and the secondary outcomes included the rates of mRS 0–1, 0–2, and 0–3 at 90-day, successful recanalization. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and other safety endpoints. The multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for potential baseline confounders were performed to compare the outcomes. A propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1:1:1 ratio was conducted among four groups, and the outcomes were then compared in the post-matched population. Results: A total of 502 patients were included, 80 of which were in the IA-tirofiban group, 73 in IV-tirofiban, 181 in (IA+IV)-tirofiban group, and 168 in the non-tirofiban group. The median (IQR) 90-day mRS score in the four groups of IA, IV, IA+IV, and non-tirofiban was, respectively 3(0–5) vs. 1(0–4) vs. 1(0–4) vs. 3(0–5). The adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.30, P = 0.330), with IV-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.78–2.36, P = 0.276), and with (IA+IV)-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.64–1.64, P = 0.912). The adjusted OR for mRS 0–1 and mRS 0–2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.51 (95% CI, 0.27–0.98, P = 0.042) and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.26–0.94, P = 0.033). The other outcomes of each group were similar with non-tirofiban group, all P was >0.05. After PSM, the common odds ratio (OR) for 90-day ordinal modified Rankin Scale distribution with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.18–0.94, P = 0.036), and the OR for mRS 0–1 and mRS 0–2 at 90-day with IA-tirofiban vs. non-tirofiban was, respectively 0.28 (95% CI, 0.11–0.74, P = 0.011) and 0.25 (95% CI, 0.09–0.67, P = 0.006). Conclusions: Intra-arterial administration of tirofiban was associated with worse outcome than non-tirofiban, which suggested that intra-arterial tirofiban had a harmful effect on patients undergoing EVT for ICAD-LVO. Clinical trial registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT03370939.

Low-dose tirofiban is associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in cardioembolic stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy

[Safety of Tirofiban in Patients with Acute Cerebral Infarct Receiving Endovascular Therapy].

Low-Dose Tirofiban Improves Functional Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Treated With Endovascular Thrombectomy

Early Tirofiban Administration for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated with Intravenous Thrombolysis or Bridging Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Safety and Efficacy of Low-Dose Tirofiban Combined With Intravenous Thrombolysis and Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Matched-Control Analysis From a Nationwide Registry

Association of Intravenous Tirofiban with Functional Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Receiving Endovascular Thrombectomy

Safety of Intra-Arterial Tirofiban Administration in Ischemic Stroke Patients after Unsuccessful Mechanical Thrombectomy

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

Low‐dose rescue tirofiban in mechanical thrombectomy for acute cerebral large‐artery occlusion

Safety and Efficacy of Adjunct Tirofiban Treatment Following Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion (LVO) Resulting in Successful Reperfusion.

The impact of intraarterial, intravenous, and combined tirofiban on endovascular treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerotic occlusion

Association of Tirofiban with Improvement of Functional Outcomes of Direct Thrombectomy for Acute Anterior Circulation Occlusion: a Retrospective, Nonrandomized, Multicenter, Real-World Study.

Safety and efficacy of tirofiban treatment in the endovascular treatment of patients with acute ischaemic stroke - A meta-analysis

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Endovascular Treatment: A Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy: A frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Tirofiban in Clinical Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

Intraarterial Versus Intravenous Tirofiban as an Adjunct to Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Association of Functional Outcomes Between Intravenous Tirofiban and Endovascular Thrombectomy in Imaging-Screened Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: a Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trial

The Application of Tirofiban in the Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis

Effect of Tirofiban on new cerebral microbleeds after mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke

[Safety and efficacy of intra-arterial tirofiban infusion in patients with acute cardiogenic cerebral embolism undergoing endovascular reperfusion therapy]