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.

Analysis of rescue strategies for acute thrombosis during STA-MCA bypass surgery and the literature review

Risk and Benefit Evaluation: Application of Multiphase Computed Tomography Angiography in Mechanical Thrombectomy for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Direct Intra-arterial Thrombectomy in Order to Revascularize AIS Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion Efficiently in Chinese Tertiary Hospitals: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (Direct-Mt)-protocol.

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

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 During Intravenous Thrombolysis Bridging to Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Low-dose Intravenous Tirofiban Infusion after Endovascular Recanalization for Non-Acute Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion

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

The safety and efficacy of tirofiban on prevention of vascular reocclusion following mechanical thrombectomy for in situ thrombosis

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

Preoperative and intraoperative tirofiban during endovascular thrombectomy in large vessel occlusion stroke due to large artery atherosclerosis

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

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

Therapeutic effect of pre-operative tirofiban on patients with acute ischemic stroke with mechanical thrombectomy within 6-24 hours

Clinical analysis of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a single-center study of 58 cases

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban in Rescue Treatment for Acute Intracranial Intraprocedural Stent Thrombosis

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

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

[Clinical analysis of difficult intraarterial mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke]

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

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban Bridging Therapy During a Hybrid Carotid Artery Stenting and Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Single-center Study