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.

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

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

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

Tirofiban on Fully Recanalized Stroke with Thrombectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors affecting the outcomes of tirofiban after endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke: Experience from a single center

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 Severe Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Mechanical Thrombectomy

Association between tirofiban monotherapy and efficacy and safety in acute ischemic stroke

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

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

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

The Safety and Efficiency of Tirofiban in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Treated with Mechanical Thrombectomy: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

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

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