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.

Abstract WP185: Intraarterial Eptifibatide as an Adjunct to Refractory Multi-Pass Mechanical Thrombectomy

Abstract WP25: Eptifibatide in Acute Ischemic Strokes Without Large Vessel Occlusions

Eptifibatide use in ischemic stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy: A matched cohort analysis

Safety and Angiographic Efficacy of Intra-Arterial Fibrinolytics as Adjunct to Mechanical Thrombectomy: Results from the INFINITY Registry

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

Abstract TP213: Predictors of Functional Independence Among Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Treated With Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis as Adjunct to Mechanical Thrombectomy

Safety and efficacy of eptifibatide in acute ischemic stroke requiring extracranial carotid artery stenting

Combined Approach to Eptifibatide and Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Because of Large Vessel Occlusion: A Matched-Control Analysis

Safety and efficacy of adjunctive intra-arterial antithrombotic therapy during endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract WMP88: Intraarterial Tirofiban Through Deployed Stent-Retriever Bailout: A Potential Alternative to Angioplasty and Stenting

Abstract TP192: Combined Intra-Venous and Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis versus Intra-Venous Thrombolysis Alone in Stroke Patients Undergoing Mechanical Thrombectomy for Large Vessel Occlusion: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

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

Safety and Efficacy of Low-Dose Eptifibatide for Tandem Occlusions in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting

Adjunctive Intravenous Argatroban or Eptifibatide for Ischemic Stroke

Angiographic Outcomes with Early Eptifibatide Therapy in Non-St-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (from the EARLY ACS Trial).

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban During Intravenous Thrombolysis Bridging to Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis

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

Intra-arterial adjuvant tirofiban after unsuccessful intra-arterial thrombolysis of acute ischemic stroke: preliminary experience in 16 patients

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