Safety and efficacy of tirofiban combined with intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment in acute large vessel occlusion stroke

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of tirofiban combined with intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular treatment in acute large vessel occlusion stroke","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study assesses the safety and efficacy of tirofiban for patients with large vessel occlusion stroke after intravenous thrombolysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study data was from SUSTAIN, DEVT, and RESCUE BT trials. According to whether the use of tirofiban who underwent endovascular treatment and preceding intravenous thrombolysis was divided into the tirofiban group and the no-tirofiban group. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, any intracranial hemorrhage within 48 h, and 3-month mortality. The efficacy outcome was defined as a score of 0–2 on the modified Rankin Scale scores at 3 months.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 372 patients with intravenous thrombolysis were included in these SUSTAIN, DEVT, and RESCUE BT trials. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that tirofiban with intravenous thrombolysis was not associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aOR, 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.49–1.57; P=0.65), any intracranial hemorrhage within 48 h (aOR, 1.00; 95 % CI, 0.60–1.66; P=1.00), 3-month mortality (aOR, 1.10; 95 % CI, 0.56–2.19; P=0.78) and 3-month modified Rankin Scale scores 0–2 (aOR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.42–1.25; P=0.25) in patients with acute large vessel occlusion. In the subgroup analysis, we found that tirofiban was not recommended for females (aOR, 0.34; 95 % CI, 0.12–0.93), baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score≤9 (aOR, 0.37; 95 % CI, 0.18–0.76), and cardiogenic embolism (aOR, 0.36; 95 % CI, 0.14–0.97).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Tirofiban combined with intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute large vessel occlusion may be safe. Further studies need to confirm the effectiveness of tirofiban after intravenous thrombolysis in different stroke etiology.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10385,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846724003500","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study assesses the safety and efficacy of tirofiban for patients with large vessel occlusion stroke after intravenous thrombolysis.

Methods

This study data was from SUSTAIN, DEVT, and RESCUE BT trials. According to whether the use of tirofiban who underwent endovascular treatment and preceding intravenous thrombolysis was divided into the tirofiban group and the no-tirofiban group. The safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, any intracranial hemorrhage within 48 h, and 3-month mortality. The efficacy outcome was defined as a score of 0–2 on the modified Rankin Scale scores at 3 months.

Results

A total of 372 patients with intravenous thrombolysis were included in these SUSTAIN, DEVT, and RESCUE BT trials. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed that tirofiban with intravenous thrombolysis was not associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aOR, 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.49–1.57; P=0.65), any intracranial hemorrhage within 48 h (aOR, 1.00; 95 % CI, 0.60–1.66; P=1.00), 3-month mortality (aOR, 1.10; 95 % CI, 0.56–2.19; P=0.78) and 3-month modified Rankin Scale scores 0–2 (aOR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.42–1.25; P=0.25) in patients with acute large vessel occlusion. In the subgroup analysis, we found that tirofiban was not recommended for females (aOR, 0.34; 95 % CI, 0.12–0.93), baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score≤9 (aOR, 0.37; 95 % CI, 0.18–0.76), and cardiogenic embolism (aOR, 0.36; 95 % CI, 0.14–0.97).

Conclusion

Tirofiban combined with intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute large vessel occlusion may be safe. Further studies need to confirm the effectiveness of tirofiban after intravenous thrombolysis in different stroke etiology.

替罗非班联合静脉溶栓和血管内治疗治疗急性大血管闭塞性卒中的安全性和有效性。
研究目的本研究评估了替罗非班对静脉溶栓后大血管闭塞性卒中患者的安全性和有效性:本研究数据来自 SUSTAIN、DEVT 和 RESCUE BT 试验。根据是否使用替罗非班将接受血管内治疗和静脉溶栓的患者分为替罗非班组和无替罗非班组。安全性结果为症状性颅内出血、48小时内任何颅内出血和3个月死亡率。疗效结果定义为3个月后改良Rankin量表评分为0-2分:SUSTAIN、DEVT和RESCUE BT试验共纳入了372名静脉溶栓患者。调整后的多变量分析显示,替罗非班联合静脉溶栓与无症状性颅内出血(aOR,0.87;95 % CI,0.49-1.57;P=0.65)、48 小时内任何颅内出血(aOR,1.00;95 % CI,0.60-1.66;P=1.00)、急性大血管闭塞患者 3 个月死亡率(aOR,1.10;95 % CI,0.56-2.19;P=0.78)和 3 个月改良 Rankin 量表评分 0-2 分(aOR,0.72;95 % CI,0.42-1.25;P=0.25)。在亚组分析中,我们发现女性(aOR,0.34;95 % CI,0.12-0.93)、基线阿尔伯塔卒中计划早期 CT 评分≤9(aOR,0.37;95 % CI,0.18-0.76)和心源性栓塞(aOR,0.36;95 % CI,0.14-0.97)不推荐使用替罗非班:结论:替罗非班联合静脉溶栓治疗急性大血管闭塞患者可能是安全的。结论:替罗非班联合静脉溶栓治疗急性大血管闭塞患者可能是安全的,需要进一步研究证实替罗非班联合静脉溶栓治疗不同卒中病因的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
358
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery is devoted to publishing papers and reports on the clinical aspects of neurology and neurosurgery. It is an international forum for papers of high scientific standard that are of interest to Neurologists and Neurosurgeons world-wide.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信