
==== Front
Eur J Neurol
Eur J Neurol
10.1111/(ISSN)1468-1331
ENE
European Journal of Neurology
1351-5101
1468-1331
John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken

39072930
10.1111/ene.16419
ENE16419
EJoN-24-1043.R1
Original Article
Stroke
Preoperative and intraoperative tirofiban during endovascular thrombectomy in large vessel occlusion stroke due to large artery atherosclerosis
Tirofiban in endovascular thrombectomy
Sun et al.
Sun Zhiqiang https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2798-881X
1
Huang Shuhan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4158-5407
1 2
Li Wei 1
Yang Yi 1
Wu Ya 1
Ma Xue 1
Nie Ximing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8380-4076
3 4
Jin Wangsheng https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5263-6965
1
Liu Chengchun 1
Li Xiaoshu 1
Xu Yaning https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4351-5453
5
Dong Jun 1
Liao Yisi 1
Sun Binlu 1
Han Wenjun 1
Zhao Qing 1
Chi Huaqiao 1
Wang Yanjiang 1
Liu Liping 3 4 lipingsister@gmail.com

Zhang Meng 1 zhangmeng@tmmu.edu.cn

1 Department of Neurology Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University Chongqing China
2 Department of Neurology First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University Chongqing China
3 Department of Neurology Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University Beijing China
4 China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases Beijing China
5 Department of Neurology 985 Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force Taiyuan China
* Correspondence
Meng Zhang, Department of Neurology, Daping Hospital, Third Military Medical University, No. 10 Changjiang Branch Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400042, China.
Email: zhangmeng@tmmu.edu.cn
Liping Liu, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, 119 W Rd, S 4th Ring, Fengtai District, Beijing 100075, China.
Email: lipingsister@gmail.com

29 7 2024
10 2024
31 10 10.1111/ene.v31.10 e1641927 6 2024
27 5 2024
09 7 2024
© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background and purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of preoperative versus intraoperative tirofiban in patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) due to large artery atherosclerosis (LAA).

Methods

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study based on the RESCUE‐RE (Registration Study for Critical Care of Acute Ischemic Stroke After Recanalization) trial enrolling patients with anterior circulation LVO classified as LAA within 24 h of onset. Patients were divided into three groups: preoperative tirofiban (PT), intraoperative tirofiban (IT), and no tirofiban (NT). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. The efficacy outcomes included 90‐day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score = 0–2) and early partial recanalization (EPR; defined as a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score = 1–2a). The safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH).

Results

A total of 104 matched triplets were obtained through PSM. Compared with NT, PT increased 90‐day functional independence (60.8% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.008) and EPR (42.7% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001) rate, with a tendency to increase the asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH) proportion (28.8% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.072). Compared with IT, PT had a higher 90‐day functional independence (60.8% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.025) and EPR (42.7% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.001) rate, with no significant difference in sICH (14.4% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.122) and aICH (28.8% vs. 21.2%, p = 0.200). Compared with NT, IT had a lower 90‐day mortality rate (9.6% vs. 24.0%, p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Tirofiban shows good adjuvant therapy potential in acute ischemic stroke–LVO due to LAA patients. PT is associated with higher rates of EPR and better therapeutic efficacy. In addition, EPR may be a potential way to improve prognosis.

endovascular thrombectomy
ischemic stroke
reperfusion
tirofiban
National Natural Science Foundation of China 10.13039/501100001809 82071322 source-schema-version-number2.0
cover-dateOctober 2024
details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.8 mode:remove_FC converted:20.09.2024
Sun Z , Huang S , Li W , et al. Preoperative and intraoperative tirofiban during endovascular thrombectomy in large vessel occlusion stroke due to large artery atherosclerosis. Eur J Neurol. 2024;31 :e16419. doi:10.1111/ene.16419

Zhiqiang Sun and Shuhan Huang contributed equally to this work.
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) is the most common acute ischemic stroke (AIS) subtype worldwide, and the incidence rate can reach up to 33% in Asian populations [1]. One of the main causes of LAA‐related large vessel occlusion (LVO) is the rupture of atherosclerotic plaques based on in situ stenosis, which triggers platelet activation and mediates thrombosis within a short period of time [2]. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT), while removing newly formed thrombus, damages atherosclerotic plaques and vascular endothelium, further activating platelets, increasing the risk of early reocclusion and distal embolism [3, 4, 5]. Therefore, LAA patients have a poorer response to MT and necessitate more intricate recanalization strategies and longer procedure time [6, 7].

Tirofiban is a fast‐acting, highly selective nonpeptide platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor with a half‐life of approximately 4 h. It can effectively and rapidly block the final pathway of platelet aggregation and subsequent formation of thrombus [8, 9, 10]. Tirofiban is widely used as an antithrombotic rescue drug during endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Observational studies suggest that it plays a promising role in LAA patients, especially those with severe residual stenosis, angioplasty, or stent implantation, or for the rescue of failed recanalization [11, 12, 13]. In recent years, preoperative tirofiban has attracted more attention. The RESCUE‐BT randomized controlled trial, enrolling 948 patients, conducted in China, showed that the administration of intravenous tirofiban before EVT does not improve the outcome of AIS‐LVO patients [14]. However, the subgroup analysis indicated that it may be effective for patients with LAA. Considering the pharmacological mechanism of tirofiban, we hypothesize that early use may bring considerable benefits for LAA patients. It is unclear whether there are any advantages to preoperative tirofiban versus its intraoperative use in clinical practice. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preoperative versus intraoperative tirofiban in LAA patients in the real world.

METHODS

Study participants

We analyzed the data from February 2016 to August 2023 in Registration Study for Critical Care of Acute Ischemic Stroke After Recanalization (RESCUE‐RE) [15]. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) anterior circulation LVO confirmed by computed tomographic angiography/magnetic resonance angiography; (ii) stroke etiology classified by the TOAST (Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment) system considered LAA, including intracranial and extracranial arterial atherosclerosis lesions; and (iii) preonset modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤ 2. The main exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) patients with preoperative oral dual antiplatelet drugs, (ii) patients with perioperative use of other intravenous antiplatelet drugs, and (iii) important baseline data missing.

Standard protocol approval, registration, and patient consent

RESCUE‐RE is a prospective, multicenter cohort study performed at 18 comprehensive stroke centers across China, aiming to evaluate the outcomes of AIS patients with LVO treated with EVT in real‐world clinical practice. The study is registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; unique identifier: ChiCTR1900022154), which has been approved by the institutional review board of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University (approval no. KY2018‐057‐01). All patients or their legal representatives provided written, informed consent to participate in the study.

Data collection

Extracted data collected during the patient's hospitalization and 3‐month follow‐up included age, sex, history of antiplatelet drug, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, time from last known well to puncture, tirofiban treatment information, neuroimaging data (e.g., Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score [ASPECTS], occlusion site, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI], and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage [sICH], defined as any intracranial hemorrhage on post‐EVT cerebral imaging with an increase of ≥4 points on the NIHSS score according to the Second European–Australasian Acute Stroke Study criteria [16]), asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH; defined as intracranial hemorrhage that does not have any impact on the prognosis or modification of the patient's treatment, and there is no significant alteration in the patient's neurological condition [17]), stroke etiology, EVT procedure, and 90‐day follow‐up outcomes. The core imaging interpretations of this registered study were conducted by the Imaging Laboratory of Tian Tan Hospital to ensure the consistency of evaluation criteria. Specifically, all images were independently reviewed by two trained readers (Drs. Weibin Gu and Xinyi Hou) blinded to clinical data. If there was a disagreement, a third neuroradiologist would participate in further evaluation.

EVT procedure

Local or general anesthesia was chosen based on the patient's level of cooperation and medical condition. The interventionists determined the EVT devices and intervention strategies. If there were no contraindications, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) would be performed before EVT. All patients underwent the first angiography prior to operation and the last angiography before the end of EVT. For residual stenosis >70% of the lesions, balloon dilation and/or stent implantation could be used as remedial treatment.

Tirofiban

Eligible patients were divided into three groups based on tirofiban use: preoperative tirofiban (PT), intraoperative tirofiban (IT), and no tirofiban (NT). Perioperative use of tirofiban was at the discretion of the interventionists. PT was defined as intravenous administration once the LVO was confirmed on admission imaging and the injection was needed before the beginning of arterial puncture. Tirofiban is usually administrated before EVT when considering the etiological classification of stroke to be LAA, to improve blood flow to the occluded area, prevent thrombus extension, and reduce possible rescue treatment during the procedure. Preoperative diagnosis of LAA is mainly based on the following: (i) the form of onset; (ii) high‐risk factors of atherosclerosis such as diabetes, hypertension, and smoking; (iii) the evidence of intracranial and extracranial artery stenosis in imaging examination; and (iv) no evidence of atrial fibrillation and possible cardiogenic diseases. In the PT group, tirofiban was injected intravenously in a 10‐μg/kg bolus, then maintained at a dose of 0.1 μg/kg per minute. IT was defined as intravenous or arterial infusion after initial angiography, and it should be given before the final angiogram. In the IT group, tirofiban was considered during the EVT procedure when the following applied: (i) to prevent reocclusion of severe residual stenosis, (ii) to prevent distal arterial occlusion, or (iii) emergency stent implantation or balloon angioplasty was performed. The routine practice was arterial or intravenous bolus injection of 10 μg/kg, followed by intravenous continuous infusion at 0.1 μg/kg per minute. NT was defined as tirofiban not being used during the perioperative period. Computed tomography or DynaCT was performed immediately after EVT. If there was no intracranial hemorrhage or severe bleeding, tirofiban was typically switched to oral antiplatelet therapy (loading dose aspirin and clopidogrel/ticagrelor) after 24 h.

Efficacy and safety outcomes

The primary efficacy outcome was functional independence (mRS = 0–2) at 90 days. The secondary efficacy outcomes included 90‐day mRS distribution and mortality, successful recanalization at final angiogram (mTICI = 2b–3), and time from puncture to recanalization (PTR). In addition, we also explored the effect of preoperative tirofiban on the blood flow state on initial angiography, including early partial recanalization (EPR; defined as an mTICI score of 1–2a on initial angiogram) and early recanalization (ER; defined as an mTICI score of 2b–3 on initial angiogram [18]). The safety outcomes contained sICH and aICH within 48 h.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were utilized for summarizing demographic factors, medical history, and baseline characteristics variables, both continuous and categorical. Counts and percentages were reported for categorical variables, and mean (SD) or median (interquartile range [IQR]) was reported for continuous variables. To evaluate the normality of distributions, the Shapiro–Wilk test and histograms were utilized. Chi‐squared or Fisher exact test were used for categorical variables. Mann–Whitney U‐test or Student t‐test was used for continuous variables.

We used propensity score matching (PSM) to balance the baseline clinical preoperative variables and potential confounders. Patients in the three groups were matched at a 1:1:1 ratio using the TriMatch package (v0.9.9) of the R program. PSM was applied by nearest‐neighbor matching with a caliper of the distance of 0.1. After PSM, baseline characteristics and outcomes of the three groups were compared. Pairwise comparisons of the three groups were conducted with Bonferroni post hoc tests. IBM SPSS Statistics (v27.0) and R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing; v4.3.1) were used for all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Population

A total of 1534 patients were excluded from 2221 in the RESCUE‐RE study. The selection process is detailed in Figure 1. Finally, we enrolled 127 patients in the PT group, 331 patients in the IT group, and 229 patients in the NT group. Among all patients, 508 (73.9%) were male, the median age was 62 years (IQR = 53–70), the median admission NIHSS score was 13 (IQR = 9–17), the median ASPECTS was 8 (IQR = 7–10), and 120 (17.5%) patients had ipsilateral internal carotid artery occlusion.

FIGURE 1 Flowchart. LAA, large artery atherosclerosis; LVO, large vessel occlusion; mRS, modified Rankin scale; RESCUE‐RE, Registration Study for Critical Care of Acute Ischemic Stroke After Recanalization.

Propensity score matching

Baseline characteristics in the different tirofiban groups are summarized in Table 1. There were statistical differences between the three groups in age, transient ischemic attack/stroke, atrial fibrillation, middle cerebral artery, IVT, last known well to puncture time, heparin, and general anesthesia. To achieve a good balance, all the variables were used as covariates for PSM, which resulted in 104 matched triplets with balanced covariates (20 cases matched more than once in the IT group, 31 cases matched more than once in the PT group, 35 cases matched more than once in the NT group). After PSM, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups (p > 0.05; Table 2). Two patients (0.64%) were lost to 90‐day follow‐up.

TABLE 1 Baseline characteristic of different treatment groups before propensity score matching.

Baseline characteristic	Preoperative tirofiban, n = 127	Intraoperative tirofiban, n = 331	No tirofiban, n = 229	p	
Age, years, median (IQR)	66 (57–72)	62 (52–69)	62 (53–70)	0.027*	
Male	92 (72.4)	252 (76.1)	164 (71.6)	0.446	
Smoking	66 (50.2)	191 (57.7)	116 (50.7)	0.218	
Drink	52 (40.9)	166 (50.2)	111 (48.5)	0.206	
Medical history	
Hypertension	83 (65.4)	220 (66.5)	143 (62.4)	0.615	
Diabetes	33 (26.0)	72 (21.8)	48 (21.0)	0.525	
TIA/stroke	16 (12.6)	74 (22.4)	57 (24.9)	0.021*	
Atrial fibrillation	2 (1.6)	16 (4.8)	22 (9.6)	0.005*	
Antiplatelet drug	24 (18.9)	61 (18.4)	54 (23.6)	0.301	
Anticoagulant	2 (1.6)	8 (2.4)	8 (3.5)	0.570	
Occlusion site	
MCA	88 (69.3)	266 (80.4)	180 (78.6)	0.036*	
ICA	49 (38.6)	113 (34.1)	87 (38.0)	0.539	
Ipsilateral internal carotid artery occlusion	23 (18.1)	57 (17.2)	40 (17.5)	0.975	
Workflow	
NIHSS score, median (IQR)	12 (7–17)	13 (9–17)	14 (11–16)	0.052	
ASPECTS, median (IQR)	9 (7–10)	8 (7–10)	8 (7–9)	0.079	
IVT	12 (9.4)	87 (26.3)	83 (36.2)	<0.001*	
LKW to puncture, min, median (IQR)	628 (415–934)	452 (318–730)	415 (291–660)	<0.001*	
Heparin	73 (57.5)	69 (20.8)	64 (27.9)	<0.001*	
General anesthesia	9 (7.1)	121 (36.6)	123 (53.7)	<0.001*	
Stent implantation	40 (31.5)	106 (32.0)	66 (28.8)	0.712	
Note: Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations: ASPECTS, Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score; ICA, internal carotid artery; IQR, interquartile range; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; LKW, last known well; MCA, middle cerebral artery; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; TIA, transient ischemic attack.

* p < 0.05.

TABLE 2 Baseline characteristic of different treatment groups after propensity score matching.

Baseline characteristic	Preoperative tirofiban, n = 104	Intraoperative tirofiban, n = 104	No tirofiban, n = 104	p	
Age, years, median (IQR)	62 (55–71)	61 (53–70)	62 (56–70)	0.699	
Male	70 (67.3)	78 (75.0)	75 (72.1)	0.463	
Smoking	53 (51.0)	49 (47.1)	63 (60.6)	0.134	
Drink	45 (43.3)	42 (40.2)	54 (51.9)	0.220	
Medical history	
Hypertension	66 (63.5)	72 (69.2)	73 (70.2)	0.533	
Diabetes	29 (27.9)	26 (25.0)	22 (21.2)	0.528	
TIA/stroke	15 (14.4)	25 (24.0)	27 (26.0)	0.095	
Atrial fibrillation	3 (2.9)	1 (1.0)	1 (1.0)	0.625	
Antiplatelet drug	18 (17.3)	16 (15.4)	22 (21.2)	0.544	
Anticoagulant	4 (3.8)	3 (2.9)	5 (4.8)	0.932	
Occlusion site	
MCA	83 (79.8)	84 (80.8)	82 (78.8)	0.942	
ICA	38 (36.5)	36 (34.6)	39 (37.5)	0.907	
Ipsilateral internal carotid artery occlusion	19 (18.3)	18 (17.3)	19 (18.3)	0.978	
Workflow	
NIHSS score, median (IQR)	13 (8–19)	13 (9–16)	13 (10–18)	0.897	
ASPECTS, median (IQR)	8 (7–9)	8 (7–10)	9 (7–10)	0.527	
IVT	18 (17.3)	15 (14.4)	18 (17.3)	0.810	
LKW to puncture, min, median (IQR)	539 (389–762)	563 (333–844)	444 (315–936)	0.197	
Heparin	38 (36.5)	36 (34.6)	36 (34.6)	0.945	
General anesthesia	17 (16.3)	16 (15.4)	14 (13.5)	0.839	
Stent implantation	37 (35.6)	28 (26.9)	30 (28.8)	0.363	
Note: Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations: ASPECTS, Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score; ICA, internal carotid artery; IQR, interquartile range; IVT, intravenous thrombolysis; LKW, last known well; MCA, middle cerebral artery; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; TIA, Transient ischemic attack.

PT versus NT

The outcomes of the three groups after PSM are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The PT group had a higher rate of functional independence (62 [60.8%] vs. 44 [42.3%], p = 0.008), a better mRS score distribution (2 [1–4] vs. 3 [2–5], p < 0.001), and a lower proportion of all‐cause mortality (5 [4.8%] vs. 25 [24.0%], p < 0.001) at 90 days (Figure 2). For safety outcomes, the sICH incidence in the two groups was similar, at 15 (14.4%) and 17 (16.3%), respectively. The proportion of aICH in the PT group tended to be higher (30 [28.8%] vs. 19 [18.3%], p = 0.072), but the difference was not statistically significant. In addition, PT had a higher rate of EPR (41 [42.7%] vs. 17 [18.1%], p < 0.001; Figure 3) and successful recanalization (92 [88.5%] vs. 78 [75.0%], p = 0.012) and a shorter PTR time (60 [39 to 105] vs. 77 [52 to 137], p = 0.025).

TABLE 3 Primary and secondary outcomes after propensity score matching.

Outcome	Preoperative tirofiban, n = 104	Intraoperative tirofiban, n = 104	No tirofiban, n = 104	p	
Efficacy outcomes	
Functional independence at 90 days a	62 (60.8)	47 (45.2)	44 (42.3)	0.017*	
mRS at 90 days, median (IQR) a	2 (1–4)	3 (1–4)	3 (2–5)	<0.001*	
Mortality at 90 days a	5 (4.8)	10 (9.6)	25 (24.0)	<0.001*	
ER b	4 (4.2)	2 (2.4)	0	0.123	
EPR b	41 (42.7)	17 (20.2)	17 (18.1)	<0.001*	
Successful recanalization	92 (88.5)	84 (80.8)	78 (75.0)	0.044*	
PTR time, min, median (IQR)	60 (39–105)	84 (46–136)	77 (52–137)	0.052	
Safety outcomes	
sICH	15 (14.4)	8 (7.7)	17 (16.3)	0.146	
aICH	30 (28.8)	22 (21.2)	19 (18.3)	0.171	
Note: Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

Abbreviations: aICH, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage; EPR, early partial recanalization; ER, early recanalization; IQR, interquartile range; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; PTR, puncture to recanalization; sICH, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

a Missing 2 patients in preoperative tirofiban group.

b Missing 10 patients in no tirofiban group, missing 8 patients in preoperative tirofiban group, and missing 20 patients in intraoperative tirofiban group.

* p < 0.05.

TABLE 4 Pairwise comparison of outcomes after propensity score matching.

Outcome	PT versus NT	IT versus NT	PT versus IT	
Efficacy outcomes	
Functional independence at 90 days a	0.008*	0.675	0.025*	
mRS at 90 days a	<0.001*	0.070	0.027*	
Mortality at 90 days a	<0.001*	0.005*	0.193	
ER b	0.121	0.221	0.686	
EPR b	<0.001*	0.715	0.001*	
Successful recanalization	0.012*	0.316	0.124	
PTR time	0.025*	0.963	0.054	
Safety outcomes	
sICH	0.701	0.055	0.122	
aICH	0.072	0.601	0.200	
Abbreviations: aICH, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage; EPR, early partial recanalization; ER, early recanalization; IQR, interquartile range; IT, intraoperative tirofiban; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; NT, no tirofiban; PT, preoperative tirofiban; PTR, puncture to recanalization; sICH, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

a Missing 2 patients in PT group.

b Missing 10 patients in NT group, missing 8 patients in PT group, and missing 20 patients in IT group.

* p < 0.05.

FIGURE 2 Ninety‐day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score distribution among the three groups. IT, intraoperative tirofiban; NT, no tirofiban; PT, preoperative tirofiban.

FIGURE 3 Blood flow status on initial angiography after propensity score matching. Complete occlusion is defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction = 0. IT, intraoperative tirofiban; NT, no tirofiban; PT, preoperative tirofiban.

IT versus NT

In the comparison after PSM, there was no statistical difference in functional independence between the two groups (47 [45.2%] vs. 44 [42.3%], p = 0.675). The IT group had a lower rate of mortality at 90 days (10 [9.6%] vs. 25 [24.0%], p = 0.005). In addition, patients in the IT group had a tendency to achieve better 90‐day mRS scores (3 [1–4] vs. 3 [2–5], p = 0.070; Figure 2) and a lower rate of sICH (8 [7.7%] vs. 17 [16.3], p = 0.055). There was no significant difference in aICH, ER, EPR, successful recanalization, and PTR.

PT versus IT

After PSM, patients in the PT group achieved a higher percentage of functional independence (62 [60.8%] vs. 47 [45.2%], p = 0.025) and better mRS score distribution (2 [1–4] vs. 3 [1–4], p = 0.027) at 90 days. Patients in the PT group tended to have shorter PTR time (60 [39–105] vs. 84 [46–136], p = 0.054; Figure 2). In addition, there was a significant difference in EPR between the two groups (p = 0.001), at 41 (42.7%) and 17 (20.2%), respectively (Figure 3). In comparison between sICH and aICH, the difference is not significant.

DISCUSSION

This study found that whether compared with IT or NT, prophylactic tirofiban before EVT is associated with better outcomes, but with a potential to increase the risk of aICH. In addition, preoperative tirofiban had a higher EPR rate.

There is currently no consensus on whether the application of tirofiban during the perioperative period of EVT will increase intracranial hemorrhage [11, 12, 19, 20], which may depend on stroke etiology, administration route, dosage, duration of treatment, et cetera. We found that PT had a tendency to increase the risk of aICH when compared to NT, but there was no statistical difference when compared to IT. In the study by Sang et al. [21], the incidence of aICH was only numerically higher in 29.1% in the tirofiban group, compared to 23.2% in the placebo group. In our study, the rates were 28.8% and 18.3%, respectively. One possible explanation is that the recanalization rate was lower in the NT group in our study, which was only 75.0%. In general, patients with successful recanalization may be more likely to develop intracranial hemorrhage compared to those without [22]. A higher reperfusion rate in the PT group may also lead to a higher rate of intracranial hemorrhage. Zhang et al. [23] found that IT after IVT did not increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. However, preoperative tirofiban will further advance the usage timing, and earlier use may potentially amplify this risk. Interestingly, in comparison with IT, we did not observe a significant difference in intracranial hemorrhage. This may be attributed to the remedial use of tirofiban during EVT and a higher recanalization rate in the IT group. In addition, the incidence of aICH in our cohort was similar to that of the recent randomized clinical trial study RESCUE‐BT. Considering the improvement of prognosis, the potentially increased aICH brought by PT could be acceptable to some extent. However, concerns about intracranial hemorrhage persist, especially in patients who received IVT previously.

The different functional outcomes in the three groups could relate to how tirofiban affects EPR at the occluded site before EVT and the efficiency of endovascular procedures. Tsao et al. [24] found that tirofiban could partially reverse the platelet‐rich fresh thrombus at early stages. However, in our study, only a few patients experienced ER, suggesting that tirofiban prior to EVT cannot completely remove the thrombus. Interestingly, the EPR rate was higher in the PT group. It seems that tirofiban could reduce thrombus load, increase thrombus permeability, and lead to partial blood flow [25]. Similar effects have been reported in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) [26, 27]. Although the pathogenesis in patients with ACS is similar to that of AIS‐LVO due to LAA [28], the benefits of partial reperfusion in AIS are still controversial because of the considerable heterogeneity of heart and brain tissue. Two studies found that partial reperfusion after IVT was associated with better clinical prognosis [29, 30], but Checkouri et al. [18] came to the opposite conclusion. The reasons for the difference may be due to varying proportions of LAA. In the latter study, LAA accounted for only 15% of all patients. Compared to other types of AIS‐LVO, patients with LAA usually have better collateral status and a smaller ischemic core [31]. Residual perfusion is one of the main determinants of stroke prognosis. Partial forward blood flow, combined with collateral flow, could increase the distal residual reperfusion and slow down the rate of the core growth [32], which may be one of the reasons why EPR could improve the prognosis.

Changes in thrombus characteristics and EPR may also facilitate thrombectomy procedures, allowing devices to pass through more easily (typical EPR and EVT procedures are shown in Figure 4). Previous studies have found that tirofiban can reduce the occurrence of intraoperative reocclusion via its continuous platelet aggregation inhibition, which could avert additional passes [4, 13, 21]. These effects were reflected in the shortening of PTR time and the increase of the recanalization rate in our results. A previous meta‐analysis suggested that preoperative tirofiban increased the rate of recanalization compared to rescue use [33], but the difference was not significant in our study. This may be due to the rapid development of thrombectomy devices and technology and the difference in sample size. In our cohort, the better prognosis of PT compared with IT may be attributed to the combined effect of EPR and the improvement of EVT efficiency. This is one of the potential advantages of prophylactic use of tirofiban before EVT as compared to remedial use.

FIGURE 4 An example of early partial recanalization. (a) Admission computed tomographic angiography indicated complete occlusion of the M1 segment of the left middle cerebral artery (red arrowhead). (b) Tirofiban was administrated before endovascular thrombectomy. The modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) grade was 2a on initial angiography, indicating early partial recanalization (green arrowhead). (c) After one‐time mechanical thrombectomy and balloon dilation, successful recanalization was achieved, with an mTICI grade of 3 at the final angiography.

One of the strengths of our study is that on the basis of comparing different timing of administration of tirofiban in AIS‐LVO patients, we investigated the relationship between PT and EPR, and as far as we know, this has not been mentioned in previous research. It provides a new perspective for tirofiban administration before EVT, which awaits further research in the future. For other types of AIS patients, the efficacy and safety of tirofiban still need additional exploration [34, 35, 36, 37].

LIMITATIONS

Our study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study with a small sample size, and although PSM was performed to correct for baseline differences, it could not fully adjust for all confounding factors. Second, tirofiban was used as a rescue treatment after thrombectomy failures in the IT group, which might have caused potential selection bias in some cases. Third, our exploration of EPR is preliminary. Although several studies have found that EPR after IVT significantly improves patient prognosis, whether this applies equally to patients receiving tirofiban has not been confirmed, which needs further research. Fourth, although our study suggests the greater benefit of preoperative tirofiban in LAA patients, it remains challenging for neurologists to determine the etiology of AIS‐LVO stroke early before EVT. Fifth, due to the multicenter nature of this study, there may be high heterogeneity in EVT procedures and perioperative management among different centers. The possibility of center differences influencing some of these results should not be discounted. Sixth, studies find that arterial/intravenous tirofiban may affect patient outcomes, but the conclusions are inconsistent [38, 39]. Due to the limitations of our data, we cannot compare different routes of administration. Considering the above limitations, our findings should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban could be a potential periprocedural adjuvant therapy for AIS‐LVO due to LAA patients. PT is associated with higher rates of EPR and better therapeutic efficacy. In addition, EPR may be a potential way to improve prognosis. Further randomized controlled trials are needed in the future.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Zhiqiang Sun: Writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; methodology; software; formal analysis; data curation; project administration; validation; visualization; conceptualization. Shuhan Huang: Writing – review and editing; methodology; software; project administration; data curation; supervision; writing – original draft; conceptualization. Wei Li: Investigation; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; project administration; supervision; conceptualization. Yi Yang: Software; visualization. Ya Wu: Funding acquisition; validation; formal analysis. Xue Ma: Resources; data curation. Ximing Nie: Writing – review and editing; formal analysis. Wangsheng Jin: Methodology; writing – review and editing. Chengchun Liu: Validation; resources. Xiaoshu Li: Validation; software. Yaning Xu: Software; writing – original draft; formal analysis. Jun Dong: Validation; data curation. Yisi Liao: Validation. Binlu Sun: Visualization. Wenjun Han: Software. Qing Zhao: Data curation. Huaqiao Chi: Data curation. Yanjiang Wang: Project administration. Liping Liu: Conceptualization; investigation; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; supervision; resources; project administration. Meng Zhang: Conceptualization; investigation; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing; supervision; resources; project administration.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071322).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None of the authors has any conflict of interest to disclose.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank all the participants and investigators who took part in the RESCUE‐RE study.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Anonymized data related to this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Saini V , Guada L , Yavagal DR . Global epidemiology of stroke and access to acute ischemic stroke interventions. Neurology. 2021;97 :S6‐S16. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000012781 34785599
2 Feigin VL , Stark BA , Johnson CO , et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20 :795‐820. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(21)00252-0 34487721
3 Rubiera M , Alvarez‐Sabin J , Ribo M , et al. Predictors of early arterial reocclusion after tissue plasminogen activator‐induced recanalization in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2005;36 :1452‐1456. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000170711.43405.81 15947260
4 Kang DH , Kim YW , Hwang YH , Park SP , Kim YS , Baik SK . Instant reocclusion following mechanical thrombectomy of in situ thromboocclusion and the role of low‐dose intra‐arterial tirofiban. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;37 :350‐355. doi:10.1159/000362435 24941966
5 Powers WJ , Derdeyn CP , Biller J , et al. 2015 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association focused update of the 2013 guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke regarding endovascular treatment: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2015;46 :3020‐3035. doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000074 26123479
6 Baek JH , Kim BM , Heo JH , Kim DJ , Nam HS , Kim YD . Outcomes of endovascular treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerosis‐related large vessel occlusion. Stroke. 2018;49 :2699‐2705. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022327 30355204
7 Al Kasab S , Almadidy Z , Spiotta AM , et al. Endovascular treatment for AIS with underlying ICAD. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9 :948‐951. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012529 27502403
8 Yang M , Huo X , Miao Z , Wang Y . Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke. Drugs. 2019;79 :515‐529. doi:10.1007/s40265-019-01078-0 30838514
9 Umemura K , Kondo K , Ikeda Y , Nakashima M . Enhancement by ticlopidine of the inhibitory effect on in vitro platelet aggregation of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. Thromb Haemost. 1997;78 :1381‐1384.9408023
10 Harder S , Klinkhardt U , Alvarez JM . Avoidance of bleeding during surgery in patients receiving anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43 :963‐981. doi:10.2165/00003088-200443140-00002 15530128
11 Baek BH , Yoon W , Lee YY , Kim SK , Kim J‐T , Park MS . Intravenous tirofiban infusion after angioplasty and stenting in intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis‐related stroke. Stroke. 2021;52 :1601‐1608. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.033551 33793319
12 Sun C , Li X , Zhao Z , et al. Safety and efficacy of tirofiban combined with mechanical thrombectomy depend on ischemic stroke etiology. Front Neurol. 2019;10 :1100. doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.01100 31736848
13 Huo X , Raynald WA , Mo D , et al. Safety and efficacy of tirofiban for acute ischemic stroke patients with large artery atherosclerosis stroke etiology undergoing endovascular therapy. Front Neurol. 2021;12 :12. doi:10.3389/fneur.2021.630301
14 Shuai J , Gong Z , Huang L , et al. Effect of intravenous tirofiban vs placebo before endovascular thrombectomy on functional outcomes in large vessel occlusion stroke. JAMA. 2022;328 :328‐553. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.12584
15 Ding Y , Leng X , Nie X , et al. Intraluminal thrombus and outcomes of patients with acute large vessel occlusive stroke undergoing endovascular treatment. Stroke. 2021;52 :1473‐1477. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.032876 33657858
16 Larrue V , von Kummer RR , Muller A , Bluhmki E . Risk factors for severe hemorrhagic transformation in ischemic stroke patients treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator: a secondary analysis of the European‐Australasian acute stroke study (ECASS II). Stroke. 2001;32 :438‐441. doi:10.1161/01.str.32.2.438 11157179
17 von Kummer R , Broderick JP , Campbell BC , et al. The Heidelberg bleeding classification: classification of bleeding events after ischemic stroke and reperfusion therapy. Stroke. 2015;46 :2981‐2986. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010049 26330447
18 Checkouri T , Gerschenfeld G , Seners P , et al. Early recanalization among patients undergoing bridging therapy with Tenecteplase or alteplase. Stroke. 2023;54 :2491‐2499. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.123.042691 37622385
19 Kellert L , Hametner C , Rohde S , et al. Endovascular stroke therapy: tirofiban is associated with risk of fatal intracerebral hemorrhage and poor outcome. Stroke. 2013;44 :1453‐1455. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000502 23463755
20 Wu Y , Yin C , Yang J , Jiang L , Parsons MW , Lin L . Endovascular thrombectomy. Stroke. 2018;49 :2783‐2785. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022919 30355186
21 Sang H , Xie D , Tian Y , et al. Association of tirofiban with functional outcomes after thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke due to intracranial atherosclerotic disease. Neurology. 2023;100 :e2006. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207194
22 Thorén M , Dixit A , Escudero‐Martínez I , et al. Effect of recanalization on cerebral edema in ischemic stroke treated with thrombolysis and/or endovascular therapy. Stroke. 2020;51 :216‐223. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.119.026692 31818228
23 Zhang Y , Zhang P , Tao A , et al. The efficacy and safety of tirofiban use in endovascular thrombectomy for intravenous thrombolysis applicable patients with large vessel occlusion stroke—a post hoc analysis from the direct‐MT trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2023;47 :208‐215. doi:10.1007/s00270-023-03540-9 37798430
24 Tsao PW , Forsythe MS , Mousa SA . Dissociation between the anti‐aggregatory & anti‐secretory effects of platelet integrin alpha IIb beta 3 (GPIIb/IIIa) antagonists, c7E3 and DMP728. Thromb ResThromb Res. 1997;88 :137‐146. doi:10.1016/s0049-3848(97)00225-9
25 Santos EMM , Marquering HA , den Blanken MD , et al. Thrombus permeability is associated with improved functional outcome and recanalization in patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2016;47 :732‐741. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.115.011187 26846859
26 Hermanides RS , van Werkum JW , Ottervanger JP , et al. Ongoing tirofiban in myocardial infarction evaluation 2 study g. the effect of pre‐hospital glycoprotein IIb‐IIIa inhibitors on angiographic outcome in STEMI patients who are candidates for primary PCI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79 :956‐964. doi:10.1002/ccd.23165 22162050
27 Zhao XQ , Theroux P , Snapinn SM , Sax FL . Intracoronary thrombus and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade with tirofiban in unstable angina or non‐Q‐wave myocardial infarction. Angiographic results from the PRISM‐PLUS trial (platelet receptor inhibition for ischemic syndrome management in patients limited by unstable signs and symptoms). PRISM‐PLUS investigators. Circulation. 1999;100 :1609‐1615. doi:10.1161/01.cir.100.15.1609 10517731
28 Stone GW , Maehara A , Lansky AJ , et al. A prospective natural‐history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;364 :226‐235. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1002358 21247313
29 Flint AC , Avins AL , Eaton A , et al. Risk of distal embolization from tPA (tissue‐type plasminogen activator) administration prior to endovascular stroke treatment. Stroke. 2020;51 :2697‐2704. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.029025 32757749
30 Alves HC , Treurniet KM , Jansen IGH , et al. Thrombus migration paradox in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2019;50 :3156‐3163. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.119.026107 31597552
31 Guglielmi V , LeCouffe NE , Zinkstok SM , et al. Collateral circulation and outcome in atherosclerotic versus cardioembolic cerebral large vessel occlusion. Stroke. 2019;50 :3360‐3368. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026299 31658903
32 Arrarte Terreros N , van Willigen BG , Niekolaas WS , et al. Occult blood flow patterns distal to an occluded artery in acute ischemic stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2021;42 :292‐302. doi:10.1177/0271678x211044941 34550818
33 Fu Z , Xu C , Liu X , Wang Z , Gao L . Safety and efficacy of tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving endovascular treatment: a meta‐analysis. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;49 :442‐450. doi:10.1159/000509054 32731250
34 Duan H , Yun HJ , Geng X , Ding Y . Branch atheromatous disease and treatment. Brain Circ. 2022;8 :169‐171. doi:10.4103/bc.bc_56_22 37181840
35 Zi W , Song J , Kong W , et al. Tirofiban for stroke without large or medium‐sized vessel occlusion. N Engl J Med. 2023;388 :2025‐2036. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2214299 37256974
36 Li W , Lin L , Zhang M , et al. Safety and preliminary efficacy of early tirofiban treatment after alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients. Stroke. 2016;47 :2649‐2651. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.116.014413 27608821
37 Lin L , Li W , Liu CC , et al. Safety and preliminary efficacy of intravenous tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke patient without arterial occlusion on neurovascular imaging studies. J Neurol Sci. 2017;383 :175‐179. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2017.10.041 29246609
38 Yang J , Wu Y , Gao X , et al. Intraarterial versus intravenous tirofiban as an adjunct to endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2020;51 :2925‐2933. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.120.029994 32933416
39 Guo W , Xu J , Ma L , et al. Safety and efficacy of different tirofiban administration routes on acute ischemic stroke patients with successful recanalization: a propensity score matching analysis. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2022;28 :1993‐2000. doi:10.1111/cns.13936 35962605
