4.3 Article

Safety and Efficacy of Tirofiban in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Endovascular Treatment: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 442-450

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000509054

关键词

Ischemic stroke; Endovascular treatment; Tirofiban

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives:Tirofiban is widely used in clinical practice for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, whether tirofiban increases the bleeding risk or improves the outcome of AIS patients with endovascular treatment (ET) is unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban compared with those without tirofiban in AIS patients receiving ET.Methods:Systematic literature search was done in PubMed and EMBASE databases without language or time limitation. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and mortality. Efficacy outcomes were recanalization rate and favorable functional outcome. Review Manager 5.3 and Stata Software Package 15.0 were used to perform the meta-analysis.Results:Eleven studies with a total of 2,028 patients were included. A total of 704 (34.7%) patients were administrated tirofiban combined with ET. Meta-analysis suggested that tirofiban did not increase the risk of sICH (odds ratio (OR) 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.46;p= 0.59) but significantly decreased mortality (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89;p= 0.005). There was no association between tirofiban and recanalization rate (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.86-1.82;p= 0.23) or favorable functional outcome (OR 1.21; 95% CI 0.88-1.68;p= 0.24). Subgroup analyses indicated that preoperative tirofiban significantly increase recanalization rate (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.70-8.93;p= 0.001) and improve favorable functional outcome (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.15-4.60;p= 0.02).Conclusions:Tirofiban is safe in AIS patients with ET and can significantly reduce mortality; preoperative tirofiban may be effective, but further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据