Back

Efficacy and safety of tirofiban following intravenous thrombolysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Bano, S.; Ahmed, F. W.; Saeed, A.; Nawazish, A.; Haris, M.; Mansoor, A.; Jamali, A. G.; Ahmed, R.; Khan, S. H.; Akram, N.; Salahuddin, Z.; Iqbal, J.; Hussain, A.

2025-11-06 neurology
10.1101/2025.11.04.25339551 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe risk of re-occlusion and inadequate reperfusion limits the efficacy of thrombolysis within 4.5 hours for acute ischemic stroke. Tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, has been studied as an adjunctive treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome. This meta-analysis evaluates existing evidence on the effectiveness and safety of tirofiban following thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. MethodsPubMed, Science Direct, Clinicaltrials.gov, and The Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs between 2011 and 2025. All studies included acute ischemic stroke patients, aged [≥] 18 years, NIHSS >4, who received IV thrombolysis before tirofiban administration. Endpoints included mRS score, SICH, risk of systemic bleeding, and mortality. The quality of the studies was assessed using the ROB2 tool, and risk ratios were calculated and analyzed. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251106033). ResultsOnly five trials were included from the original articles retrieved from the searched databases. Two trials had a low risk of bias, one had some concerns, and two had a high risk of bias. Results showed a significant improvement in mRS score with IVT plus tirofiban (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.07-1.62; p = 0.010), while also showing an increase in SICH with IVT plus tirofiban; however, the results were not significant (RR 1.86; 95% CI 0.18-19.24; p = 0.60). No difference in mortality was observed between the two groups (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.56-2.04; p = 0.85). ConclusionIVT plus tirofiban significantly improves functional outcomes without increasing mortality despite the risk of SICH.

Published in BMC Neurology (predicted rank #4) · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.