There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis

Background: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and acute stenting and angioplasty is a topic consistently debated due to concerns over safety and efficacy. Tirofiban is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa used throughout the world now more comm...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hari Movva, Rani Rabah, Wondwossen Tekle, Alexandros Georgiadis, Laurie Preston, Hari Kotta, Ameer E. Hassan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-03-01
Series:Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery
Subjects:
ICH
MRS
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214751920304886
id doaj-fe983e532ef8497faba329a1cd55a892
record_format Article
spelling doaj-fe983e532ef8497faba329a1cd55a8922020-12-15T04:10:01ZengElsevierInterdisciplinary Neurosurgery2214-75192021-03-0123100927There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosisHari Movva0Rani Rabah1Wondwossen Tekle2Alexandros Georgiadis3Laurie Preston4Hari Kotta5Ameer E. Hassan6Valley Baptist Brain & Spine Network, Department of Neuroscience, 2101 Pease St, Harlingen, TX 78550, United States; University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Department of Neurology, Harlingen, TX, USAValley Baptist Brain & Spine Network, Department of Neuroscience, 2101 Pease St, Harlingen, TX 78550, United StatesValley Baptist Brain & Spine Network, Department of Neuroscience, 2101 Pease St, Harlingen, TX 78550, United States; University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Department of Neurology, Harlingen, TX, USA; University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, Department of Neurology and Radiology, United StatesMcallen Medical Center, 301 W Expy 83, McAllen, TX 78503, United StatesValley Baptist Brain & Spine Network, Department of Neuroscience, 2101 Pease St, Harlingen, TX 78550, United StatesMcallen Medical Center, 301 W Expy 83, McAllen, TX 78503, United States; University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX 77555, United StatesValley Baptist Brain & Spine Network, Department of Neuroscience, 2101 Pease St, Harlingen, TX 78550, United States; University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Department of Neurology, Harlingen, TX, USA; University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, Department of Neurology and Radiology, United States; Corresponding author at: Valley Baptist Brain & Spine Network, Department of Neuroscience, 2101 Pease St, Harlingen, TX 78550, United States.Background: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and acute stenting and angioplasty is a topic consistently debated due to concerns over safety and efficacy. Tirofiban is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa used throughout the world now more commonly used during MT. We report the analysis of all AIS patients treated with Eptifibatide + MT vs. Tirofiban + MT. Methods: Using a prospectively collected endovascular database at a CSC between 2013 and 2019, workflow, and outcomes were recorded. Patients are given Tirofiban, and patients given Eptifibatide were analyzed to obtain baseline demographics, modified Ranking Scale (mRS) at discharge, and 90 days follow up, pre and post thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI), mortality rate, and hemorrhage rates. Results: A total of 571 MT patients were treated: of those, 89 patients (average age 69.25 ± 14.21, 25.84% female) with underlying intracranial atherosclerosis were treated with a GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor. Analysis of 40.45% (36/89) patients treated with Tirofiban + MT and 59.55% (53/89) patients with Eptifibatide + MT was performed. There was no statistically significant difference in NIHSS upon admission (p = .441). Four patients (11.11%) in the Tirofiban + MT cohort had symptomatic hemorrhage versus four patients (7.55%) in the Eptifibatide + MT cohort (p = .564). There was no significant difference in mortality (p = .573) or final recanalization (p = .678) between the two cohorts. Conclusion: Tirofiban use in MT does not increase the risk of symptomatic hemorrhages or mortality compared to Eptifibatide use in MT with acute stenting. Large prospective studies are warranted to confirm the safety/efficacy of Tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy and acute stenting.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214751920304886Acute Ischemic Stroke InterventionICHMRSMechanical thrombectomyRecanalization
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Hari Movva
Rani Rabah
Wondwossen Tekle
Alexandros Georgiadis
Laurie Preston
Hari Kotta
Ameer E. Hassan
spellingShingle Hari Movva
Rani Rabah
Wondwossen Tekle
Alexandros Georgiadis
Laurie Preston
Hari Kotta
Ameer E. Hassan
There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis
Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery
Acute Ischemic Stroke Intervention
ICH
MRS
Mechanical thrombectomy
Recanalization
author_facet Hari Movva
Rani Rabah
Wondwossen Tekle
Alexandros Georgiadis
Laurie Preston
Hari Kotta
Ameer E. Hassan
author_sort Hari Movva
title There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis
title_short There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis
title_full There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis
title_fullStr There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis
title_full_unstemmed There is no difference in safety and efficacy with Tirofiban or Eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis
title_sort there is no difference in safety and efficacy with tirofiban or eptifibatide for patients undergoing treatment of large vessel occlusion and underlying intracranial atherosclerosis
publisher Elsevier
series Interdisciplinary Neurosurgery
issn 2214-7519
publishDate 2021-03-01
description Background: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and acute stenting and angioplasty is a topic consistently debated due to concerns over safety and efficacy. Tirofiban is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa used throughout the world now more commonly used during MT. We report the analysis of all AIS patients treated with Eptifibatide + MT vs. Tirofiban + MT. Methods: Using a prospectively collected endovascular database at a CSC between 2013 and 2019, workflow, and outcomes were recorded. Patients are given Tirofiban, and patients given Eptifibatide were analyzed to obtain baseline demographics, modified Ranking Scale (mRS) at discharge, and 90 days follow up, pre and post thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI), mortality rate, and hemorrhage rates. Results: A total of 571 MT patients were treated: of those, 89 patients (average age 69.25 ± 14.21, 25.84% female) with underlying intracranial atherosclerosis were treated with a GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor. Analysis of 40.45% (36/89) patients treated with Tirofiban + MT and 59.55% (53/89) patients with Eptifibatide + MT was performed. There was no statistically significant difference in NIHSS upon admission (p = .441). Four patients (11.11%) in the Tirofiban + MT cohort had symptomatic hemorrhage versus four patients (7.55%) in the Eptifibatide + MT cohort (p = .564). There was no significant difference in mortality (p = .573) or final recanalization (p = .678) between the two cohorts. Conclusion: Tirofiban use in MT does not increase the risk of symptomatic hemorrhages or mortality compared to Eptifibatide use in MT with acute stenting. Large prospective studies are warranted to confirm the safety/efficacy of Tirofiban in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy and acute stenting.
topic Acute Ischemic Stroke Intervention
ICH
MRS
Mechanical thrombectomy
Recanalization
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214751920304886
work_keys_str_mv AT harimovva thereisnodifferenceinsafetyandefficacywithtirofibanoreptifibatideforpatientsundergoingtreatmentoflargevesselocclusionandunderlyingintracranialatherosclerosis
AT ranirabah thereisnodifferenceinsafetyandefficacywithtirofibanoreptifibatideforpatientsundergoingtreatmentoflargevesselocclusionandunderlyingintracranialatherosclerosis
AT wondwossentekle thereisnodifferenceinsafetyandefficacywithtirofibanoreptifibatideforpatientsundergoingtreatmentoflargevesselocclusionandunderlyingintracranialatherosclerosis
AT alexandrosgeorgiadis thereisnodifferenceinsafetyandefficacywithtirofibanoreptifibatideforpatientsundergoingtreatmentoflargevesselocclusionandunderlyingintracranialatherosclerosis
AT lauriepreston thereisnodifferenceinsafetyandefficacywithtirofibanoreptifibatideforpatientsundergoingtreatmentoflargevesselocclusionandunderlyingintracranialatherosclerosis
AT harikotta thereisnodifferenceinsafetyandefficacywithtirofibanoreptifibatideforpatientsundergoingtreatmentoflargevesselocclusionandunderlyingintracranialatherosclerosis
AT ameerehassan thereisnodifferenceinsafetyandefficacywithtirofibanoreptifibatideforpatientsundergoingtreatmentoflargevesselocclusionandunderlyingintracranialatherosclerosis
_version_ 1724382978018115584