Safety and efficacy of tirofiban versus traditionaldualantiplatelettherapy in endovasculartreatment of intracranialaneurysms: asystematicreview and meta-analysis.
ZhenKun Xiao, XuYi Hu, LiangJie Deng, JianHua Liu, Aihua Liu
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of tirofiban versus traditionaldualantiplatelettherapy in endovasculartreatment of intracranialaneurysms: asystematicreview and meta-analysis.","authors":"ZhenKun Xiao, XuYi Hu, LiangJie Deng, JianHua Liu, Aihua Liu","doi":"10.1136/jnis-2024-023021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The selection of antiplatelet agents plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms (IA). Currently, the primary agents used include tirofiban and traditional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Due to the lack of high-level consolidated evidence in this field, we conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the safety and efficacy of tirofiban vs traditional DAPT in the endovascular treatment of IA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies published before November 1, 2024, were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary outcome was thrombosis, and secondary outcomes included intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), non-intracranial bleeding events (NoICH-BE), ischemic stroke (IS), and follow-up prognosis. Relative risks (RRs) were synthesized for comparison between tirofiban and DAPT groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies involving 2481 patients were included. Tirofiban significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis compared with DAPT (RR, 0.292; 95% CI, 0.174 to 0.492; P<0.001). It did not increase risks of ICH (RR, 0.633; P=0.125), NoICH-BE (RR, 0.253; P=0.259), IS (RR, 0.730; P=0.172), or poor prognosis (RR, 0.981; P=0.896).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tirofiban effectively lowers the risk of thrombosis without increasing bleeding or adverse prognosis risks compared with DAPT. It shows promise as an alternative antiplatelet therapy for IA treatment, but further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"755-762"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-023021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The selection of antiplatelet agents plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for intracranial aneurysms (IA). Currently, the primary agents used include tirofiban and traditional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Due to the lack of high-level consolidated evidence in this field, we conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the safety and efficacy of tirofiban vs traditional DAPT in the endovascular treatment of IA.
Methods: Studies published before November 1, 2024, were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary outcome was thrombosis, and secondary outcomes included intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), non-intracranial bleeding events (NoICH-BE), ischemic stroke (IS), and follow-up prognosis. Relative risks (RRs) were synthesized for comparison between tirofiban and DAPT groups.
Results: Nine studies involving 2481 patients were included. Tirofiban significantly reduced the risk of thrombosis compared with DAPT (RR, 0.292; 95% CI, 0.174 to 0.492; P<0.001). It did not increase risks of ICH (RR, 0.633; P=0.125), NoICH-BE (RR, 0.253; P=0.259), IS (RR, 0.730; P=0.172), or poor prognosis (RR, 0.981; P=0.896).
Conclusion: Tirofiban effectively lowers the risk of thrombosis without increasing bleeding or adverse prognosis risks compared with DAPT. It shows promise as an alternative antiplatelet therapy for IA treatment, but further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.
背景:抗血小板药物的选择对保证颅内动脉瘤(IA)血管内治疗的安全性和有效性起着关键作用。目前,主要使用的药物包括替罗非班和传统的双重抗血小板治疗(DAPT)。由于该领域缺乏高水平的综合证据,我们进行了首次系统回顾和荟萃分析,旨在比较替罗非班与传统DAPT在血管内治疗IA的安全性和有效性。方法:在PubMed, Embase, Web of Science和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials中检索2024年11月1日之前发表的研究。主要结局为血栓形成,次要结局包括颅内出血(ICH)、非颅内出血事件(NoICH-BE)、缺血性脑卒中(IS)和随访预后。比较替罗非班组和DAPT组的相对危险度(rr)。结果:纳入9项研究,共2481例患者。替罗非班与DAPT相比可显著降低血栓形成风险(RR, 0.292;95% CI, 0.174 ~ 0.492;结论:与DAPT相比,替罗非班可有效降低血栓形成风险,且不增加出血和不良预后风险。它有望作为IA治疗的一种替代抗血小板疗法,但需要进一步的大规模研究来证实这些发现。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery (JNIS) is a leading peer review journal for scientific research and literature pertaining to the field of neurointerventional surgery. The journal launch follows growing professional interest in neurointerventional techniques for the treatment of a range of neurological and vascular problems including stroke, aneurysms, brain tumors, and spinal compression.The journal is owned by SNIS and is also the official journal of the Interventional Chapter of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Neuroradiology (ANZSNR), the Canadian Interventional Neuro Group, the Hong Kong Neurological Society (HKNS) and the Neuroradiological Society of Taiwan.