SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2013
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of intracoronary administration of tirofiban for no-reflow phenomenon.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of No-Reflow in Patients With STEMI After Intracoronary Tirofiban After Opening of the Vessel.Cardiology research · 2026Article
- D-dimer for risk stratification and antithrombotic treatment management in acute coronary syndrome patients: asystematic review and metanalysis.Thrombosis journal · 2021Article
- Platelet-Lymphocyte ratio is a predictor for the development of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after thrombus aspiration.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating tirofiban combined with conventional drugs by intracoronary administration for no-reflow prevention.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2021Article
- Effects of different routes of tirofiban injection on the left ventricular function and prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2015Article
- Myocardial preservation during primary percutaneous intervention: It's time to rethink?Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is still a lack of an optimal treatment for no-reflow phenomenon (NR). The aim of this simple meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) administration of tirofiban compared with other conventional drugs during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for NR.
methodsSystematic literature search was done from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Springer and CNKI databases without language or time limitation. Randomized controlled trials were enrolled for analyzing if they investigated the treatment of IC administration of tirofiban versus other conventional drugs for NR.
resultsTen studies with 702 patients were included. Significantly, the treatment of tirofiban was more effective in improving the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.37, P < 0.00001) and reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.18, P < 0.00001). There was a trend to increase the risk of bleeding, but the data of the result did not reach the statistical significance (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.69-3.00, P = 0.32).
conclusionsTirofiban is more effective than conventional drugs for NR during PCI, but the potential risk of bleeding complication induced by tirofiban shouldn't be ignored during clinical practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.