ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Efficacy and safety of adjuvant tirofiban versus intravenous thrombolysis alone in acute ischemic stroke: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) improves outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), yet many patients remain disabled. Earlier studies suggested potential benefits of adjunctive tirofiban with smaller samples and pooled heterogeneous reperfusion strategies, limiting conclusions about comparison with IVT alone. With new evidence available focused specifically on IVT-treated patients, we conducted an updated meta-analysis with a larger sample comparing tirofiban plus IVT versus IVT alone. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tirofiban plus IVT versus IVT alone in AIS. The primary outcome was favorable functional status at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2). Secondary outcomes included excellent recovery (mRS 0-1), moderate-to-severe disability (mRS 3-5), early neurological improvement (NIHSS change at 24 h and 7 days), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and all-cause mortality. Risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Six RCTs involving 1,793 patients were included. Compared with IVT alone, tirofiban improved favorable functional status (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.07-1.20) and excellent recovery (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.09-1.30), while reducing moderate-to-severe disability (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44-0.72). NIHSS scores at 7 days favored tirofiban (MD - 2.22; 95% CI - 4.21 to - 0.23), with no difference at 24 h. Safety analyses showed no significant differences in sICH (RR 1.70; 95% CI 0.58-4.97), any ICH (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.75-1.81), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.51-1.85). This study provides focused evidence on tirofiban in IVT-treated AIS patients. Our results highlight that adjunctive tirofiban improves 90-day functional outcomes without increasing hemorrhagic or mortality risk. These findings strengthen the rationale for considering the potential role of tirofiban as an adjuvant therapy in IVT and may inform future clinical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42315720What 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.