Glycoprotein inhibitors as a first line rescue treatment after unsuccessful recanalization of endovascular thrombectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online June, 2026
Glycoprotein inhibitors as a first line rescue treatment after unsuccessful recanalization of endovascular thrombectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a major cause of stroke with a high rate of re-occlusion following mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Among the available rescue options, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) have shown promise as a potential therapeutic strategy. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine studies exploring the use of glycoprotein inhibitors as a first-line treatment for refractory occlusion or high-grade stenosis following EVT in the setting of ICAD.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Studies using GPI as the first-line rescue treatment (GPI-rt) after failed thrombectomy or in the setting with high-grade stenosis (>50%) were included. The primary outcome of interest was good clinical outcomes (defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–2 at 90 days). Secondary outcomes of interest were successful recanalization (TICI 2b-3), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and mortality by 90 days.
Results
Our study processed 2111 articles, which yielded eight relevant studies for review, four single and four double arm. These studies comprised 763 patients, divided into GPI-rt (535 patients) and non-GPI-rt (228 patients) cohorts. The GPI-rt group had higher rates of mRS ≤ 2 at 90 days (58.5% vs 38.9%, p = 0.002) and lower mortality rates (7.8% vs 17.5%, p = 0.04) compared to the non-GPI-rt cohort. mTICI 2b-3 rates and rates of sICH were not significantly different between the cohorts.
Conclusions
First line GPI-rt demonstrates significant clinical benefit and significantly lower mortality without a rise in rates of sICH. GPI are a potential first line rescue treatment of ICAD.
de HavenonAZaidatOOAmin-HanjaniS, et al.Large vessel occlusion stroke due to intracranial atherosclerotic disease: identification, medical and interventional treatment, and outcomes. Stroke2023; 54: 1695–1705.
2.
TsangACOOrruEKlostranecJM, et al.Thrombectomy outcomes of intracranial atherosclerosis-related occlusions. Stroke2019; 50: 1460–1466.
3.
BettencourtSEssibayiMABaptistaM, et al.Acute intracranial stenting in acute ischemic stroke with underlying atherosclerosis: a two-center retrospective study. Interv Neuroradiol. Published online December 122023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199231219849
4.
ChimowitzMILynnMJDerdeynCP, et al.Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med2011; 365: 993–1003.
5.
KasabSANelsonAFargenK, et al.Management of intracranial arterial stenosis during mechanical thrombectomy: survey of neuro-interventionalists. Interv Neuroradiol. Published online August 22, 2023:15910199231196618.
6.
BeamanCYaghiSLiebeskindDS. A decade on: the evolving renaissance in intracranial atherosclerotic disease. SVIN2022; 2: e000497.
7.
LeeJSLeeSJHongJM, et al.Endovascular treatment of large vessel occlusion strokes due to intracranial atherosclerotic disease. J Stroke2022; 24: 3–20.
8.
LiuCYangXLiuM, et al.Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2023; 228: 107702.
9.
LiuJYangYLiuH. Efficacy outcomes and safety measures of intravenous tirofiban or eptifibatide for patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Thromb Thrombolysis2022; 53: 898–910.
10.
KimYWSohnSIYooJ, et al.Local tirofiban infusion for remnant stenosis in large vessel occlusion: tirofiban ASSIST study. BMC Neurol2020; 20: 84.
11.
PsychogiosMBrehmALópez-CancioE, et al.European stroke organisation guidelines on treatment of patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease. Eur Stroke J2022; 7: XLII–LXXX.
12.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ,et al.PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J. 2009;339:b2535.
13.
BalduzziSRückerGSchwarzerG. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Mental Health2019; 22: 153–160.
14.
BaekJHJungCKimBM, et al.Combination of rescue stenting and antiplatelet infusion improved outcomes for acute intracranial atherosclerosis-related large-vessel occlusion. Front Neurol2021; 12: 608270. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.608270
15.
KimYWSohnSIYooJ, et al.Local tirofiban infusion for remnant stenosis in large vessel occlusion: tirofiban ASSIST study. BMC Neurol2020; 20: 84.
16.
YanZShiZWangY, et al.Efficacy and safety of low-dose tirofiban for acute intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis related occlusion with residual stenosis after endovascular treatment. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis2020; 29: 104619.
17.
ChoiWHwangYHKimYW. Long-term outcomes of local tirofiban infusion for intracranial atherosclerosis-related occlusion. Brain Sci2022; 12: 1089.
18.
SunCLiXZhaoZ, et al.Safety and efficacy of tirofiban combined with mechanical thrombectomy depend on ischemic stroke etiology. Front Neurol2019; 10: 1100. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.01100
19.
ZhangSHaoYTianX, et al.Safety of intra-arterial tirofiban administration in ischemic stroke patients after unsuccessful mechanical thrombectomy. J Vasc Interv Radiol2019; 30: 141–147.e1.
20.
KangDHKimYWHwangYH, et al.Instant reocclusion following mechanical thrombectomy of in situ thromboocclusion and the role of low-dose intra-arterial tirofiban. Cerebrovasc Dis2014; 37: 350–355.
21.
KangDHYoonWKimSK, et al.Endovascular treatment for emergent large vessel occlusion due to severe intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis. J Neurosurg2019; 130: 1949–1956.
22.
Rodriguez-CalienesAVivanco-SuarezJGalecio-CastilloM, et al.Rescue stenting for failed mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. SVIN. Epub ahead of print 17 May 2023. e000881. doi:https://doi.org/10.1161/SVIN.123.000881
23.
MaGSunXChengH, et al.Combined approach to eptifibatide and thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke because of large vessel occlusion: a matched-control analysis. Stroke2022; 53: 1580–1588.
24.
ZhangPGuoYShenJ, et al.Efficacy and safety of tirofiban therapy in patients receiving endovascular treatment after large vessel ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci2020; 80: 112–120.
25.
TangLTangXYangQ. The application of tirofiban in the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. Cerebrovasc Dis2021; 50: 121–131.
26.
KondoKUmemuraK. Clinical pharmacokinetics of tirofiban, a nonpeptide glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist: comparison with the monoclonal antibody Abciximab. Clin Pharmacokinet2002; 41: 187–195.
27.
RESCUE BT Trial Investigators, ShuaiJGongZ, et al.Effect of intravenous tirofiban vs placebo before endovascular thrombectomy on functional outcomes in large vessel occlusion stroke: the RESCUE BT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;328:543.
28.
SangHXieDTianY, et al.Association of tirofiban with functional outcomes after thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke due to intracranial atherosclerotic disease. Neurology2023; 100: e1996–e2006.
29.
HarringtonRAKleimanNSKottke-MarchantK, et al.Immediate and reversible platelet inhibition after intravenous administration of a peptide glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol1995; 76: 1222–1227.
30.
ZhuXCaoG. Safety of glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors used in stroke-related treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost2020; 26: 107602962094259.
31.
YangJWuYGaoX, et al.Intraarterial versus intravenous tirofiban as an adjunct to endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke2020; 51: 2925–2933.
32.
LiuQLuXYangH, et al.Early tirofiban administration for patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis or bridging therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2022; 222: 107449.
33.
ChengEMBravataDMEl-SadenS, et al.Carotid artery stenosis: wide variability in reporting formats—A review of 127 veterans affairs medical centers. Radiology2013; 266: 289–294.
