ArticleHeliyon2023
Efficacy and safety of intracoronary versus intravenous tirofiban in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical Thrombus Aspiration for a Young STEMI Patient With Plaque Erosion: Time for a Stent-Free Approach?Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Assessment of No-Reflow in Patients With STEMI After Intracoronary Tirofiban After Opening of the Vessel.Cardiology research · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective antiplatelet therapy is critical for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and receiving primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PPCI). Intracoronary (IC) and intravenous (IV) administration of tirofiban are commonly used during the procedure of PPCI. However, which is the better administration route of tirofiban have not been fully evaluated. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of RCTs that comparing IC with IV tirofiban in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI was conducted, which were published as of May 7, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding events. Results: This meta-analysis included 9 trials involving 1177 patients. IC tirofiban significantly reduced the incidence of 30-day MACE (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.95, P = 0.028) and improved the rate of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow in high-dose (25 μg/kg) group (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.99-1.30, P = 0.001), in-hospital (WMD 2.03, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.02, P < 0.001), and 6-month left ventricular injection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 6.01, 95% CI: 5.02 to 6.99, P < 0.001) compared with IV. There was no significant difference in the incidences of in-hospital bleeding events (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.38, P = 0.82) and thrombocytopenia (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.57, P = 0.32) between the two groups. Conclusions: IC tirofiban significantly improved the incidence of TIMI 3 in the high-dose group, in-hospital and 6-month LVEF, and reduced the 30-day MACE incidence without increasing the risk of bleeding compared with IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.