ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Adjunct Intraarterial or Intravenous Tirofiban Versus No Tirofiban After Successful Recanalization of Basilar Artery Occlusion Stroke: The BASILAR Registry.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Endovascular Treatment for Basilar Artery Occlusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately half of patients who achieve successful reperfusion do not achieve functional independence. The present study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes and safety of intraarterial or intravenous tirofiban as adjunct therapy in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion who had achieved successful recanalization with endovascular treatment. METHODS AND
resultsIn the national, prospective BASILAR (Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study) registry, 458 patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into 3 groups based on tirofiban administration (no tirofiban, n=262; intravenous tirofiban, n=101; intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban, n=95). Their clinical outcomes were compared with 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were obtained by logistic regression models and propensity score matching. Safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH, and mortality. Among 458 included patients, 184 (40.2%) achieved a favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-3). There were no differences between the intravenous tirofiban group and the no tirofiban group in terms of safety and clinical outcomes (all
conclusionsIntraarterial+intravenous rather than intravenous tirofiban improved clinical outcomes without increasing the frequency of symptomatic ICH among patients with basilar artery occlusion after successful endovascular treatment. Further studies are needed to delineate the roles of intraarterial+intravenous tirofiban in patients with basilar artery occlusion receiving endovascular treatment.
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.