ArticleCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2026
Impact of Preemptive vs. Conventional Tirofiban Administration on the Outcomes in Acute Branch Atheromatous Disease: A Propensity Score-Weighted Cohort Study.
Article in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBranch atheromatous disease (BAD) carries a high risk of early neurological deterioration (END). We evaluated the efficacy of preemptive tirofiban administration within 72 h compared with reactive rescue therapy following END.
methodsThis retrospective, single-center study enrolled 221 patients with BAD-associated stroke. Based on the timing of tirofiban administration, patients were assigned to a preemptive intervention group (n = 127) or a conventional intervention group (n = 94). Preemptive intervention was defined as preemptive administration after clinical risk assessment, whereas conventional intervention was delayed until an increase of ≥ 2 points on the NIHSS score. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to balance baseline covariates. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of an excellent 90-day outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤ 1.
resultsAfter IPTW adjustment, the preemptive intervention group showed a significantly higher rate of excellent 90-day outcomes (76.6% vs. 44.6%, p < 0.001) and a shorter median hospital stay (10 vs. 11 days, p = 0.02) compared with the conventional group. No between-group differences were observed in mortality or stroke recurrence (p > 0.05). Early tirofiban use (adjusted OR = 4.411, 95% CI: 2.349-8.283) and a lower baseline NIHSS score (adjusted OR = 0.832, 95% CI: 0.707-0.980) independently predicted favorable outcomes. Subgroup analyses confirmed consistent benefits across most strata, with patients aged over 65 years deriving greater neuroprotection (p = 0.004 for age-treatment interaction).
conclusionPreemptive administration of tirofiban within the initial 72 h significantly improves 90-day neurological outcomes and reduces hospital stay length in patients with BAD-related stroke.
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.