ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Tirofiban after intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early antiplatelet therapy after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke remains controversial because of concerns regarding hemorrhagic complications. Tirofiban, a reversible glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist, may reduce platelet-mediated rethrombosis and improve reperfusion after thrombolysis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of early intravenous tirofiban following IVT. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception through May 2026. RCTs comparing early intravenous tirofiban versus standard care or placebo after IVT were included. Outcomes included functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2), excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and 90-day mortality. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1787 patients were included. Tirofiban significantly increased the likelihood of achieving functional independence at 90 days (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; P = 0.019). Although tirofiban showed a trend toward improving excellent functional outcome, the difference was not statistically significant (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.95-1.56; P = 0.080). No significant differences were observed in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.57-5.19; P = 0.265), any intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.72-1.90; P = 0.453), or 90-day mortality (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.59-1.45; P = 0.668). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robust findings across all outcomes. Early intravenous tirofiban following thrombolysis was associated with improved functional recovery without a significant increase in mortality or intracranial hemorrhage on a relative scale. Although a 1% absolute increase in symptomatic ICH was observed, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings support further investigation of tirofiban as an adjunct to thrombolysis in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42859208What 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.