Analysis of factors affecting clinical efficacy of Tirofiban in treating branch atheromatous disease

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2023.12.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To analyze the factors affecting the clinical efficacy of Tirofiban in the treatment of branch atheromatous disease (BAD). Methods The clinical data of 186 BAD patients treated with Tirofiban were retrospectively analyzed. According to the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, they were assigned into the good outcome group ( $n$ =122, mRS Score 0-2) and the poor outcome group ( $n$ =64, mRS Score 3-5). The general clinical data and clinical indicators of patients between groups were compared, and the risk factors affecting the clinical efficacy were analyzed by logistic regression model. Results There were significant differences in age of onset(AOO), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), homocysteine, baseline the national institute of health stroke scale (NIHSS) score at admission, thrombolytic therapy (TT), and time to application of tirofiban between the two groups ( $P$ <0.05). Multivariate logistic analysis showed that younger AOO, lower LDL-C, lower baseline NIHSS score on admission, and earlier application of Tirofiban were factors affecting the clinical efficacy ( $P$ <0.05). Conclusion For BAD patients, their clinical prognosis might be better when the younger AOO, the lower LDL-C, the lower the baseline NIHSS score at admission, and the earlier the application of tirofiban.

Key words: acute cerebral infarction, branch atheromatous disease, tirofiban, risk factors

CLC Number:

R743.33

Liang Bingsong, Li Yuying, Zhang Qiping, Chen Yingdao, Li jian. Analysis of factors affecting clinical efficacy of Tirofiban in treating branch atheromatous disease[J]. Clinical Focus, 2023, 38(12): 1091-1094.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2023.12.006

https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2023/V38/I12/1091

Figures/Tables 2

Tab. 1 Comparison of clinical data between groups

组别	例数 (男/女)	年龄 (岁)		吸烟史 [例(%)]		高血压病病史[例(%)]		2型糖尿病 [例(%)]		冠心病 [例(%)]		TIA/卒中病史[例(%)]		入院时血糖 (mmol/L)		低密度脂蛋白胆固醇 (mmol/L)
结局良好组	122(56/66)	64.26±7.23		41(33.61)		62(50.82)		36(29.51)		15(12.30)		12(9.84)		7.71±3.21		3.25±0.63
结局欠佳组	64(34/30)	67.96±6.06		26(40.63)		27(42.19)		19(29.69)		8(12.50)		5(7.81)		8.49±3.77		3.88±0.48
$t$ /χ²值	0.697	-29.978		0.897		0.870		0.001		0.002		0.207		-1.761		-13.353
$P$ 值	0.404	0.000		0.344		0.351		0.980		0.968		0.649		0.080		0.000
组别	同型半胱氨酸 (μmol/L)		入院ASPECTS评分[例(%)]				溶栓治疗[例(%)]				应用替罗非班时间[例(%)]
组别	同型半胱氨酸 (μmol/L)		1~3分		3~15分		是		否		<12 h		12~24 h		≥24 h
结局良好组	13.31±4.32		81(66.39)		41(33.61)		70(57.38)		52(42.62)		84(68.85)		35(28.69)		3(2.46)
结局欠佳组	14.63±4.63		22(34.38)		42(65.62)		25(39.06)		39(60.94)		35(54.69)		20(31.25)		9(14.06)
$t$ 值/χ²值	-6.765		17.416				5.635				10.170
$P$ 值	0.000		0.000				0.018				0.006

Tab. 1 Comparison of clinical data between groups

组别	例数 (男/女)	年龄 (岁)		吸烟史 [例(%)]		高血压病病史[例(%)]		2型糖尿病 [例(%)]		冠心病 [例(%)]		TIA/卒中病史[例(%)]		入院时血糖 (mmol/L)		低密度脂蛋白胆固醇 (mmol/L)
结局良好组	122(56/66)	64.26±7.23		41(33.61)		62(50.82)		36(29.51)		15(12.30)		12(9.84)		7.71±3.21		3.25±0.63
结局欠佳组	64(34/30)	67.96±6.06		26(40.63)		27(42.19)		19(29.69)		8(12.50)		5(7.81)		8.49±3.77		3.88±0.48
$t$ /χ²值	0.697	-29.978		0.897		0.870		0.001		0.002		0.207		-1.761		-13.353
$P$ 值	0.404	0.000		0.344		0.351		0.980		0.968		0.649		0.080		0.000
组别	同型半胱氨酸 (μmol/L)		入院ASPECTS评分[例(%)]				溶栓治疗[例(%)]				应用替罗非班时间[例(%)]
组别	同型半胱氨酸 (μmol/L)		1~3分		3~15分		是		否		<12 h		12~24 h		≥24 h
结局良好组	13.31±4.32		81(66.39)		41(33.61)		70(57.38)		52(42.62)		84(68.85)		35(28.69)		3(2.46)
结局欠佳组	14.63±4.63		22(34.38)		42(65.62)		25(39.06)		39(60.94)		35(54.69)		20(31.25)		9(14.06)
$t$ 值/χ²值	-6.765		17.416				5.635				10.170
$P$ 值	0.000		0.000				0.018				0.006

Tab. 2 Logistic analysis of factors affecting the clinical efficacy of Tirofiban on BAD

变量	β	标准误	Wald χ²值	$O R$ 值	$P$ 值	95% $C I$
年龄	0.114	0.036	10.255	1.121	0.001	1.045~1.202
低密度脂蛋白	2.237	0.411	29.67	9.369	0.000	4.189~20.958
同型半胱氨酸	0.074	0.066	1.258	1.077	0.262	0.946~1.225
入院基线NIHSS	2.578	0.512	25.385	13.169	0.000	4.831~35.899
是否溶栓治疗	-0.399	0.49	0.695	0.671	0.404	0.262~1.715
应用替罗非班时间	0.902	0.337	7.172	2.464	0.007	1.274~4.768

Tab. 2 Logistic analysis of factors affecting the clinical efficacy of Tirofiban on BAD

变量	β	标准误	Wald χ²值	$O R$ 值	$P$ 值	95% $C I$
年龄	0.114	0.036	10.255	1.121	0.001	1.045~1.202
低密度脂蛋白	2.237	0.411	29.67	9.369	0.000	4.189~20.958
同型半胱氨酸	0.074	0.066	1.258	1.077	0.262	0.946~1.225
入院基线NIHSS	2.578	0.512	25.385	13.169	0.000	4.831~35.899
是否溶栓治疗	-0.399	0.49	0.695	0.671	0.404	0.262~1.715
应用替罗非班时间	0.902	0.337	7.172	2.464	0.007	1.274~4.768

References 22

[1]	门雪娇, 陈玮琪, 许玉园, 等. 穿支动脉粥样硬化病中国专家共识[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(5):508-514.
[2]	Liu B, Zhang H, Wang R, et al. Early administration of tirofiban after urokinase-mediated intravenous thrombolysis reduces early neurological deterioration in patients with branch atheromatous disease[J]. J Int Med Res, 2020, 48(5):300060520926298.
[3]	中国卒中学会, 中国卒中学会神经介入分会, 中华预防医学会卒中预防与控制专业委员会介入学组. 替罗非班在动脉粥样硬化性脑血管疾病中的临床应用专家共识[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2019, 14(10):1034-1044. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2019.10.013
[4]	Zi W, Song J, Kong W, et al. RESCUE BT2 investigators. tirofiban for stroke without large or medium-sized vessel occlusion[J]. N Engl J Med, 2023, 388(22):2025-2036. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2214299 URL
[5]	Huang YC, Lee JD, Weng HH, et al. Statin and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of early neurological deterioration and recurrent stroke in branch atheromatous disease: A protocol for a prospective single-arm study using a historical control for comparison[J]. BMJ Open, 2021, 11(11):e054381. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054381 URL
[6]	郭正良, 辛晓瑜, 曾丽莉, 等. 急性脑梗死静脉溶栓患者血清尿酸水平和临床短期预后的相关性研究[J]. 临床荟萃, 2019, 34(5):416-419.
[7]	韩春茹, 赵红如, 蒋建华, 等. CT血管造影区域软脑膜侧支循环评分预测晚时间窗前循环卒中患者血管内治疗后转归[J]. 国际脑血管病杂志, 2021, 29(11):805-811.
[8]	Menon BK, Smith EE, Modi J, et al. Regional leptomeningeal score on CT angiography predicts clinical and imaging outcomes in patients with acute anterior circulation occlusions[J]. AJNR Am Neuroradiol, 2011, 32(9):1640-1645.
[9]	Nah HW, Kang DW, Kwon SU, et al. Diversity of single small subcortical infarctions according to infarct location and parent artery disease: Analysis of indicators for small vessel disease and atherosclerosis[J]. Stroke, 2010, 41(12):2822-2827. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.599464 URL
[10]	Ryoo S, Lee MJ, Cha J, et al. Differential vascular pathophysiologic types of intracranial atherosclerotic stroke: A high-resolution wall magnetic resonance imaging study[J]. Stroke, 2015, 46(10):2815-2821. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.010894 pmid: 26330443
[11]	Li S, Ni J, Fan X, et al. Study protocol of branch atheromatous disease-related stroke (BAD-study): A multicenter prospective cohort study[J]. BMC Neurol, 2022, 22(1):458. doi: 10.1186/s12883-022-02976-9 pmid: 36494618
[12]	Nakase J, Yoshikas S, Sasaki M, etal. Clinical evaluation of lacunar infarction and branch atheromatous disease[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis, 2013, 22(4):406-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2011.10.005 pmid: 22133744
[13]	Song TJ, Cho HJ, Chang Y, et al. Low-density-lipoprotein particle size predicts a poor outcome in patients with atherothrombotic stroke[J]. J Clin Neurol, 2015, 11(1):80-86. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2015.11.1.80 URL
[14]	Tarvonen-Schröder S, Niemi T, Koivisto M. Inpatient rehabilitation after acute severe stroke: predictive value of the national institutes of health stroke scale among other potential predictors for discharge destination[J]. Adv Rehabil Sci Pract, 2023, 5(12):27536351231157966.
[15]	Schlegel D, Kolb SJ, Luciano JM, et al. Utility of the NIH stroke scale as a predictor of hospital disposition[J]. Stroke, 2003, 34(1):134-137. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000048217.44714.02 pmid: 12511764
[16]	Cheng Z, Geng X, Rajah GB, et al. NIHSS consciousness score combined with ASPECTS is a favorable predictor of functional outcome post endovascular recanalization in stroke patients[J]. Aging Dis, 2021, 12(2):415-424. doi: 10.14336/AD.2020.0709
[17]	Jang SH, Park SW, Kwon DH, et al. The length of an infarcted lesion along the perforating artery predicts neurological deterioration in single subcortical infarction without any relevant artery stenosis. front neurol[J]. Front Neurol, 2020, 29(11):553326.
[18]	Liu C, Yin L, Hu Y, et al. Analysis of risk factors for the efficacy of tirofiban in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke[J]. Neurol Res, 2023, 45(6):538-543. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2022.2164447 URL
[19]	Liu J, Shi Q, Sun Y, et al. Efficacy of tirofiban administered at different time points after intravenous thrombolytic therapy with alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis, 2019, 28(4):1126-1132. doi: S1052-3057(18)30747-X pmid: 30655038
[20]	Park MG, Oh EH, Kim BK, et al. Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in acute branch atheromatous disease: does it prevent early neurological deterioration?[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2016, 9(33): 194-197. doi: 10.1054/jocn.2001.0958 URL
[21]	Deguchi I, Takahashi S. Pathophysiology and optimal treatment of intracranial branch atheromatous disease[J]. J Atheroscler Thromb, 2023, 30(7):701-709. doi: 10.5551/jat.RV22003 pmid: 37183021
[22]	Wu C, Sun C, Wang L, et al. Low-dose tirofiban treatment improves neurological deterioration outcome after intravenous thrombolysis[J]. Stroke, 2019, 50(12):3481-3487. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026240 pmid: 31570084