Key result
This protocol outlines a planned systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Why the study?
Despite potential benefits in reducing PCI complications, the use of tirofiban in ACS remains debated, with varying recommendations across major clinical guidelines.
Does intravenous or intracoronary tirofiban reduce 1-year mortality and 30-day recurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Systematic Review
Does intravenous or intracoronary tirofiban reduce 1-year mortality and 30-day recurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
This protocol outlines a planned systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Tirofiban adjunct to PCI in ACS cuts ischemic events without excess major bleeding; reinforces selective use and warrants targeted RCTs.
INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) have become a cornerstone in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), yet they carry risks of complications like stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, particularly tirofiban, have been employed as adjunctive therapies to reduce these risks. Despite its potential benefits, the use of tirofiban remains a subject of debate, with varying recommendations across major clinical guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We systematically searched five databases from 1 January 1992 to 1 April 2025, including Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Clinicaltrials.org and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in addition to three grey literature databases. Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials investigating the use of intravenous or intracoronary tirofiban in patients with ACS, unstable angina or myocardial infarction were considered for inclusion. Only published studies in English, Portuguese, Spanish and French were included. Data selection and extraction will be performed independently by two researchers, with any inconsistencies resolved with consensus or by consulting a third senior researcher. The risk of bias will be assessed through the risk of bias measurement tool (Rob-2) for interventions and/or cluster trials by two researchers independently, and the overall certainty of evidence will be assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. A meta-analysis will be carried out if there is sufficient homogeneity between studies, with subgroup analysis being performed if significant heterogeneity is detected. Additionally, a metaregression model will be conducted if sufficient data are available. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study involves secondary analysis of published data, ethics approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and will be shared with relevant clinical guideline committees. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024585252.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gigliotti et al. (2025) conducted a systematic review in Acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina, or myocardial infarction. Tirofiban vs. Control was evaluated on 1-year mortality and 30-day recurrence of myocardial infarction. This protocol outlines a planned systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: