Baradaran, Hediyeh

Background: Migraine is associated with neuroimaging differences in cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL). However, it is unknown if migraine-related disability (MRD) or if calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a vasoactive peptide important in migraine pathology, have radiographic implications. The aims of this study were to identify whether MRD or interictal serum CGRP levels impacted neuroimaging findings for those with CADASIL. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were neuroimaging differences associated with MRD among those with migraine or interictal serum CGRP levels of those with and without migraine. MRD was defined by 2 migraine disability scales (Migraine Disability Assessment, Headache Impact Test-6). Retrospective brain magnetic resonance imaging was reviewed (average 1.7 ± 2.0 y before enrollment). Rank-sum and χ2 tests were used. Results: Those with migraine (n=25, vs. n=14 without) were younger [median 49 (25 to 82) y vs. 60 (31 to 82) y, P<0.007], had fewer cerebral microbleeds (0 to 31 vs. 0 to 50, P=0.02) and less frequently had anterior temporal lobe T2 hyperintensities [68% (17/25) vs 100% (14/14), P=0.02]. MRD scale outcomes had no significant radiographic associations. Interictal serum CGRP did not differ (migraine: n=18, 27.0±9.6 pg/mL vs. no migraine: n=10, 26.8±15.7 pg/mL, P=0.965). Conclusions: Migraine may forestall microangiopathy in CADASIL, though possibly independent of severity as measured by MRD. Interictal serum CGRP did not differ in our cohort suggesting CGRP may not be vital to migraine pathophysiology in CADASIL. Larger studies are needed to account for age differences.

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German–Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients. The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German–Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German–Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.