Stretz, Christoph

BACKGROUND: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. METHODS: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments. RESULTS: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28–2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35–5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53–20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18–0.88]; P interaction =0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with cervical artery dissection (CAD) are at risk for subsequent ischemic events. We aimed to identify characteristics that are associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke after initial presentation of CAD and to evaluate the differential impact of anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy in these high-risk individuals. METHODS: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of the STOP-CAD study (Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection), a multicenter international retrospective observational study (63 sites from 16 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa) that included patients with CAD predominantly between January 2015 and June 2022. The primary outcome was subsequent ischemic stroke by day 180 after diagnosis. Clinical and imaging variables were compared between those with versus without subsequent ischemic stroke. Significant factors associated with subsequent stroke risk were identified using stepwise Cox regression. Associations between subsequent ischemic stroke risk and antithrombotic therapy type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets) among patients with identified risk factors were explored using adjusted Cox regression. RESULTS: In all, 4023 patients (mean age was 47.4 years; 44.5% were women) were included. By day 180, subsequent ischemic stroke occurred in 5.3% of the cohort. In adjusted Cox regression, factors associated with increased risk of subsequent ischemic stroke were prior history of ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 7.31 [95% CI, 1.61–33.13]; P =0.010), presentation within 7 days from first symptoms (aHR, 3.04 [95% CI, 1.04–8.91]; P =0.043), infarct on baseline imaging (aHR, 9.85 [95% CI, 3.65–26.58]; P <0.001), and occlusive dissection (aHR, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.03–5.34]; P =0.043). Only patients with occlusive dissection demonstrated a reduced risk of subsequent ischemic stroke when treated with anticoagulation versus antiplatelets (aHR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16–0.80]; P =0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of the STOP-CAD study, several factors associated with subsequent ischemic stroke were identified among patients with CAD. Furthermore, we identified a potential benefit of anticoagulation in patients with CAD with occlusive dissection. These findings require validation by meta-analyses of prior studies to formulate optimal treatment strategies for specific high-risk CAD subgroups.

Background Although intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is safe and effective in populations with general stroke, its impact on cervical artery dissection–related acute ischemic stroke (CeAD‐AIS) remains unclear. This retrospective study used the National Inpatient Sample to compare outcomes in patients with CeAD‐AIS treated with and without IVT. Methods We included adult patients with concurrent CeAD and AIS diagnoses ( International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ ICD‐10 ], codes) hospitalized from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was home discharge; safety outcomes included inpatient death and intracerebral hemorrhage. We performed survey‐weighted multivariable logistic regressions comparing IVT versus no IVT, followed by interaction analyses to examine effect modifications based on age, medical history, stroke severity, carotid artery involvement, and endovascular treatment. Results Between 2016 and 2019, 1360 (12.1%) of 11 285 patients with CeAD‐AIS received IVT. IVT‐treated patients had higher median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (median [interquartile range], 8 [4–17] versus 3 [1–11]; P <0.001). Adjusted analyses showed IVT was associated with higher odds of home discharge (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.01–1.92]; P =0.042), but not with inpatient death (adjusted OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.76–2.20]; P =0.347) or intracerebral hemorrhage (adjusted OR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32–1.48]; P =0.341). Stroke severity ( P for interaction=0.001) and carotid artery involvement ( P for interaction=0.021) significantly modified IVT's effect on home discharge, with IVT being associated with an increased likelihood of home discharge in patients with moderate to severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >4) and carotid artery involvement. Conclusions IVT improves the likelihood of home discharge in patients with CeAD‐AIS without increasing the risk of inpatient death or intracerebral hemorrhage.

Background: Multiple randomized clinical trials failed to show benefit of anticoagulation over antiplatelets in the secondary prevention for embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). However, the benefit of combination antithrombotic regimens remains unexplored in the same patient population. Methods: This is a subgroup analysis of a multicenter retrospective observational cohort of consecutive adult patients with ESUS (n=27 sites, 2015-2024). Comparisons were made between patients treated with single (SAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), exclusive anticoagulation (AC) (direct oral anticoagulant, vitamin K antagonist, low molecular weight heparin) and combination anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy initiated within the first 7 days of index stroke. The primary composite outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. Secondary outcomes were individual outcomes of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, or death. Results: Of the 2201 included patients, 1456 (66.1%) were on SAPT, 527 (23.9%) were on DAPT, 195 (8.8%) were on exclusive AC and 23 (1.0%) were on AC+AP (all of which were on DAPT). Patients treated with AC+AP were older (median 66 years [IQR 51-78]), more likely to have history of hypertension, stroke, hyperlipidemia, PFO and left atrial enlargement. Compared to SAPT, all treatment strategies were associated with similar risk of the primary outcomes in the unadjusted and adjusted cox regression. Similarly, there was no difference in individual outcomes including recurrent stroke, major bleeding and death in the adjusted cox regression. However, there was an increased risk of major bleeding with AC+AP in the unadjusted cox regression (HR 4.0, [95% CI 1.2-12.8], p=0.02) but not in the adjusted model when compared to SAPT. Also, DAPT was associated with lower risk of death than SAPT in the unadjusted model (HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.4-0.8],p=0.005) but not the adjusted model. Additionally, when adjusted by the HASBLED score, there was no difference in major bleeding when AC+AP was compared to SAPT. Conclusion: Over 90% of ESUS patients in this cohort were prescribed SAPT or DAPT. Antithrombotic therapy with DAPT, exclusive AC, or AC+AP was not associated with any lower risk of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding and death compared with SAPT in an unselected cohort of ESUS patients.

Introduction: The safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in cervical artery dissection-related acute ischemic stroke (CeAD-AIS) remains unclear. We performed a retrospective study of data from the National Inpatient Sample investigating outcomes in CeAD-AIS patients treated with and without IVT. Methods: We included adult patients with CeAD-AIS hospitalized between 2016 to 2019. CeAD-AIS was defined by concurrent CeAD and AIS diagnoses, identified with ICD-10 codes. The primary outcome was home discharge. The safety outcomes were inpatient death and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We used survey-weighted multivariable adjusted logistic regressions comparing the groups (IVT versus no IVT), followed by interaction analyses to examine for effect modifications based on age, medical history, stroke severity, and endovascular treatment. Results: Between 2016-2019, 1,360 (12.1%) of 11,285 CeAD-AIS patients received IVT. Patients treated with IVT- had higher NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores (median 8 [4-17] versus 3 [1-11]; p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, treatment with IVT was associated with a greater odds of home discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-2.05, p = 0.014), but not ICH (aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43-1.86, p = 0.773) or inpatient death (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 0.72-2.06, p = 0.454). In interaction analyses, stroke severity significantly interacted with IVT ( p for interaction = 0.001), where IVT was significantly associated with increased likelihood of home discharge in patients with moderate to severe strokes (NIHSS > 4) (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.59-3.26, p < 0.001) but not in those with mild stroke (NIHSS 0-4) (aOR 1.03 95% CI 0.62-1.70, p = 0.922). Conclusion: IVT improved the likelihood of home discharge in patients with CeAD-AIS without increasing the risk of inpatient death or ICH.

Introduction: Four randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated the superiority of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in the prevention of recurrent embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). In this multicenter observational cohort study, we evaluated long-term outcomes associated with various antithrombotic strategies according to potential embolic sources. Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort of consecutive adult patients with ESUS was queried (n=27 sites). Comparisons were made between patients treated with single or combination antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulation (direct oral anticoagulant, vitamin K antagonist, low molecular weight heparin) with or without antiplatelet therapy initiated within 7 days of stroke. The primary composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression, with clustering by site. Causal inference was assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighted regression adjustment (IPTWRA), accounting for propensity for antiplatelet treatment, with effect estimates summarized as the average treatment effect (ATE) over time (in days). Adjusted models accounted for age, stroke severity, vascular risk factors, and major categories of potential embolic sources. Results: Of the 2201 included patients (n=218 treated with anticoagulation) followed over a median of 564 days (interquartile range [IQR] 154-1124), the median age was 65y (IQR 54-74) and 49.8% were female. Patients treated with anticoagulation were older with more frequent previous stroke, concomitant left ventricular dysfunction, and more severe deficits. Over 4541 person-years of follow-up, the annualized incidence rate of the primary outcome was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6%-15.8%). Compared to anticoagulation, antiplatelet(s) use was not associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.64-1.29) or in the IPTWRA model (average treatment effect 0.14, 95% CI, -1376.6 to 1376.9). Major bleeding events trended toward significance in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25-1.04) but were no different with IPTWRA (ATE 58.9, 95% CI, -125.4 to 243.2). Conclusions: These results validate the observations of randomized trials indicating a lack of benefit of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in ESUS. A more detailed analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect is under way.

Background: It is known that there are discrepancies between insurance status and access to care for a variety of health conditions. In addition, differences have been shown in initial in-hospital management of stroke as well as outcomes in the acute setting. We sought to examine the relationship between insurance status and risk of recurrent stroke, major bleeding or death following an incident cryptogenic stroke. Methods: Patients with cryptogenic stroke included in a multicenter (n=27 sites) retrospective observational cohort and complete insurance status were evaluated for a primary composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Insurance providers were categorized by Private/Veterans Administration, Medicare, Other, and Medicaid/pending/None, with the primary carrier ranked in that order when multiple insurance carriers applied. Descriptive statistics and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression were used to associate the primary insurance provider with the composite outcome, and with each unique secondary outcome, adjusting for age, stroke severity, pre-stroke disability, atherosclerotic risk factors, and potential embolic sources (e.g., patent foramen ovale). Results: Of the 2201 patients, 2006 (91.1%) had reported insurance information and were followed for a median of 1.50 years (interquartile range [IQR 0.41 - 2.99y]). The majority of patients were primary Medicare beneficiaries (42.3%), followed by private insurance (36.7%), Medicaid/none (18.1%) and Other (2.9%). Although there were important differences in demographic and neurodiagnostic results across insurance groups, compared to Private/VA beneficiaries, beneficiaries for Medicaid/pending/none had a higher rate of the composite outcome in adjusted regression (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.69) which was driven largely by the higher rate of recurrent stroke (adjusted HR 1.33, 95%CI, 1.02-1.73) with no significant difference in rate of major bleeding or death (p>0.05 for both). Conclusions: Independent of age, race, pre-existing disability, and atherosclerotic risk factors, insurance status was independently predictive of recurrent stroke in this diverse cohort of cryptogenic stroke.

Background: Left ventricular (LV) injury is a cardioembolic etiology of ischemic stroke. We aimed to 1) evaluate recurrent stroke risk among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury, and 2) determine if there is a treatment effect with anticoagulation in this population. Methods: We analyzed the multicenter, retrospective Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort of patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke. The exposure was LV injury defined by 1) LV ejection fraction (EF) 20-40% and/or 2) LV wall motion abnormality (hypokinesis or akinesis). The primary composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Cox proportional hazard models were built and sequentially adjusted for 1) age and sex (Model 1), and 2) age, sex, race, ethnicity, anti-thrombotic use, and vascular risk factors (Model 2). We then assessed if there was heterogeneity in treatment effect by LV injury status with an interaction term of LV injury and oral anticoagulation use in Model 2. Results: Of 2,641 patients in CASPR, the analytic cohort included 2,191 patients with complete exposure and outcome data (median age 65 years, 49.8% female, median follow-up 1.55 years). There were 113 (5.2%) patients with LV injury (median LVEF 30%, interquartile range 25-34%). There were 559 incident events (321 recurrent strokes [288 ischemic], 71 major hemorrhages, 250 deaths). Among patients with LV injury, 15.9% were prescribed an anticoagulant within 7 days of index stroke (vs 9.6% without LV injury, p=0.03). The unadjusted risk of the primary outcome was non-significantly higher among patients with LV injury vs without (HR 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-2.00), but became significant in Model 1 (HR 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.85) and in Model 2 (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.11-1.64). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation vs antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.94). In patients without LV injury, anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of the composite outcome (HR 4.35, 95% CI, 1.69-11.16, p[interaction]=0.002). Conclusion: In this observational study, there was an increased risk of the primary outcome which included recurrent stroke among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury. Anticoagulation use in LV injury is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the primary outcome. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial.