Mistry, Eva A

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants are more effective in preventing early recurrent stroke in patients with cervical artery dissection. Following the publication of the observational Antithrombotic for STOP-CAD (Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection) study, which has more than doubled available data, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing antiplatelets versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection. METHODS: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023468063). We searched 5 databases using a combination of keywords that encompass different antiplatelets and anticoagulants, as well as cervical artery dissection. We included relevant randomized trials and included observational studies of dissection unrelated to major trauma. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy (ischemic stroke) and safety (major hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death) outcomes using relative risks. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies (2 randomized trials and 9 observational studies) that met the inclusion criteria. These included 5039 patients (30% [1512] treated with anticoagulation and 70% [3527]) treated with antiplatelets]. In meta-analysis, anticoagulation was associated with a lower ischemic stroke risk (relative risk, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.94]; P =0.02; I 2 =0%) but higher major bleeding risk (relative risk, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.72]; P =0.03, I 2 =0%). The risks of death and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were similar between the 2 treatments. Effect sizes were larger in randomized trials. There are insufficient data on the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with cervical artery dissection, anticoagulation was superior to antiplatelet therapy in reducing ischemic stroke but carried a higher major bleeding risk. This argues for an individualized therapeutic approach incorporating the net clinical benefit of ischemic stroke reduction and bleeding risks. Large randomized clinical trials are required to clarify optimal antithrombotic strategies for management of cervical artery dissection.

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.