Kicielinski, Kimberly

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.

ImportanceTesting new medical devices or procedures in terms of safety, effectiveness, and durability should follow the strictest methodological rigor before implementation.ObjectivesTo review and analyze studies investigating devices and procedures used in intracranial aneurysm (IA) treatment for methods and completeness of reporting and to compare the results of studies with positive, uncertain, and negative conclusions.Data SourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials were searched for studies on IA treatment published between January 1, 1995, and the October 1, 2022. Grey literature was retrieved from Google Scholar.Study SelectionAll studies making any kind of claims of safety, effectiveness, or durability in the field of IA treatment were included.Data Extraction and SynthesisUsing a predefined data dictionary and analysis plan, variables ranging from patient and aneurysm characteristics to the results of treatment were extracted, as were details pertaining to study methods and completeness of reporting. Extraction was performed by 10 independent reviewers. A blinded academic neuro-linguist without involvement in IA research evaluated the conclusion of each study as either positive, uncertain, or negative. The study followed Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe incidence of domain-specific outcomes between studies with positive, uncertain, or negative conclusions regarding safety, effectiveness, or durability were compared. The number of studies that provided a definition of safety, effectiveness, or durability and the incidence of incomplete reporting of domain-specific outcomes were evaluated.ResultsOverall, 12 954 studies were screened, and 1356 studies were included, comprising a total of 410 993 treated patients. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with poor outcome or in-hospital mortality between studies claiming a technique was safe, uncertain, or not safe. Similarly, there was no difference in the proportion of IAs completely occluded at last follow-up between studies claiming a technique was effective, uncertain, or noneffective. Less than 2% of studies provided any definition of safety, effectiveness, or durability, and only 1 of the 1356 studies provided a threshold under which the technique would be considered unsafe. Incomplete reporting was found in 546 reports (40%).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of IA treatment literature, studies claiming safety, effectiveness, or durability of IA treatment had methodological flaws and incomplete reporting of relevant outcomes supporting these claims.

Introduction Acute stroke patients presenting with large vessel occlusion secondary to intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS‐LVO) may require rescue therapy (RT) in addition to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) to achieve and maintain successful recanalization. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies that reported outcomes of RT in ICAS‐LVO patients to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Methods Databases searched include PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and Scopus from database date of inception through August 17, 2021. We included comparative studies that reported the outcomes of ICAS‐LVO RT compared to outcomes of ICAS‐LVO patients who did not undergo RT or to those presenting with embolic LVO patients (non‐ICAS LVO). Meta‐analysis using the random effects model was used to combine estimates reporting odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Total of 9 nonrandomized studies were included: 5 studies in ICAS‐LVO RT vs. ICAS‐LVO non‐RT analysis and 5 ICAS‐LVO RT vs. non‐ICAS LVO analysis. Rescue treatments included intra‐arterial antiplatelets, angioplasty, stenting or combination of treatments. Compared to non‐RT ICAS LVO, RT was associated with increased favorable 90‐day outcome (OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.91‐5.32, I2 14%) and decreased 90‐day mortality (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.16‐0.76, I2 21%) (Figure 1). In the analysis of ICAS LVO vs embolic LVO, the incidence of favorable 90‐day outcome and 90‐day mortality did not differ between the ICAS‐LVO RT and non‐ICAS LVO (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58‐1.64, I2 50%) and (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90‐1.66, I2 0%), respectively. Conclusions Rescue treatment is associated with better outcomes in ICAS‐LVO patients. The outcomes of ICAS‐LVO patients who receive RT may be comparable to embolic LVO patients (non‐ICAS LVO).

Background Patients with acute stroke presenting with large vessel occlusion secondary to intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS‐LVO) may require rescue therapy (RT) in addition to mechanical thrombectomy to achieve and maintain successful recanalization. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies that reported outcomes of RT in patients with ICAS‐LVO to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Methods Databases searched include PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and Scopus from database date of inception through August 17, 2021. We included comparative studies that reported the outcomes of ICAS‐LVO RT compared with outcomes of patients with ICAS‐LVO who did not undergo RT or to those patients presenting with embolic large vessel occlusion (non–ICAS‐LVO). Meta‐analysis using the random‐effects model was used to combine estimates reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Results A total of 9 nonrandomized studies were included: 5 studies in ICAS‐LVO RT versus ICAS‐LVO non‐RT analysis and 5 in ICAS‐LVO RT versus non‐ICAS LVO analysis. Rescue treatments included intra‐arterial antiplatelets, angioplasty, stenting, or a combination of treatments. Compared with non‐RT ICAS‐LVO, RT was associated with an increased favorable 90‐day outcome (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 1.91–5.32]; I 2 = 14%) and decreased 90‐day mortality (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.16–0.76]; I 2 = 21%). In the analysis of ICAS‐LVO RT versus embolic LV, the incidence of favorable 90‐day outcome and 90‐day mortality did not differ between ICAS‐LVO RT and non–ICAS‐LVO (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58–1.64; I 2 = 50%]; and OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.90–1.66; I 2 = 0%], respectively). Conclusions Rescue treatment is likely associated with better outcomes in patients with ICAS‐LVO. The outcomes of patients with ICAS‐LVO who receive RT may be comparable with patients with embolic large vessel occlusion (non–ICAS‐LVO).