Khasiyev, Farid

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is a potential cardioembolic source of ischemic stroke, but its role in recurrent stroke risk and treatment response remains unclear. We explore whether LV injury associates with the risk of recurrent stroke and modifies the association between anticoagulation and stroke recurrence using real-world data. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort across 27 US sites. Patients with LV ejection fraction ≥20% were included. LV injury, defined as LV ejection fraction 20% to 40% and wall motion abnormality, was the primary exposure and treatment effect modifier. The treatment of interest was anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy. The composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Outcomes were evaluated using unadjusted and inverse probability weighting adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, with treatment effect modification tested by LV injury status. RESULTS: Among 2685 patients enrolled, 2328 with complete data were analyzed (median age, 65 years; 49.8% female; median follow-up, 1.6 years). LV injury was present in 310 patients (13.3%). Overall, 535 events occurred: 258 recurrent ischemic strokes, 28 hemorrhagic strokes, 67 major hemorrhages, and 256 deaths. LV injury was associated with a higher unadjusted risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.21–1.87]), though nonsignificant after inverse probability weighting adjustment (adjusted HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.97–1.70]). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.10–0.59]), relative to the non-LV injury subgroup (adjusted HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.83–1.95]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001). Similar interactions were seen for EF 20% to 40% (versus >40%; adjusted HR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04–0.86]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001) and wall motion abnormality (versus no wall motion abnormality; adjusted HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.15–0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: After cryptogenic stroke, anticoagulation in those with LV injury was associated with lower rates of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, and death. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT06398366.

Background Intracranial occlusions in embolic stroke of undetermined source are histopathologically similar to cardiac sources of embolism. Whether patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source and intracranial occlusion benefit from anticoagulation is unknown. Methods A multicenter retrospective cohort of adults with cryptogenic stroke was queried for patients with proximal or medium/distal vessel occlusion. The primary outcome was recurrent ischemic stroke, which was assessed in unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models and repeated following 1:1 propensity score matching and biweight kernel density matching. Results Of the 2328 patients who were followed over a median of 1.31 years (interquartile range, 0.34–2.85), 999 (42.6%) had an intracranial occlusion. When compared with patients without an intracranial occlusion, those with an occlusion had fewer atherosclerotic vascular risk factors, more severe symptoms, and less severe cerebral microvascular disease. The rate of recurrent stroke was similar between patients with versus without an intracranial occlusion (6.8%/year [95% CI, 5.7–8.2] versus 7.0%/year [95% CI 6.0–8.1]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09 [95% CI, 0.77–1.55]). There was no association between occlusion and recurrent stroke in the adjusted propensity score matching (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.64–1.59]) or kernel density models (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.62–1.45]). There was no interaction between occlusion and treatment with anticoagulation, sex, age, or high‐risk sources of embolism for the primary outcome in the unmatched and matched analyses. Conclusions Intracranial occlusion in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source is not associated with a greater risk of recurrence when compared with patients without an intracranial occlusion. There was no difference in rate of recurrent stroke with anticoagulation when stratified by presence or absence of occlusion.

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.