Citations

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.

The European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on Primary Angiitis of the Central Nervous System (PACNS), developed according to ESO standard operating procedures (SOP) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, was elaborated to assist clinicians in the diagnostic and treatment pathway of patients with PACNS in their decision making. A working group involving vascular neurologists, neuroradiologists, rheumatologists, a neuropathologist and a methodologist identified 17 relevant clinical questions; these were addressed according to the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) framework and systematic literature reviews were performed. Notably, each PICO was addressed with respect to large vessel (LV)-PACNS and small vessel (SV)-PACNS. Data to answer many questions were scarce or lacking and the quality of evidence was very low overall, so, for some PICOs, the recommendations reflect the ongoing uncertainty. When the absence of sufficient evidence precluded recommendations, Expert Consensus Statements were formulated. In some cases, this applied to interventions in the diagnosis and treatment of PACNS which are embedded widely in clinical practice, for example patterns of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) abnormalities. CSF analysis for hyperproteinorrachia and pleocytosis does not have evidence supporting their use as diagnostic tools. The working group recommended that caution is employed in the interpretation of non-invasive vascular imaging due to lack of validation and the different sensitivities in comparison with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and histopathological analyses. Moreover, there is not a neuroimaging pattern specific for PACNS and neurovascular issues are largely underreported in PACNS patients. The group’s recommendations on induction and maintenance of treatment and for primary or secondary prevention of vascular events also reflect uncertainty due to lack of evidence. Being uncertain the role and practical usefulness of current diagnostic criteria and being not comparable the main treatment strategies, it is suggested to have a multidisciplinary team approach in an expert center during both work up and management of patients with suspected PACNS. Highlighting the limitations of the currently accepted diagnostic criteria, we hope to facilitate the design of multicenter, prospective clinical studies and trials. A standardization of neuroimaging techniques and reporting to improve the level of evidence underpinning interventions employed in the diagnosis and management of PACNS. We anticipate that this guideline, the first comprehensive European guideline on PACNS management using GRADE methodology, will assist clinicians to choose the most effective management strategy for PACNS.

ObjectiveEpidemiological data to characterize the individual risk profile of patients with spontaneous cervical artery dissection (sCeAD) are rather inconsistent.Methods and ResultsIn the setting of the Italian Project on Stroke in Young Adults Cervical Artery Dissection (IPSYS CeAD), we compared the characteristics of 1,468 patients with sCeAD (mean age = 47.3 ± 11.3 years, men = 56.7%) prospectively recruited at 39 Italian centers with those of 2 control groups, composed of (1) patients whose ischemic stroke was caused by mechanisms other than dissection (non‐CeAD IS) selected from the prospective IPSYS registry and Brescia Stroke Registry and (2) stroke‐free individuals selected from the staff members of participating hospitals, matched 1:1:1 by sex, age, and race. Compared to stroke‐free subjects, patients with sCeAD were more likely to be hypertensive (odds ratio [OR] = 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37–1.98), to have personal history of migraine with aura (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.74–3.34), without aura (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = 2.15–3.32), and family history of vascular disease in first‐degree relatives (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.39–2.05), and less likely to be diabetic (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.47–0.91), hypercholesterolemic (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62–0.91), and obese (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.31–0.54). Migraine without aura was also associated with sCeAD (OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.47–2.22) in comparison with patients with non‐CeAD IS. In the subgroup of patients with migraine, patients with sCeAD had higher frequency of migraine attacks and were less likely to take anti‐migraine preventive medications, especially beta‐blockers, compared with the other groups.InterpretationThe risk of sCeAD is influenced by migraine, especially migraine without aura, more than by other factors, increases with increasing frequency of attacks, and seems to be reduced by migraine preventive medications, namely beta‐blockers. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:585–595