Heldner, Mirjam R.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cervical artery dissection (CeAD) may experience a recurrent dissection, but its frequency, risk factors, and clinical implications are not well defined. We aimed to determine the risk, associated factors, and clinical impact of recurrent CeAD. METHODS: The STOP-CAD study (Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection) was a multicenter international retrospective observational study of patients with CeAD treated between January 2015 and June 2022. Recurrent dissection was defined as a CeAD occurring at least 7 days after the diagnosis of the index event that affects a different artery or a different segment of the same artery. Patients were followed from day 7 up to 2 years. The absolute risk of recurrent CeAD over time was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess predictors of CeAD recurrence. RESULTS: Of the 4023 patients included in STOP-CAD, 3836 (median age 46 years, 45% women) were eligible for this analysis. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 295 (97–720) days, 88 (2.29%) patients had a CeAD recurrence. Median time-to-recurrent CeAD was 53 (interquartile range, 18–157) days. The estimated risk of recurrent CeAD at 2 years was 3.22% (95% CI, 2.59%–4.00%). In multivariable analyses, younger age (adjusted odds ratios, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96–0.99]), migraine (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14–3.07]), and fibromuscular dysplasia (adjusted odds ratio, 2.90 [95% CI, 1.66–5.06]) were associated with CeAD recurrence, while presenting with an ischemic stroke was associated with a lower likelihood of recurrence (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29–0.75]). These associations with CeAD recurrence over time were confirmed by Cox regression analyses. Among the 88 patients with recurrent CeAD, only 5 had accompanying ischemic events (3 strokes, 2 transient ischemic attacks). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, recurrent CeAD was uncommon, approximately half of the events were diagnosed within the first 2 months of the index event, and recurrent events rarely caused new ischemic events. Younger age, migraine, absence of ischemic stroke at presentation, and signs of fibromuscular dysplasia may help identify high-risk patients.

Objective Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) may be limited to the extracranial extradural space or extend to the intradural space. Intradural extension can potentially increase the risk of stroke and subarachnoid hemorrhage. However, the factors associated with intradural extension and its impact on clinical outcome remain unclear. Methods This was a secondary analysis of the STOP‐CAD observational, multi‐center study. Patients with CeAD and intradural extension (CeADid) were compared with those with pure CeAD extradural dissections (CeADed) using multiple regression analyses. Results Of 4,023 patients with CeAD, 534 (13.3%) had CeADid. In comparison to patients with CeADed, those with CeADid more often had clinical overt stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) at presentation, acute infarcts on imaging, a vertebral artery affected, and severe stenosis of the involved vessel ( p < 0.001 for all). In contrast, carotid involvement and complete occlusions were more frequent in patients with CeADed ( p < 0.001 for both). CeADid was associated with a shift in the distribution of scores on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) toward worse functional outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62–0.92) but the odds for favorable outcomes (mRS = 0–2) did not differ between the groups after appropriate adjustments on multivariate analysis. CeADid was independently associated with higher mortality at 180 days on multivariate analysis (adjusted OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.50–5.38). Interpretation CeADid is associated with more severe clinical presentation, a shift toward less favorable outcomes, and higher mortality rates. These findings suggest that CeADid may represent a high‐risk type of CeAD. ANN NEUROL 2026;99:1189–1197

BACKGROUND: Intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS) is associated with an increased risk of early recurrent ischemic stroke. We evaluated whether biomarkers of impaired distal perfusion—specifically, anterior circulation borderzone infarct, and hypoperfusion mismatch volume—were associated with recurrent ischemic stroke within 90 days. METHODS: The BIORISK ICAS (Biomarkers and Recurrence Risk in Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerosis) is a multicenter retrospective international study (35 sites) that included hospitalized patients with symptomatic ICAS (50%–99% luminal stenosis of the intracranial vertebral, basilar, distal internal carotid, or proximal middle cerebral artery) from January 2019 to June 2024. The primary outcome was recurrent ischemic stroke in the territory of the symptomatic artery within 90 days. In the primary analysis, the exposure was an acute anterior circulation borderzone infarct. In secondary analysis of the subset with presentation within 72 hours of last known normal and perfusion imaging completed, the exposure of interest was prespecified as hypoperfusion mismatch volume at T max (time to maximum) threshold of 6 seconds, dichotomized at the Youden index. We performed multivariable Cox regression to test associations between exposure variables and the outcome, adjusting for clinically relevant variables and those associated with the outcome ( P <0.1). RESULTS: Of 2050 patients with symptomatic ICAS, 1737 (84.7%) presented within 72 hours of symptom onset, among whom 509 (29.3%) underwent perfusion imaging. The primary analysis included 1891 patients; 174 (9.2%) patients had recurrent ischemic stroke in the symptomatic arterial territory. In adjusted Cox regression models, there was an association between anterior circulation borderzone infarct and recurrent ischemic stroke at 90 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.02–1.93]). In the perfusion imaging analysis, hypoperfusion mismatch of ≥10 mL was associated with recurrent ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.03–3.28]). CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers of impaired distal perfusion, anterior circulation borderzone infarct, and hypoperfusion mismatch were associated with increased risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. These findings support the use of perfusion imaging in ICAS as well as future trials investigating early reperfusion in high-risk patients with ICAS.

BACKGROUND: This individual participant data meta-analysis aimed to determine whether time to treatment influences the effect of intraarterial thrombolysis (IAT), intravenous thrombolysis, and conservative standard therapy on visual outcomes in nonarteritic central retinal artery occlusion. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase up to June 2023 for studies reporting treatment modality and peri-treatment best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) for ≥5 participants, excluding patients with nonsevere vision loss (BCVA <1.0 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) or treated after 24 hours of symptom onset. The primary outcome was recovery from severe vision loss (final BCVA <1.0 logMAR). We used mixed-effect models and local polynomial regression to investigate nonlinear relationships between time to treatment and recovery from severe vision loss. RESULTS: Of 4074 screened studies, individual participant data were sought from 52, with 35 contributing individual participant data for 1038 participants. In total, 783 patients met inclusion criteria (age, 64.8±13.3 years; 35.5% female; baseline BCVA, 2.3±0.5 logMAR). For every hour decrease in time to treatment, thrombolysis was associated with greater improvement in BCVA (intraarterial, 0.02 logMAR [95% CI, 0–0.04]; intravenous, 0.04 logMAR [95% CI, 0.00–0.07]) than conservative standard therapy (0.01 logMAR [95% CI, 0–0.02]). A nonlinear relationship was detected for intraarterial thrombolysis with a changepoint at 8 hours (95% CI, 6.7–9.4). Thrombolysis was associated with increased recovery from severe vision loss compared with conservative standard therapy (intraarterial within 6 hours: odds ratio, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.02–7.28], 27.2% versus 12.0%; intravenous within 4.5 hours: odds ratio, 3.32 [95% CI, 1.24–8.92], 28.8% versus 11.1%). Findings were consistent in subgroup analysis restricted to patients receiving recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator. Monte-Carlo simulations showed that a randomized controlled trial would require 95 participants per group to achieve 80% power to detect an odds ratio of 3.0 for recovery from severe vision loss. CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention in nonarteritic central retinal artery occlusion is associated with improvement in visual recovery, with intraarterial thrombolysis and intravenous thrombolysis outperforming nonthrombolytic treatments. These findings warrant confirmation in sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials.

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: 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: 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.

AbstractBackgroundCervical artery dissection (CAD) is a common cause of ischemic stroke in young adults. Local blood clot formation and distal emboli are the key mechanisms for the development of stroke in patients with CAD. Microemboli distal to the dissection point can be detected as high‐intensity transient signals (HITS) using transcranial Doppler (TCD). Despite this unique capability, TCD is used inconsistently in the management of CAD. In this international survey, we aim to explore the frequency and potential barriers to TCD use in CAD.MethodThis study was an international electronic survey, based on the Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection (STOP‐CAD) study, aiming at evaluating the use of TCD in diagnosing and managing CAD patients. A comprehensive questionnaire was developed to gather insights into the current practices, perceptions, and potential barriers to the effective use of TCD in participating centers. The collected data was then analyzed.ResultsFifty‐eight medical centers with advanced stroke care capabilities from Europe and United States participated in this study. Half (29 out of 58) of the sites routinely perform TCD on CAD patients, particularly in the presence of carotid or vertebral artery stenosis, complete carotid occlusion, and early neurologic deterioration. The primary reason for participating institutions not performing TCD was because its results would not change their practice. The protocol for TCD monitoring and managing HITS‐positive CAD patients varied among centers but transitioning from antiplatelet to anticoagulant was the most common practice in this patient population.ConclusionHalf of the stroke centers in our survey routinely perform TCD monitoring for CAD patients. The detection of HITS in CAD patients is a warning sign for providers, which may prompt a change in secondary stroke prevention management. However, a standard protocol for performing TCD in CAD and treatment recommendations for HITS‐positive CAD are not currently available, which warrants further research.

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.