Citations

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.

Introduction: Four randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated the superiority of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in the prevention of recurrent embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). In this multicenter observational cohort study, we evaluated long-term outcomes associated with various antithrombotic strategies according to potential embolic sources. Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort of consecutive adult patients with ESUS was queried (n=27 sites). Comparisons were made between patients treated with single or combination antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulation (direct oral anticoagulant, vitamin K antagonist, low molecular weight heparin) with or without antiplatelet therapy initiated within 7 days of stroke. The primary composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression, with clustering by site. Causal inference was assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighted regression adjustment (IPTWRA), accounting for propensity for antiplatelet treatment, with effect estimates summarized as the average treatment effect (ATE) over time (in days). Adjusted models accounted for age, stroke severity, vascular risk factors, and major categories of potential embolic sources. Results: Of the 2201 included patients (n=218 treated with anticoagulation) followed over a median of 564 days (interquartile range [IQR] 154-1124), the median age was 65y (IQR 54-74) and 49.8% were female. Patients treated with anticoagulation were older with more frequent previous stroke, concomitant left ventricular dysfunction, and more severe deficits. Over 4541 person-years of follow-up, the annualized incidence rate of the primary outcome was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6%-15.8%). Compared to anticoagulation, antiplatelet(s) use was not associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.64-1.29) or in the IPTWRA model (average treatment effect 0.14, 95% CI, -1376.6 to 1376.9). Major bleeding events trended toward significance in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25-1.04) but were no different with IPTWRA (ATE 58.9, 95% CI, -125.4 to 243.2). Conclusions: These results validate the observations of randomized trials indicating a lack of benefit of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in ESUS. A more detailed analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect is under way.

Background: Left ventricular (LV) injury is a cardioembolic etiology of ischemic stroke. We aimed to 1) evaluate recurrent stroke risk among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury, and 2) determine if there is a treatment effect with anticoagulation in this population. Methods: We analyzed the multicenter, retrospective Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort of patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke. The exposure was LV injury defined by 1) LV ejection fraction (EF) 20-40% and/or 2) LV wall motion abnormality (hypokinesis or akinesis). The primary composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Cox proportional hazard models were built and sequentially adjusted for 1) age and sex (Model 1), and 2) age, sex, race, ethnicity, anti-thrombotic use, and vascular risk factors (Model 2). We then assessed if there was heterogeneity in treatment effect by LV injury status with an interaction term of LV injury and oral anticoagulation use in Model 2. Results: Of 2,641 patients in CASPR, the analytic cohort included 2,191 patients with complete exposure and outcome data (median age 65 years, 49.8% female, median follow-up 1.55 years). There were 113 (5.2%) patients with LV injury (median LVEF 30%, interquartile range 25-34%). There were 559 incident events (321 recurrent strokes [288 ischemic], 71 major hemorrhages, 250 deaths). Among patients with LV injury, 15.9% were prescribed an anticoagulant within 7 days of index stroke (vs 9.6% without LV injury, p=0.03). The unadjusted risk of the primary outcome was non-significantly higher among patients with LV injury vs without (HR 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-2.00), but became significant in Model 1 (HR 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.85) and in Model 2 (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.11-1.64). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation vs antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.94). In patients without LV injury, anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of the composite outcome (HR 4.35, 95% CI, 1.69-11.16, p[interaction]=0.002). Conclusion: In this observational study, there was an increased risk of the primary outcome which included recurrent stroke among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury. Anticoagulation use in LV injury is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the primary outcome. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial.

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a multi‐faceted theoretical construct associated with stroke risk and outcomes. Knowing which SES measures best correlate with population stroke metrics would improve its accounting in observational research and inform interventions. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Population Level Analysis and Community Estimates (PLACES) and other publicly available databases, we conducted an ecological study comparing correlations of different United States county‐level SES, health care access and clinical risk factor measures with age‐adjusted stroke prevalence. The prevalence of adults living below 150% of the federal poverty level most strongly correlated with stroke prevalence compared to other SES and non‐SES measures (correlation coefficient = 0.908, R2 = 0.825; adjusted partial correlation coefficient: 0.589, R2 = 0.347). ANN NEUROL 2024;96:739–744