Citations

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.

ABSTRACT Background and Purpose Corticospinal tract (CST) integrity is an imaging biomarker for predicting upper extremity motor recovery, but data are limited in acute ischemic stroke patients. Our study aimed to assess the impact of CST disruption on upper extremity motor recovery after acute ischemic stroke. Methods We enrolled patients with upper extremity motor deficits within 7 days of stroke onset. Patients’ clinical status was assessed for the upper extremity Fugl–Meyer assessment motor component (UE‐FM) within 7 days of stroke and at 15, 30, and 90 days. MRI with tractography was performed within 7 days of stroke. Diffusion tensor images (DTI) were processed to produce maps of fractional anisotropy (FA), apparent diffusion, axial, radial, and mean diffusivity. FA maps were used to assess CST asymmetry index (CST‐AI). Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables, two‐sample t ‐tests for normally distributed numerical data, and Wilcoxon rank sums for non‐normally distributed numeric data were used. Results A total of 21 patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 66 (±14) years and median baseline upper extremity motor component score (UE‐FM) of 42 (median) [range: 23, 53]. Baseline UE‐FM was not predictive of a 10‐point change at 90 days ( p = 0.4469). CST‐AI was predictive of recovery at 15 days ( p = 0.0373), and axial diffusivity was predictive of recovery at 90 days ( p = 0.0402). All other imaging variables did not predict recovery. Conclusion Our data suggest that upper extremity motor recovery after acute ischemic stroke is impacted by CST integrity. Further studies are needed to validate our findings.

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 AND OBJECTIVES: Upper limb motor recovery is limited and affects functional outcomes in stroke survivors. Recent randomized controlled trials have assessed the role of combining vagus nerve stimulation with standard neurorehabilitation. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of pairing implanted vagus nerve stimulation (I-VNS) with rehabilitation therapy in ischemic stroke patients and to provide a framework for its integration into standard clinical practice. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published from inception to July 2024. Randomized controlled trials and follow-up studies assessing the efficacy and/or safety of I-VNS in stroke rehabilitation were included. The outcomes included upper limb motor function and adverse events related to intervention. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and a random-effects model was generated for the meta-analysis using the Meta package in R. RESULTS: The final analysis included 8 studies, with a cumulative sample size of n = 498 patients who underwent I-VNS–paired rehabilitation for upper extremity weakness in unilateral supratentorial stroke. The intervention group (I-VNS) included 245 patients (49.1%) whereas the control group had 252 patients (50.6%). The mean age was 59.0 ± 10.01 years in the intervention group and 61.0 ± 9.7 years in the control group. The intervention group included 155 male patients (63.2%), and the control group had 165 male patients (64.4%). The meta-analyses showed statistically significant improvement in upper limb motor function in the I-VNS–paired rehabilitation group with a mean difference of 2.73 (95% CI: 1.32-4.13; P = .04) in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity score. Only one study reported a serious adverse event. CONCLUSION: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature provides high-level evidence that I-VNS–paired rehabilitation improves functional outcomes and has a favorable safety profile in patients with poststroke upper extremity weakness.

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.