Antithrombotic drugs for carotid artery dissection: Updated systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Extracranial internal carotid artery dissection (eICAD) is a leading cause of stroke in younger patients. In this Cochrane Review update we compared benefits and harms of eICAD-patients treated with either antiplatelets or anticoagulants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible studies were identified through Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE and personal search until December 2023. We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets in eICAD-patients. Co-primary outcomes were (i) death (all causes) and (ii) death or disability. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and major extracranial hemorrhage. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs were calculated for (i) all studies and (ii) separately for RCTs and non-randomized studies. RESULTS: We meta-analyzed a total of 42 studies (2624 patients) including 2 RCTs (213 patients) for the primary outcome of death and 31 studies (1953 patients) including 1 RCT (115 patients) for the primary outcome of death or disability. Antiplatelet-treated patients had higher odds for death (ORall-studies 2.70, 95% CI 1.27-5.72; ORRTCs 6.80, 95% CI 0.14-345; ORnon-randomized studies 2.60, 95% CI 1.20-5.60) and death or disability (ORall-studies 2.1, 95% CI 1.58-2.66; ORRTCs 2.2, 95% CI 0.29-16.05; ORnon-randomized studies 2.1, 95% CI 1.58-2.66) than anticoagulated patients. Antiplatelet-treated patients had also higher odds for ischemic stroke, though this reached statistical significance only in the subgroup of RCTs (ORRTC 4.60, 95% CI 1.36-15.51). In turn, antiplatelet-treated patients had less symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ORall-studies 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.86) and a tendency toward less major extracranial hemorrhage (ORall-studies 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-1.03). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The evidence considering antiplatelets as standard of care in eICAD is weak. Individualized treatment decisions balancing risks versus harms seem recommendable.

Once versus twice daily direct oral anticoagulants in patients with recent stroke and atrial fibrillation.

Background: Data on the safety and effectiveness of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in comparison to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and to one another in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and recent stroke are scarce. Patients and methods: Based on prospectively obtained data from the observational registry Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-in-Ischemic-Stroke-Patients(NOACISP)-LONGTERM (NCT03826927) from Basel, Switzerland, we compared the occurrence of the primary outcome - the composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause death - among consecutive AF patients treated with either VKA, QD DOAC, or BID DOAC following a recent stroke using Cox proportional hazards regression including adjustment for potential confounders. Results: We analyzed 956 patients (median age 80 years, 46% female), of whom 128 received VKA (13.4%), 264 QD DOAC (27.6%), and 564 BID DOAC (59%). Over a total follow-up of 1596 patient-years, both QD DOAC and BID DOAC showed a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared to VKA (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.69 [0.48, 1.01] and 0.66 [0.47, 0.91], respectively). Upon direct comparison, the hazard for the composite outcome did not differ between patients treated with QD versus BID DOAC (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.94 [0.70, 1.26]). Secondary analyses focusing on the individual components of the composite outcome revealed no clear differences in the risk-benefit profile of QD versus BID DOAC. Discussion and conclusion: The overall benefit of DOAC over VKA seems to apply to both QD and BID DOAC in AF patients with a recent stroke, without clear evidence that one DOAC dosing regimen is more advantageous than the other.

Oral Anticoagulants in the Oldest Old with Recent Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKA) after recent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) aged ≥85 years. METHODS: Individual patient data analysis from seven prospective stroke cohorts. We compared DOAC versus VKA treatment among patients with AF and recent stroke (<3 months) aged ≥85 versus <85 years. Primary outcome was the composite of recurrent stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and all-cause death. We used simple, adjusted, and weighted Cox regression to account for confounders. We calculated the net benefit of DOAC versus VKA by balancing stroke reduction against the weighted ICH risk. RESULTS: In total, 5,984 of 6,267 (95.5%) patients were eligible for analysis. Of those, 1,380 (23%) were aged ≥85 years and 3,688 (62%) received a DOAC. During 6,874 patient-years follow-up, the impact of anticoagulant type (DOAC versus VKA) on the hazard for the composite outcome did not differ between patients aged ≥85 (HR≥85y  = 0.65, 95%-CI [0.52, 0.81]) and < 85 years (HR<85y  = 0.79, 95%-CI [0.66, 0.95]) in simple (pinteraction  = 0.129), adjusted (pinteraction  = 0.094) or weighted (pinteraction  = 0.512) models. Analyses on recurrent stroke, ICH and death separately were consistent with the primary analysis, as were sensitivity analyses using age dichotomized at 90 years and as a continuous variable. DOAC had a similar net clinical benefit in patients aged ≥85 (+1.73 to +2.66) and < 85 years (+1.90 to +3.36 events/100 patient-years for ICH-weights 1.5 to 3.1). INTERPRETATION: The favorable profile of DOAC over VKA in patients with AF and recent stroke was maintained in the oldest old. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:78-88.