Antithrombotic Treatment for Cervical Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Cervical artery dissection is the most common cause of stroke in younger adults. To date, there is no conclusive evidence on which antithrombotic therapy should be used to treat patients. Objective: To perform an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing anticoagulants and antiplatelets in prevention of stroke after cervical artery dissection. Data Sources: PubMed.gov, Cochrane database, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to August 1, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials that investigated the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic treatment (antiplatelets vs anticoagulation) in patients with cervical artery dissection were included in the meta-analysis. The primary end point was required to include a composite of (1) any stroke, (2) death, or (3) major bleeding (extracranial or intracranial) at 90 days of follow-up. Data Extraction/Synthesis: Two independent investigators performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and inconsistencies were resolved by a principal investigator. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of (1) ischemic stroke, (2) death, or (3) major bleeding (extracranial or intracranial) at 90 days of follow-up. The components of the composite outcome were also secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on baseline characteristics with a putative association with the outcome were performed. Logistic regression was performed using the maximum penalized likelihood method including interaction in the subgroup analyses. Results: Two randomized clinical trials, Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study and Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study and the Biomarkers and Antithrombotic Treatment in Cervical Artery Dissection, were identified, of which all participants were eligible. A total of 444 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population and 370 patients were included in the per-protocol population. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There were fewer primary end points in those randomized to anticoagulation vs antiplatelet therapy (3 of 218 [1.4%] vs 10 of 226 [4.4%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.08-1.05]; P = .06), but the finding was not statistically significant. In comparison with aspirin, anticoagulation was associated with fewer strokes (1 of 218 [0.5%] vs 10 of 226 [4.0%]; OR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.02-0.61]; P = .01) and more bleeding events (2 vs 0). Conclusions and Relevance: This individual patient data meta-analysis of 2 currently available randomized clinical trial data found no significant difference between anticoagulants and antiplatelets in preventing early recurrent events.

Interrater reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Motor assessment in stroke patients: a quality management project within the ESTREL study.

Introduction: The Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FMMA) is recommended for evaluating stroke motor recovery in clinical practice and research. However, its widespread use requires refined reliability data, particularly across different health professions. We therefore investigated the interrater reliability of the FMMA scored by a physical therapist and a physician using video recordings of stroke patients. Methods: The FMMA videos of 50 individuals 3 months post stroke (28 females, mean age 71.64 years, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 3.00) participating in the ESTREL trial (Enhancement of Stroke Rehabilitation with Levodopa: a randomized placebo-controlled trial) were independently scored by two experienced assessors (i.e., a physical therapist and a physician) with specific training to ensure consistency. As primary endpoint, the interrater reliability was calculated for the total scores of the entire FMMA and the total scores of the FMMA for the upper and lower extremities using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). In addition, Spearman's rank order correlation coefficients (Spearman's rho) were calculated for the total score and subscale levels. Secondary endpoints included the FMMA item scores using percentage agreement, weighted Cohen's kappa coefficients, and Gwet's AC1/AC2 coefficients. Results: ICCs were 0.98 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.96-0.99) for the total scores of the entire FMMA, 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) for the total scores of the FMMA for the upper extremity, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.70-0.92) for the total scores of the FMMA for the lower extremity. Spearman's rho ranged from 0.61 to 0.94 for total and subscale scores. The interrater reliability at the item level of the FMMA showed (i) percentage agreement values with a median of 77% (range 44-100%), (ii) weighted Cohen's kappa coefficients with a median of 0.69 (range 0.00-0.98) and (iii) Gwet's AC1/AC2 coefficients with a median of 0.84 (range 0.42-0.98). Discussion and conclusion: The FMMA appears to be a highly reliable measuring instrument at the overall score level for assessors from different health professions. The FMMA total scores seem to be suitable for the quantitative measurement of stroke recovery in both clinical practice and research, although there is potential for improvement at the item level.

Toward Individual Treatment in Cervical Artery Dissection: Subgroup Analysis of the TREAT-CAD Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Uncertainty remains regarding antithrombotic treatment in cervical artery dissection. This analysis aimed to explore whether certain patient profiles influence the effects of different types of antithrombotic treatment. METHODS: This was a post hoc exploratory analysis based on the per-protocol dataset from TREAT-CAD (NCT02046460), a randomized controlled trial comparing aspirin to anticoagulation in patients with cervical artery dissection. We explored the potential effects of distinct patient profiles on outcomes in participants treated with either aspirin or anticoagulation. Profiles included (1) presenting with ischemia (no/yes), (2) occlusion of the dissected artery (no/yes), (3) early versus delayed treatment start (median), and (4) intracranial extension of the dissection (no/yes). Outcomes included clinical (stroke, major hemorrhage, death) and magnetic resonance imaging outcomes (new ischemic or hemorrhagic brain lesions) and were assessed for each subgroup in separate logistic models without adjustment for multiple testing. RESULTS: All 173 (100%) per-protocol participants were eligible for the analyses. Participants without occlusion had decreased odds of events when treated with anticoagulation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07-0.86). This effect was more pronounced in participants presenting with cerebral ischemia (n = 118; OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.04-0.55). In the latter, those with early treatment (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.07-0.85) or without intracranial extension of the dissection (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.11-0.97) had decreased odds of events when treated with anticoagulation. INTERPRETATION: Anticoagulation might be preferable in patients with cervical artery dissection presenting with ischemia and no occlusion or no intracranial extension of the dissection. These findings need confirmation. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:886-897.

Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection: The STOP-CAD Study.

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]; Pinteraction=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.

Tranexamic Acid for Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Patients on Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants (TICH-NOAC): A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based hemostatic treatment for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) associated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is lacking. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic drug potentially limiting hematoma expansion. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of TXA in NOAC-ICH. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial at 6 Swiss stroke centers. Patients with NOAC-ICH within 12 hours of symptom onset and 48 hours of last NOAC intake were randomized (1:1) to receive either intravenous TXA (1 g over 10 minutes followed by 1 g over 8 hours) or matching placebo in addition to standard medical care via a centralized Web-based procedure with minimization on key prognostic factors. All participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Primary outcome was hematoma expansion, defined as ≥33% relative or ≥6 mL absolute volume increase at 24 hours and analyzed using logistic regression adjusted for baseline hematoma volume on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Between December 12, 2016, and September 30, 2021, we randomized 63 patients (median age, 82 years [interquartile range, 76-86]; 40% women; median hematoma volume, 11.5 [4.8-27.4] mL) of the 109 intended sample size before premature trial discontinuation due to exhausted funding. The primary outcome did not differ between TXA (n=32) and placebo (n=31) arms (12 [38%] versus 14 [45%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.22-1.82]; P=0.40). There was a signal for interaction with onset-to-treatment time (Pinteraction=0.024), favoring TXA when administered within 6 hours of symptom onset. Between the TXA and placebo arms, the proportion of participants who died (15 [47%] versus 13 [42%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.07 [0.37-3.04]; P=0.91) or had major thromboembolic complications within 90 days (4 [13%] versus 2 [6%]; odds ratio, 1.86 [0.37-9.50]; P=0.45) did not differ. All thromboembolic events occurred at least 2 weeks after study treatment, exclusively in participants not restarted on oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: In a smaller-than-intended NOAC-ICH patient sample, we found no evidence that TXA prevents hematoma expansion, but there were no major safety concerns. Larger trials on hemostatic treatments targeting an early treatment window are needed for NOAC-ICH. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02866838.

The impact of competing stroke etiologies in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Data on the impact of competing stroke etiologies in stroke patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are scarce. METHODS: We used prospectively obtained data from an observational registry (Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-in-Ischemic-Stroke-Patients-(NOACISP)-LONGTERM) of consecutive AF-stroke patients treated with oral anticoagulants. We compared the frequency of (i) the composite outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke (IS), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or all-cause death as well as (ii) recurrent IS alone among AF-stroke patients with versus without competing stroke etiologies according to the TOAST classification. We performed cox proportional hazards regression modeling adjusted for potential confounders. Furthermore, the etiology of recurrent IS was assessed. RESULTS: Among 907 patients (median age 81, 45.6% female), 184 patients (20.3%) had competing etiologies, while 723 (79.7%) had cardioembolism as the only plausible etiology. During 1587 patient-years of follow-up, patients with additional large-artery atherosclerosis had higher rates of the composite outcome (adjusted HR [95% CI] 1.64 [1.11, 2.40], p = 0.017) and recurrent IS (aHR 2.96 [1.65, 5.35 ], p < 0.001), compared to patients with cardioembolism as the only plausible etiology. Overall 71 patients had recurrent IS (7.8%) of whom 26.7% had a different etiology than the index IS with large-artery-atherosclerosis (19.7%) being the most common non-cardioembolic cause. CONCLUSION: In stroke patients with AF, causes other than cardioembolism as competing etiologies were common in index or recurrent IS. Concomitant presence of large-artery-atherosclerosis seems to indicate an increased risk for recurrences suggesting that stroke preventive means might be more effective if they also address competing stroke etiologies in AF-stroke patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03826927.

Recanalization Therapies for Large Vessel Occlusion Due to Cervical Artery Dissection: A Cohort Study of the EVA-TRISP Collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the effect of endovascular treatment (EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis [IVT]) versus IVT alone on outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO) attributable to cervical artery dissection (CeAD). METHODS: This multinational cohort study was conducted based on prospectively collected data from the EVA-TRISP (EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients) collaboration. Consecutive patients (2015-2019) with AIS-LVO attributable to CeAD treated with EVT and/or IVT were included. Primary outcome measures were (1) favorable 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) and (2) complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale 2b/3). Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models were calculated (unadjusted, adjusted). Secondary analyses were performed in the patients with LVO in the anterior circulation (LVOant) including propensity score matching. RESULTS: Among 290 patients, 222 (76.6%) had EVT and 68 (23.4%) IVT alone. EVT-treated patients had more severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, median [interquartile range]: 14 [10-19] vs. 4 [2-7], P<0.001). The frequency of favorable 3-month outcome did not differ significantly between both groups (EVT: 64.0% vs. IVT: 86.8%; ORadjusted 0.56 [0.24-1.32]). EVT was associated with higher rates of recanalization (80.5% vs. 40.7%; ORadjusted 8.85 [4.28-18.29]) compared to IVT. All secondary analyses showed higher recanalization rates in the EVT-group, which however never translated into better functional outcome rates compared to the IVT-group. CONCLUSION: We observed no signal of superiority of EVT over IVT regarding functional outcome in CeAD-patients with AIS and LVO despite higher rates of complete recanalization with EVT. Whether pathophysiological CeAD-characteristics or their younger age might explain this observation deserves further research.

Atrial Fibrillation Detected before or after Stroke: Role of Anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) known before ischemic stroke (KAF) has been postulated to be an independent category with a recurrence risk higher than that of AF detected after stroke (AFDAS). However, it is unknown whether this risk difference is confounded by pre-existing anticoagulation, which is most common in KAF and also indicates a high ischemic stroke recurrence risk. METHODS: Individual patient data analysis from 5 prospective cohorts of anticoagulated patients following AF-associated ischemic stroke. We compared the primary (ischemic stroke recurrence) and secondary outcome (all-cause death) among patients with AFDAS versus KAF and among anticoagulation-naïve versus previously anticoagulated patients using multivariable Cox, Fine-Gray models, and goodness-of-fit statistics to investigate the relative independent prognostic importance of AF-category and pre-existing anticoagulation. RESULTS: Of 4,357 patients, 1,889 (43%) had AFDAS and 2,468 (57%) had KAF, while 3,105 (71%) were anticoagulation-naïve before stroke and 1,252 (29%) were previously anticoagulated. During 6,071 patient-years of follow-up, we observed 244 recurrent strokes and 661 deaths. Only pre-existing anticoagulation (but not KAF) was independently associated with a higher hazard for stroke recurrence in both Cox and Fine-Gray models. Models incorporating pre-existing anticoagulation showed better fit than those with AF category; adding AF-category did not result in better model fit. Neither pre-existing anticoagulation nor KAF were independently associated with death. CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge the notion that KAF and AFDAS are clinically relevant and distinct prognostic entities. Instead of attributing an independently high stroke recurrence risk to KAF, future research should focus on the causes of stroke despite anticoagulation to develop improved preventive treatments. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:43-54.

Global Cortical Atrophy Is Associated with an Unfavorable Outcome in Stroke Patients on Oral Anticoagulation.

INTRODUCTION: Measures of cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD), such as white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and cerebral microbleeds (CMB), are associated with an unfavorable clinical course in stroke patients on oral anticoagulation (OAC) for atrial fibrillation (AF). Here, we investigated whether similar findings can be observed for global cortical atrophy (GCA). METHODS: Registry-based prospective observational study of 320 patients treated with OAC following AF stroke. Patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allowing assessment of GCA. Using the simplified visual Pasquier scale, the severity of GCA was categorized as follows: 0: no atrophy, 1: mild atrophy; 2: moderate atrophy, and 3: severe atrophy. Using adjusted logistic and Cox regression analysis, we investigated the association of GCA using a composite outcome measure, comprising: (i) recurrent acute ischemic stroke (IS); (ii) intracranial hemorrhage (ICH); and (iii) death. RESULTS: In our time to event analysis after adjusting for potential confounders (i.e., WMH, CMB, age, sex, diabetes, arterial hypertension, coronary heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and antiplatelet use), GCA was associated with an increased risk for the composite outcome in all three degrees of atrophy (grade 1: aHR 3.95, 95% CI 1.34-11.63, p = 0.013; grade 2: aHR 3.89, 95% CI 1.23-12.30, p = 0.021; grade 3: aHR 4.16, 95% CI 1.17-14.84, p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: GCA was associated with our composite outcome also after adjusting for other cSVD markers (i.e., CMB, WMH) and age, indicating that GCA may potentially serve as a prognostic marker for stroke patients with atrial fibrillation on oral anticoagulation.

Impact of type of oral anticoagulants in patients with cerebral microbleeds after atrial fibrillation-related ischemic stroke or TIA: Results of the NOACISP-LONGTERM registry.

Background: Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) may have a differential impact on clinical outcome in stroke patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with different types of oral anticoagulation (OAC). Methods: Observational single-center study on AF-stroke-patients treated with OAC. Magnetic-resonance-imaging was performed to assess CMBs. Outcome measures consisted of recurrent ischemic stroke (IS), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), death, and their combined analysis. Functional disability was assessed by mRS. Using adjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models, we assessed the association of the presence of CMBs and OAC type (vitamin K antagonists [VKAs] vs. direct oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) with clinical outcome. Results: Of 310 AF-stroke patients treated with OAC [DOACs: n = 234 (75%); VKAs: n = 76 (25%)], CMBs were present in 86 (28%) patients; of these, 66 (77%) received DOACs. In both groups, CMBs were associated with an increased risk for the composite outcome: VKAs: HR 3.654 [1.614; 8.277]; p = 0.002; DOACs: HR 2.230 [1.233; 4.034]; p = 0.008. Patients with CMBs had ~50% higher absolute rates of the composite outcome compared to the overall cohort, with a comparable ratio between treatment groups [VKAs 13/20(65%) vs. DOACs 19/66(29%); p < 0.01]. The VKA-group had a 2-fold higher IS [VKAs:4 (20%) vs. DOACs:6 (9%); p = 0.35] and a 10-fold higher ICH rate [VKAs: 3 (15%) vs. DOACs: 1 (1.5%); p = 0.038]. No significant interaction was observed between type of OAC and presence of CMBs. DOAC-patients showed a significantly better functional outcome (OR 0.40 [0.17; 0.94]; p = 0.04). Conclusions: In AF-stroke patients treated with OAC, the presence of CMBs was associated with an unfavorable composite outcome for both VKAs and DOACs, with a higher risk for recurrent IS than for ICH. Strokes were numerically higher under VKAs and increased in the presence of CMBs. Clinical trial registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT03826927.

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.

Carotid plaque surface echogenicity predicts cerebrovascular events: An Echographic Multicentric Swiss Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic value for ischemic stroke or transitory ischemic attack (TIA) of plaque surface echogenicity alone or combined to degree of stenosis in a Swiss multicenter cohort METHODS: Patients with ≥60% asymptomatic or ≥50% symptomatic carotid stenosis were included. Grey-scale based colour mapping was obtained of the whole plaque and of its surface defined as the regions between the lumen and respectively 0-0.5, 0-1, 0-1.5, and 0-2 mm of the outer border of the plaque. Red, yellow and green colour represented low, intermediate or high echogenicity. Proportion of red color on surface (PRCS) reflecting low echogenictiy was considered alone or combined to degree of stenosis (Risk index, RI). RESULTS: We included 205 asymptomatic and 54 symptomatic patients. During follow-up (median/mean 24/27.7 months) 27 patients experienced stroke or TIA. In the asymptomatic group, RI ≥0.25 and PRCS ≥79% predicted stroke or TIA with a hazard ratio (HR) of respectively 8.7 p = 0.0001 and 10.2 p < 0.0001. In the symptomatic group RI ≥0.25 and PRCS ≥81% predicted stroke or TIA occurrence with a HR of respectively 6.1 p = 0.006 and 8.9 p = 0.001. The best surface parameter was located at 0-0.5mm. Among variables including age, sex, degree of stenosis, stenosis progression, RI, PRCS, grey median scale values and clinical baseline status, only PRCS independently prognosticated stroke (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study including patients with at least moderate degree of carotid stenosis, PRCS (0-0.5mm) alone or combined to degree of stenosis strongly predicted occurrence of subsequent cerebrovascular events.

Differences Between Anticoagulated Patients With Ischemic Stroke Versus Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background Data on the relative contribution of clinical and neuroimaging risk factors to acute ischemic stroke (AIS) versus intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) occurring on oral anticoagulant treatment are scarce. Methods and Results Cross-sectional study was done on consecutive oral anticoagulant-treated patients presenting with AIS, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or ICH from the prospective observational NOACISP (Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-In-Stroke-Patients)-Acute registry. We compared clinical and neuroimaging characteristics (small vessel disease markers and atherosclerosis) in ICH versus AIS/TIA (reference) using logistic regression. Among 734 patients presenting with stroke on oral anticoagulant treatment (404 [55%] direct oral anticoagulants, 330 [45%] vitamin K antagonists), 605 patients (82%) had AIS/TIA and 129 (18%) had ICH. Prior AIS/TIA, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, and worse renal function were associated with AIS/TIA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] [95% CI] 0.51 [0.32-0.82], 0.48 [0.26-0.86], 0.55 [0.34-0.89], and 0.82 [0.75-0.90] per 10 mL/min). Prior ICH, older age, higher admission blood pressure, and statin treatment were associated with ICH (aOR [95% CI] 6.33 [2.87-14.04], 1.37 [1.04-1.81] per 10 years, 1.19 [1.10-1.29] per 10 mm Hg, and 1.81 [1.09-3.03]). Cerebral microbleeds and moderate-to-severe white matter hyperintensities contributed more to ICH (aOR [95% CI] 2.77 [1.34-6.18], and 2.62 [1.28-5.63]). Aortic arch, common and internal carotid artery atherosclerosis, and internal carotid artery stenosis ≥50% contributed more to AIS/TIA (aOR [95% CI] 0.54 [0.31-0.90], 0.29 [0.05-0.97], 0.48 [0.30-0.76], and 0.32 [0.13-0.67]). Conclusions In patients presenting with stroke on oral anticoagulant, AIS/TIA was 5 times more common than ICH. A high atherosclerotic burden (indicated by cardiovascular comorbidities and extracranial atherosclerosis) and prior AIS/TIA contributed more to AIS/TIA, while small vessel disease markers and prior ICH were stronger determinants for ICH. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02353585.

Cervical and intracranial artery dissections.

This review summarizes recent therapeutic advances in cervical (CeAD) and intracranial artery dissection (IAD) research. Despite unproven benefits, but in the absence of any signal of harm, in patients, with acute ischemic stroke attributable to CeAD, intravenous thrombolysis and, in case of large-vessel occlusion, endovascular revascularization should be considered. Future research will clarify which patients benefit most from either treatment modality. For stroke prevention, the recently published randomized controlled TREAT-CAD study showed that, against the initial hypothesis, aspirin was not shown non-inferior to anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). With the results of two randomized controlled trials (CADISS and TREAT-CAD) available now, the evidence to consider aspirin as the standard therapy of CeAD is weak. Further analyses might clarify whether the assumption supports, in particular, that patients presenting with cerebral ischemia, clinical or subclinical with magnetic resonance imaging surrogates, might benefit most from VKA treatment. In turn, it remains to be shown, whether in CeAD patients presenting with pure local symptoms and without hemodynamic compromise, antiplatelets are sufficient, and whether a dual antiplatelet therapy during the first weeks of treatment is recommendable. The observation that ischemic strokes occurred (or recurred) very early after CeAD diagnosis, consistently across randomized and observational studies, supports the recommendation to start antithrombotic treatment immediately, whatever antithrombotic agent is chosen in each individual case. The lack of a license for the use in CeAD patients and the paucity of data are still arguments against the use of direct oral anticoagulants in CeAD. Nevertheless, due to their beneficial safety and efficacy profile proven in atrial fibrillation, these agents are a worthwhile treatment option to be tested in further CeAD treatment trials. In IAD, the experience with the use of antithrombotic agents is limited. As the risk of suffering intracranial hemorrhage is higher in IAD than in CeAD, the use of antithrombotic therapy in IAD remains controversial.

EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (EVA-TRISP) registry: basis and methodology of a pan-European prospective ischaemic stroke revascularisation treatment registry.

PURPOSE: The Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration was a concerted effort initiated in 2010 with the purpose to address relevant research questions about the effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). The collaboration also aims to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) and hence the name of the collaboration was changed from TRISP to EVA-TRISP. The methodology of the former TRISP registry for patients treated with IVT has already been published. This paper focuses on describing the EVT part of the registry. PARTICIPANTS: All centres committed to collecting predefined variables on consecutive patients prospectively. We aim for accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt local databases to investigate novel research questions. Herein, we introduce the methodology of a recently constructed academic investigator-initiated open collaboration EVT registry built as an extension of an existing IVT registry in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). FINDINGS TO DATE: Currently, the EVA-TRISP network includes 20 stroke centres with considerable expertise in EVT and maintenance of high-quality hospital-based registries. Following several successful randomised controlled trials (RCTs), many important clinical questions remain unanswered in the (EVT) field and some of them will unlikely be investigated in future RCTs. Prospective registries with high-quality data on EVT-treated patients may help answering some of these unanswered issues, especially on safety and efficacy of EVT in specific patient subgroups. FUTURE PLANS: This collaborative effort aims at addressing clinically important questions on safety and efficacy of EVT in conditions not covered by RCTs. The TRISP registry generated substantial novel data supporting stroke physicians in their daily decision making considering IVT candidate patients. While providing observational data on EVT in daily clinical practice, our future findings may likewise be hypothesis generating for future research as well as for quality improvement (on EVT). The collaboration welcomes participation of further centres willing to fulfill the commitment and the outlined requirements.

Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Recent Stroke Who Are Dependent on the Daily Help of Others.

Background and Purpose: Data on the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with stroke attributable to atrial fibrillation (AF) who were dependent on the daily help of others at hospital discharge are scarce. Methods: Based on prospectively obtained data from the observational Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-in-Ischemic-Stroke-Patients-longterm registry from Basel, Switzerland, we compared the occurrence of the primary outcome­the composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause death­among consecutive patients with AF-stroke treated with either VKAs or DOACs between patients dependent (defined as modified Rankin Scale score, 3­5) and patients independent at discharge. We used simple, adjusted, and weighted Cox proportional hazards regression to account for potential confounders. Results: We analyzed 801 patients (median age 80 years, 46% female), of whom 391 (49%) were dependent at discharge and 680 (85%) received DOACs. Over a total follow-up of 1216 patient-years, DOAC- compared to VKA-treated patients had a lower hazard for the composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42­0.81]), as did independent compared to dependent patients (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.40­0.71]). There was no evidence that the effect of anticoagulant type (DOAC versus VKA) on the hazard for the composite outcome differed between dependent (HRdependent, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.45­1.01]) and independent patients (HRindependent, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26­0.75]) in the simple model (Pinteraction=0.212). Adjusted (HRdependent, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.49­1.11] and HRindependent, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30­0.87]; Pinteraction=0.284) and weighted models (HRdependent, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.48­1.31] and HRindependent, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26­0.81]; Pinteraction=0.163) yielded concordant results. Secondary analyses focusing on the individual components of the composite outcome were consistent to the primary analyses. Conclusions: The benefits of DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation with a recent stroke were maintained among patients who were dependent on the help of others at discharge. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03826927.

Cervical Artery Dissection and Sports.

Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) occurring in the context of sports is a matter of concern for CeAD patients. They seek advice on the role of sports in CeAD and on the safety of resuming sports after CeAD. The scarcity of studies and guidelines addressing these issues poses a challenge. We aimed at summarizing the current knowledge about CeAD and sports in order to provide an informed, comprehensive opinion for counseling CeAD patients. We took into account pathophysiological considerations, observations of cases reports, series, and registries, and conclusions by analogy from aortic dissection or inherited connective tissue syndromes. In summary, practicing active sports as the cause of CeAD seems uncommon. It seems recommendable to refrain from any kind of sports activities for at least 1 month, which can be extended in case of an unfavorable clinical or neurovascular course. We recommend starting with sport activities at low intensity-preferably with types of endurance sports-and to gradually increase the pace in an individually tailored manner, taking into circumstances of the occurrences of the CeAD in the individual patient (particularly in relation to sports), the meaning of sports activities for the individual well-being, the presence or absence of comorbidities and of neurological sequela, neurovascular findings, and whether there are signs of an underlying connective tissue alteration. Major limitations and several forms of bias are acknowledged. Still, in the absence of any better data, the summarized observations and considerations might help clinicians in advising and counseling patients with CeAD in clinical practice.

Aspirin versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection (TREAT-CAD): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artery dissection is a major cause of stroke in young people (aged <50 years). Historically, clinicians have preferred using oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists for patients with cervical artery dissection, although some current guidelines-based on available evidence from mostly observational studies-suggest using aspirin. If proven to be non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists, aspirin might be preferable, due to its ease of use and lower cost. We aimed to test the non-inferiority of aspirin to vitamin K antagonists in patients with cervical artery dissection. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial in ten stroke centres across Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged older than 18 years who had symptomatic, MRI-verified, cervical artery dissection within 2 weeks before enrolment, to receive either aspirin 300 mg once daily or a vitamin K antagonist (phenprocoumon, acenocoumarol, or warfarin; target international normalised ratio [INR] 2·0-3·0) for 90 days. Randomisation was computer-generated using an interactive web response system, with stratification according to participating site. Independent imaging core laboratory adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation, but investigators, patients, and clinical event adjudicators were aware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinical outcomes (stroke, major haemorrhage, or death) and MRI outcomes (new ischaemic or haemorrhagic brain lesions) in the per-protocol population, assessed at 14 days (clinical and MRI outcomes) and 90 days (clinical outcomes only) after commencing treatment. Non-inferiority of aspirin would be shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the absolute risk difference between groups was less than 12% (non-inferiority margin). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02046460. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2013, and Dec 21, 2018, we enrolled 194 patients; 100 (52%) were assigned to the aspirin group and 94 (48%) were assigned to the vitamin K antagonist group. The per-protocol population included 173 patients; 91 (53%) in the aspirin group and 82 (47%) in the vitamin K antagonist group. The primary endpoint occurred in 21 (23%) of 91 patients in the aspirin group and in 12 (15%) of 82 patients in the vitamin K antagonist group (absolute difference 8% [95% CI -4 to 21], non-inferiority p=0·55). Thus, non-inferiority of aspirin was not shown. Seven patients (8%) in the aspirin group and none in the vitamin K antagonist group had ischaemic strokes. One patient (1%) in the vitamin K antagonist group and none in the aspirin group had major extracranial haemorrhage. There were no deaths. Subclinical MRI outcomes were recorded in 14 patients (15%) in the aspirin group and in 11 patients (13%) in the vitamin K antagonist group. There were 19 adverse events in the aspirin group, and 26 in the vitamin K antagonist group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings did not show that aspirin was non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of cervical artery dissection. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Stroke Funds Basel, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Academic Society Basel.

Biomarkers and antithrombotic treatment in cervical artery dissection - Design of the TREAT-CAD randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: The type of antithrombotic treatment in cervical artery dissection patients is still a matter of debate. Most physicians prefer anticoagulants over antiplatelet agents for stroke prevention. However, this approach is not evidence-based and antiplatelets might be as safe and as effective. The 'Biomarkers and Antithrombotic Treatment in Cervical Artery Dissection' ('TREAT-CAD') trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02046460) compares Aspirin to oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists) with regard to efficacy and safety by using both clinical and imaging surrogate outcome measures. TREAT-CAD tests the hypothesis, that aspirin is as safe and effective as vitamin K antagonists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TREAD-CAD is a Prospective, Randomised controlled, Open-labelled, multicentre, non-inferiority trial with Blinded assessment of outcome Events (PROBE-design). Key eligibility criteria are (i) clinical symptoms attributable to cervical artery dissection and (ii) verification of the cervical artery dissection diagnosis by established magnetic resonance imaging criteria. Patients are randomised to receive either Aspirin 300 mg daily or vitamin K antagonists for 90 days. RESULTS: Primary outcomes are assessed at 14 ± 10 days (magnetic resonance imaging and clinical examination) and at 90 ± 30 days (clinical examinations). The primary endpoint is a composite outcome measure - labelled Cerebrovascular Ischemia, major Hemorrhagic events or Death (CIHD) - and includes (i) occurrence of any stroke (including retinal infarction), (ii) new ischaemic lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, (iii) any major extracranial haemorrhage, (iv) any symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (v) any new haemorrhagic lesion visible on paramagnetic-susceptible sequences and (vi) death. DISCUSSION: After database closure, (i) central verification of cervical artery dissection diagnosis will be done by two experienced raters, (ii) adjudication of outcome events will be performed by independent adjudication committees, separately for clinical and imaging outcomes. The primary analysis will be done on the per protocol data set. The targeted sample size consists of 169 evaluable patients in the per protocol data set. CONCLUSION: TREAT-CAD is testing the non-inferiority of Aspirin versus vitamin K antagonists treatment in patients with symptomatic cervical artery dissection by combined clinical and magnetic resonance imaging outcomes.