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.

Impact of Modified Frozen Elephant Trunk Procedure on Downstream Aorta Remodeling in Acute Aortic Dissection: CT Scan Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the impact of a modified frozen elephant trunk procedure (mFET) on remodeling of the downstream aorta following acute aortic dissections. METHODS: Over a period of 8 years, 205 patients (mean age 62.6 ± 12.6 years) underwent a mFET (n = 69, 33.7%) or isolated ascending aorta replacement (n = 136, 66.3%) (iAoA). Aortic diameter was assessed at the aortic arch (AoA), at the mid of the thoracic aorta (mThA), at the thoracoabdominal transition (ThAbd) and at the celiac trunk level (AbdA). RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 3.3 ± 2.6 years. In-hospital mortality was 14% (n = 28), 7% in mFET and 17% in the iAoA group (p = 0.08). At the end of the follow-up, overall survival was 84% (95% CI 70-92%) and 75% (65-82%) and freedom from aorta-related reoperation was 100% and 95% (88-98%) for mFET and iAoA, respectively. At iAoA, the average difference in diameter change per year between mFET and iAoA was for total lumen 0 mm (- 0.95 to 0.94 mm, p = 0.99), and for true lumen, it was 1.23 mm (- 0.09 to 2.55 mm) per year, p = 0.067. False lumen demonstrated a decrease in diameter in mFET as compared to iAoA by - 1.43 mm (- 2.75 to - 0.11 mm), p = 0.034. In mFET, at the aortic arch level the total lumen diameter decreased from 30.7 ± 4.8 mm to 30.1 ± 2.5 mm (Δr + 2.90 ± 3.64 mm) and in iAoA it increased from 31.8 ± 4.9 to 34.6 ± 5.9 mm (Δr + 2.88 ± 4.18 mm). CONCLUSION: The mFET procedure provides satisfactory clinical outcome at short term and mid-term and has a positive impact on aorta remodeling, especially at the level of the aortic arch.

Aortic root and ascending aorta dimensions in acute aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to evaluate ascending aorta and aortic root dimension at acute type A dissection (acute aortic dissection) and to identify demographics elements being allied to the acute event. METHODS: In a period between 2009 and 2017, 225 (n = 71, 32% female, mean age = 63 ± 12 years) patients eligible for analysis of ascending aorta and 223 (n = 70, 31% female, mean age = 63 ± 13 years) of aortic root were included in this study. Aortic diameter was assessed in preoperative computed tomography scan. The predissection diameters were modeled from the diameters obtained at diagnosis, assuming 30% augmentation of the diameter at acute event. RESULTS: The mean diameter of the ascending aorta at dissection was 46 ± 8 mm and the modeled diameter was 32.3 ± 5.7 mm. The diameter of the aortic root at dissection was 42 ± 8 mm and modeled diameter was 29.5 ± 5.6 mm. In multivariate analysis, female gender (p = 0.026) and history of cerebrovascular event (p = 0.001) were associated with acute aortic dissection in small aortic root. Patient age (p < 0.001) and history of inguinal hernia (p = 0.001) in ascending aorta <55 mm correlated with acute aortic dissection. CONCLUSION: Modeling indicates that more than 90% of patients had aortic root and ascending aorta diameter <45 mm. It seems that the aortic diameter expansion over the 55 mm in development of acute aortic dissection is overestimated. Parameters other than aortic size were identified, which may be considered when patients at high risk for dissection were identified.

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.

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.

Enhancement of STroke REhabilitation with Levodopa (ESTREL): Rationale and design of a randomized placebo-controlled, double blind superiority trial.

RATIONALE: Novel therapeutic approaches are needed in stroke recovery. Whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for enhancing stroke recovery is unclear. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter involved in motor learning, reward, and brain plasticity. Its prodrug levodopa is a promising agent for stroke recovery. AIM AND HYPOTHESIS: To investigate the hypothesis that levodopa, in addition to standardized rehabilitation therapy based on active task training, results in an enhancement of functional recovery in acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke patients compared to placebo. DESIGN: ESTREL (Enhancement of Stroke REhabilitation with Levodopa) is a randomized (ratio 1:1), multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: 610 participants (according to sample size calculation) with a clinically meaningful hemiparesis will be enrolled ⩽7 days after stroke onset. Key eligibility criteria include (i) in-hospital-rehabilitation required, (ii) capability to participate in rehabilitation, (iii) previous independence in daily living. INTERVENTION: Levodopa 100 mg/carbidopa 25 mg three times daily, administered for 5 weeks in addition to standardized rehabilitation. The study intervention will be initiated within 7 days after stroke onset. COMPARISON: Matching placebo plus standardized rehabilitation. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the between-group difference of the Fugl-Meyer-Motor Assessment (FMMA) total score measured 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported health and wellbeing (PROMIS 10 and 29), patient-reported assessment of improvement, Rivermead Mobility Index, modified Rankin Scale, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and as measures of harm: mortality, recurrent stroke, and serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: The ESTREL trial will provide evidence of whether the use of Levodopa in addition to standardized rehabilitation in stroke patients leads to better functional recovery compared to rehabilitation alone.

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.

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.