Association between ischaemic stroke aetiology and leptomeningeal collateral status: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited understanding of the pathomechanistic relationship between leptomeningeal collateral formation and ischaemic stroke aetiology. We aimed to assess the association of leptomeningeal collateral status and ischaemic stroke aetiology, using the widely recognised "Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment" (TOAST) classification categorising strokes into five distinct aetiologies. METHODS: Retrospective study of consecutively admitted adult ischaemic stroke patients at a Swiss stroke centre. Leptomeningeal collateral status was assessed on admission with single-phase CT-angiographies using a validated 4-point score. Patients were categorised into large-artery atherosclerosis (LAA), cardioembolic (CE), small-vessel disease (SVD) and cryptogenic (CG) according to the TOAST classification. We performed ordinal and binary (poor [collaterals filling ≤50% of the occluded territory] vs good [collaterals filling >50% of the occluded territory] collateralisation) logistic regression to evaluate the impact of TOAST aetiology on collateral status. RESULTS: Among 191 patients, LAA patients had better collateral status compared to non-LAA aetiology (LAA: 2 vs CE: 2 vs SVD: 3 vs CG: 2, pLAA vs non-LAA = 0.04). In weighted multivariate logistic regression, LAA and SVD independently predicted better collateral status (binary models [adjusted odds ratio; aOR]: LAA: 3.72 [1.21-11.44] and SVD: 4.19 [1.21-14.52]; ordinal models [adjusted common odds ratio; acOR]: LAA: 2.26 [95% CI: 1.23-4.15] and SVD: 1.94 [1.03-3.66]), while CE predicted worse collateral status (binary models [aOR]: CE: 0.17 [0.07-0.41]; ordinal models [acOR]: CE: 0.24 [0.11-0.51]). CONCLUSION: The aetiology of ischaemic stroke is associated with leptomeningeal collateral status on single-phase CT-angiography, with LAA and SVD predicting better and CE predicting worse collateral status.

Corrigendum: Tandem occlusions involving the internal carotid and anterior cerebral arteries-A rare form of stroke: results from the multicenter EVATRISP collaboration study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1024891.].

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.

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.

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.