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.

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.