Caspar Grond‐Ginsbach

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The widespread preference of anticoagulants over antiplatelets in patients with cervical artery dissection (CAD) is empirical rather than evidence-based. Summary of Review- This article summarizes pathophysiological considerations, clinical experiences, and the findings of a systematic metaanalysis about antithrombotic agents in CAD patients. As a result, there are several putative arguments in favor as well as against immediate anticoagulation in CAD patients. CONCLUSIONS: A randomized controlled trial comparing antiplatelets with anticoagulation is needed and ethically justified. However, attributable to the large sample size which is required to gather meaningful results, such a trial represents a huge venture. This comprehensive overview may be helpful for the design and the promotion of such a trial. In addition, it could be used to encourage both participation of centers and randomization of CAD patients. Alternatively, antithrombotic treatment decisions can be customized based on clinical and paraclinical characteristics of individual CAD patients. Stroke severity with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score > or =15, accompanying intracranial dissection, local compression syndromes without ischemic events, or concomitant diseases with increased bleeding risk are features in which antiplatelets seem preferable. In turn, in CAD patients with (pseudo)occlusion of the dissected artery, high intensity transient signals in transcranial ultrasound studies despite (dual) antiplatelets, multiple ischemic events in the same circulation, or with free-floating thrombus immediate anticoagulation is favored.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether risk factor profile, baseline features, and outcome of cervical artery dissection (CEAD) differ according to the dissection site. METHODS: We analyzed 982 consecutive patients with CEAD included in the Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients observational study (n = 619 with internal carotid artery dissection [ICAD], n = 327 with vertebral artery dissection [VAD], n = 36 with ICAD and VAD). RESULTS: Patients with ICAD were older (p < 0.0001), more often men (p = 0.006), more frequently had a recent infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.31]), and tended to report less often a minor neck trauma in the previous month (OR = 0.75 [0.56-1.007]) compared to patients with VAD. Clinically, patients with ICAD more often presented with headache at admission (OR = 1.36 [1.01-1.84]) but less frequently complained of cervical pain (OR = 0.36 [0.27-0.48]) or had cerebral ischemia (OR = 0.32 [0.21-0.49]) than patients with VAD. Among patients with CEAD who sustained an ischemic stroke, the NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at admission was higher in patients with ICAD than patients with VAD (OR = 1.17 [1.12-1.22]). Aneurysmal dilatation was more common (OR = 1.80 [1.13-2.87]) and bilateral dissection less frequent (OR = 0.63 [0.42-0.95]) in patients with ICAD. Multiple concomitant dissections tended to cluster on the same artery type rather than involving both a vertebral and carotid artery. Patients with ICAD had a less favorable 3-month functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score >2, OR = 3.99 [2.32-6.88]), but this was no longer significant after adjusting for baseline NIHSS score. CONCLUSION: In the largest published series of patients with CEAD, we observed significant differences between VAD and ICAD in terms of risk factors, baseline features, and functional outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the import of prior cervical trauma (PCT) in patients with cervical artery dissection (CeAD). METHODS: In this observational study, the presence of and the type of PCT were systematically ascertained in CeAD patients using 2 different populations for comparisons: 1) age- and sex-matched patients with ischemic stroke attributable to a cause other than CeAD (non-CeAD-IS), and 2) healthy subjects participating in the Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients Study. The presence of PCT within 1 month was assessed using a standardized questionnaire. Crude odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and ORs adjusted for age, sex, and center were calculated. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,897 participants (n = 966 with CeAD, n = 651 with non-CeAD-IS, n = 280 healthy subjects). CeAD patients had PCT in 40.5% (38.2%-44.5%) of cases, with 88% (344 of 392) classified as mild. PCT was more common in CeAD patients than in non-CeAD-IS patients (ORcrude 5.6 [95% CI 4.20-7.37], p < 0.001; ORadjusted 7.6 [95% CI 5.60-10.20], p < 0.001) or healthy subjects (ORcrude 2.8 [95% CI 2.03-3.68], p < 0.001; ORadjusted 3.7 [95% CI 2.40-5.56], p < 0.001). CeAD patients with PCT were younger and presented more often with neck pain and less often with stroke than CeAD patients without PCT. PCT was not associated with functional 3-month outcome after adjustment for age, sex, and stroke severity. CONCLUSION: PCT seems to be an important environmental determinant of CeAD, but was not an independent outcome predictor. Because of the characteristics of most PCTs, the term mechanical trigger event rather than trauma may be more appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk factors for cervical artery dissection (CEAD), a major cause of ischemic stroke (IS) in young adults. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, and obesity are important risk factors for IS. However, their specific role in CEAD is poorly investigated. Our aim was to compare the prevalence of vascular risk factors in CEAD patients versus referents and patients who suffered an IS of a cause other than CEAD (non-CEAD IS) in the multicenter Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients (CADISP) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study sample comprised 690 CEAD patients (mean age, 44.2 ± 9.9 years; 43.9% women), 556 patients with a non-CEAD IS (44.7 ± 10.5 years; 39.9% women), and 1170 referents (45.9 ± 8.1 years; 44.1% women). We compared the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, and obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweightness (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m² and <30 kg/m²) between the 3 groups using a multinomial logistic regression adjusted for country of inclusion, age, and gender. Compared with referents, CEAD patients had a lower prevalence of hypercholesterolemia (odds ratio 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 0.71; P<0.0001), obesity (odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.52; P<0.0001), and overweightness (odds ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.88; P=0.002) but were more frequently hypertensive (odds ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 2.1; P<0.0001). All vascular risk factors were less frequent in CEAD patients compared with young patients with a non-CEAD IS. The latter were more frequently hypertensive, diabetic, and current smokers compared with referents. CONCLUSION: These results, from the largest series to date, suggest that hypertension, although less prevalent than in patients with a non-CEAD IS, could be a risk factor of CEAD, whereas hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and overweightness are inversely associated with CEAD.