Treatment of Extracranial Arterial Dissection: the Roles of Antiplatelet Agents, Anticoagulants, and Stenting
- 270 Downloads
Purpose of review
Cervicocephalic arterial dissection (CeAD) is the most commonly identified cause of stroke in young healthy individuals. The management of acute ischemic stroke due to the diagnosed or suspected CeAD is well established and is appropriate for thrombolysis. There is a substantial risk of stroke recurrence in the early post-stroke period. The optimum method of stroke prevention in the subacute period remains debatable. In our review, we focused on the management of recurrent stroke in CeAD, the choice of various antithrombotic agents for stroke risk reduction with regard to specific pathogenetic mechanisms of dissections, and the utility of endovascular therapy.
Recent studies suggest that various pathogenetic types of CeAD based on radiologic characteristics may be associated with greater risk of thrombogenicity, especially in the early post-stroke period. The use of anticoagulants has been shown to be effective in the eliminating microembolic signals (MES) detected by transcranial Doppler (TCD). The only randomized trial that compared combinations of antiplatelet agents and vitamin K-agonist anticoagulation did not find significant difference in risk of stroke, major bleeding, or mortality. The benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy cannot be excluded. Limited data on the use of direct oral anticoagulant agents (DOAC) is currently available. Endovascular therapy with stenting, while potentially effective, may pose significant risk of complications. Therefore, it needs to be carefully considered on a case-to-case basis.
The recurrence of ischemic stroke in patients with CeAD is overall rare. No significant difference in treatment with various antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents has been shown in randomized trials. Only a few studies were based on radiological characteristics of dissections. An ongoing randomized trial is investigating the role of MES and the efficacy of antiplatelet versus anticoagulation agents. The role of DOAC agents has yet to be determined in clinical trials. Stenting in CeAD is an effective revascularization technique and may be considered in selected patients. However, current data is only based on low evidence level findings from small studies, lacking longitudinal outcomes and prognosis.
KeywordsCarotid dissection Vertebral dissection Cervical artery dissection Anticoagulation Antiplatelet Endovascular stenting
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 9.Arnold M and Sturzenegger M. Cervicocephalic arterial dissections. Uncommon causes of stroke. L. Caplan and J. Biller. University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2018. p. 509–33.Google Scholar
- 13.• Powers WJ, et al. 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2018;49:e49–99 These are the current recommendations from the American Heart Association for management of patients in the acute stroke setting. The majority of strokes seen in the setting of CeAD are in the acute phase.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.• Markus HS, Levi C, King A, et al. Antiplatelet therapy vs anticoagulation therapy in cervical artery dissection. The Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) randomised clinical trial final results. JAMA Neurol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0072 This study was designed to assess the best medical management for patients with CeAD. Results of the CADISS trial are discussed in detail within the manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Robertson JJ, Joyfman A. Cervical artery dissections: a review. Clin Rev Emerg Med. 2016;51:508–18.Google Scholar
- 27.Richard SA, Zhang CW, Wu C, Ting W, Xiaodong X. Traumatic penetrating neck injury with right common carotid artery dissection and stenosis effectively managed with stenting: a case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Vac Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4602743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Lamanna A, et al. Carotid artery stenting: current state of evidence and future directions. Acta Neurol Scand. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13062.
- 37.Li MKA, et al. Long-term risk of in-stent restenosis and stent fracture for extracranial vertebral artery stenting. Clin Neuroradiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-018-0708-y.