Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment of Extracranial Arterial Dissection: the Roles of Antiplatelet Agents, Anticoagulants, and Stenting

  • Cerebrovascular Disorders (D Jamieson, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Neurology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 findings

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.

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Engelter ST, et al. Cervical artery dissection: trauma and other potential mechanical trigger events. Neurology. 2013;80(21):1950–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schievink WI. Spontaneous dissection of the carotid and vertebral arteries. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(12):898–906.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee VH, et al. Incidence and outcome of cervical artery dissection: a population-based study. Neurology. 2006;67(10):1809–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leys D, et al. Clinical outcome in 287 consecutive young adults (15 to 45 years) with ischemic stroke. Neurology. 2002;59(1):26–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Biller J, et al. Cervical arterial dissections and association with cervical manipulative therapy: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45:3155–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Benninger DH, et al. Mechanism of ischemic infarct in spontaneous carotid dissection. Stroke. 2004;35(2):482–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Morel A, et al. Mechanism of ischemic infarct in spontaneous cervical artery dissection. Stroke. 2002;43(5):1354–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee WJ, et al. Prognosis of spontaneous cervical artery dissection and transcranial Doppler findings associated with clinical outcomes. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(5):1284–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 

  10. Perry BC, Al-Ali F. Spontaneous cervical artery dissection: the borgess classification. Front Neurol. 2013;4:133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin J, et al. Safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection-related ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;42(3–4):272–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tsivgoulis G, et al. Safety and outcomes of intravenous thrombolysis in dissection-related ischemic stroke: an international multicenter study and comprehensive meta-analysis of reported case series. J Neurol. 2015;262(9):2135–43.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Morris NA, et al. Timing of incident stroke risk after cervical artery dissection presenting without ischemia. Stroke. 2017;48(3):551–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mehta T, et al. Unplanned 30-day hospital readmissions of symptomatic carotid and vertebral artery dissection. J Stroke. 2018;20(3):407–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ritter MA, et al. Prevalence and prognostic impact of microembolic signals in arterial sources of embolism. A systematic review of the literature. J Neurol. 2008;255(7):953–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Molina CA, et al. Cerebral microembolism in acute spontaneous internal carotid artery dissection. Neurology. 2000;55(11):1738–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Engeltor ST. Biomarkers and antithrombotic treatment in cervical artery dissection (TREAT-CAD). 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02046460. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brott TG, et al. 2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS guideline on the management of patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease: executive summary. J Neurointerv Surg. 2011;3(2):100–30.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chowdhury MM, et al. Antithrombotic treatment for acute extracranial carotid artery dissections: a meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50(2):148–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ramchand P, et al. Recanalization after extracranial dissection: effect of antiplatelet compared with anticoagulant therapy. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27(2):438–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mustanoja S, et al. Helsinki experience on nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants for treating cervical artery dissection. Brain Behav. 2015;5(8):e00349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Caprio FZ, et al. Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with cervical artery dissections. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;38(4):247–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cappellari M, Bovi P. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cervical artery dissection and cerebral venous thrombosis. A case series and review of the literature. Int J Cardiol. 2017;244:282–4.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohshima T, Miyachi S, Isaji T, Matsuo N, Kawaguchi R, Takayasu M. Bilateral vertebral artery dissection and unilateral carotid artery dissection in case of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome type IV. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:83–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Seung W. Stent-assisted angioplasty of spontaneous bilateral extracranial vertebral dissections under intravascular ultrasound guidance. Case Rep Neurol. 2018;10:314–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Demartini Z, et al. Internal carotid artery dissection in Brazilian jiu-jitsu. J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg. 2017;19(2):111–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Urasyanandana K, et al. Treatment outcomes in cerebral artery dissection and literature review. Interv Neuroradiol. 2018;24(3):254–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Koge J, et al. Successful carotid artery stenting of a dissected, highly tortuous internal carotid artery after straightening with a peripheral microguidewire. J Clin Neurosci. 2018;53:265–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Murata K, et al. A novel technique to visualize true lumen in endovascular treatment of the occlusive carotid dissection and the usefulness of external-internal carotid collateral channel. Interv Neuroradiol. 2018;24(5):533–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Simonetti BG, et al. Iatrogenic vessel dissection in endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Clin Neuroradiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-017-0639-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bourantas CV, et al. Clinical indications for intravascular ultrasound imaging. Echocardiography. 2010;27(10):1282–90.

    Article  Google 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.

  38. Béjot Y, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with multiple cervical artery dissection. Stroke. 2014;45(1):37–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Compter A, et al. Determinants and outcome of multiple and early recurrent cervical artery dissections. Neurology. 2018;91(8):e769–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neurological Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 11100 Euclid Avenue/HAN 5040, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Zakhar Serkin MD, Scott Le DO & Cathy Sila MD

Authors
  1. Zakhar Serkin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott Le DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cathy Sila MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Le DO.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cerebrovascular Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Serkin, Z., Le, S. & Sila, C. Treatment of Extracranial Arterial Dissection: the Roles of Antiplatelet Agents, Anticoagulants, and Stenting. Curr Treat Options Neurol 21, 48 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-019-0589-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-019-0589-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation