Introduction: Craniocervical artery dissection (CeAD) is a leading cause of stroke in the young patient population. Recent studies reported a low rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in patients with CeAD, with no significant difference between patients randomized to anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in patients with CeAD. Methods: All CeAD patients from 2015 to 2017 were consecutively identified by an electronic medical record-based application and enrolled in this prospective longitudinal registry. CeAD was confirmed by imaging and graded using the Denver scale for blunt cerebrovascular injury. Patients were followed for 12 months for MACE defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death. Results: The cohort included 111 CeAD patients (age 53 ± 15.9 years, 56% Caucasian, 50% female). CeAD was detected by magnetic resonance (5%), computed tomography (88%), or catheter angiography (7%). CeAD was noted in the carotid (59%), vertebral (39%), and basilar (2%) arteries, 82% of which were extracranial dissections. CeAD was classified as grade I, II, III, and IV in 16, 33, 19, and 32%, respectively. A total of 40% of dissections were due to known trauma. A predisposing factor was noted in the majority (78%) of patients, including violent sneezing (21%), carrying a heavy load (19%), sports/recreational activity (11%), chiropractic manipulation (9%), abrupt/prolonged rotation of head (9%), and prolonged phone use (9%). At presentation, 41% had a stroke, 5% had TIA, 39% had headache, and 36% were asymptomatic. Favorable outcome defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2 was noted in 68% at 3 months and 71% at 12 months. The rate of MACEs at 3 and 12 months was 11 and 14%, respectively, with more events observed in patients who were not receiving anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy due to contraindications (p = 0.008). Conclusions: We report diagnostic characteristics, as well as short- and long-term outcomes of CeAD. A high MACE rate was observed within the first 2 weeks of CeAD diagnosis, notably in patients not initiated on anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy.

1.
Markus
HS
,
Hayter
E
,
Levi
C
,
Feldman
A
,
Venables
G
,
Norris
J
, et al.
Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial
.
Lancet Neurol
.
2015
;
14
(
4
):
361
7
.
2.
Schievink
W
,
Roiter
V
.
Epidemiology of cervical artery dissection
.
Front Neurol Neurosci
.
2005
;
20
:
12
5
.
3.
Kloss
M
,
Grond-Ginsbach
C
,
Ringleb
P
,
Hausser
I
,
Hacke
W
,
Brandt
T
.
Recurrence of cervical artery dissection
.
Neurology
.
2018 Mar
;
90
(
16
):
e1372
8
.
4.
Caso
V
,
Paciaroni
M
,
Bogousslavsky
J
.
Environmental factors and cervical artery dissection
.
Front Neurol Neurosci
.
2005
;
20
:
44
53
.
5.
Schievink
WI
.
Spontaneous dissection of the carotid and vertebral arteries
.
N Engl J Med
.
2001
;
344
(
12
):
898
906
.
6.
Nedeltchev
K
,
Baumgartner
RW
.
Traumatic cervical artery dissection
.
Front Neurol Neurosci
.
2005
;
20
:
54
63
.
7.
Engelter
S
,
Lyrer
P
.
Antithrombotic therapy for cervical artery dissection
.
Front Neurol Neurosci
.
2005
;
20
:
147
59
.
8.
Engelter
ST
,
Traenka
C
,
Von Hessling
A
,
Lyrer
PA
.
Diagnosis and treatment of cervical artery dissection
.
Neurol Clin
.
2015
;
33
(
2
):
421
41
.
9.
Gross
BA
,
Albuquerque
FC
.
Antiplatelets versus anticoagulation for cervical arterial dissection
.
World Neurosurg
.
2015
;
84
(
1
):
21
2
.
10.
Debette
S
,
Compter
A
,
Labeyrie
MA
,
Uyttenboogaart
M
,
Metso
TM
,
Majersik
JJ
, et al.
Epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of intracranial artery dissection
.
Lancet Neurol
.
2015
;
14
(
6
):
640
54
.
11.
Blum
CA
,
Yaghi
S
.
Cervical artery dissection: a review of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, treatment, and outcome
.
Arch Neurosci
.
2015
;
2
(
4
).
12.
Serkin
Z
,
Le
S
,
Sila
C
.
Treatment of extracranial arterial dissection: the roles of antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants, and stenting
.
Curr Treat Options Neurol
.
2019
;
21
(
10
):
48
.
13.
Zhang
G
,
Chen
Z
.
Medical and interventional therapy for spontaneous vertebral artery dissection in the craniocervical segment
.
Biomed Res Int
.
2017
;
2017
:
7859719
.
14.
Markus
HS
,
Levi
C
,
King
A
,
Madigan
J
,
Norris
J
.
Cervical artery dissection in stroke study (CADISS) investigators. Antiplatelet therapy vs anticoagulation therapy in cervical artery dissection
.
JAMA Neurol
.
2019
;
76
(
6
):
657
.
15.
Burlew
CC
,
Biffl
WL
,
Moore
EE
,
Barnett
CC
,
Johnson
JL
,
Bensard
DD
.
Blunt cerebrovascular injuries: redefining screening criteria in the era of noninvasive diagnosis
.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg
.
2012
;
72
(
2
):
330
5
.
discussion 336–7, quiz 539
.
16.
Banks
JL
,
Marotta
CA
.
Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis
.
Stroke
.
2007
;
38
(
3
):
1091
6
.
17.
Béjot
Y
,
Aboa-Eboulé
C
,
Debette
S
,
Pezzini
A
,
Tatlisumak
T
,
Engelter
S
, et al.
Characteristics and outcomes of patients with multiple cervical artery dissection
.
Stroke
.
2014
;
45
(
1
):
37
41
.
18.
Compter
A
,
Schilling
S
,
Vaineau
CJ
,
Goeggel-Simonetti
B
,
Metso
TM
,
Southerland
A
, et al.
Determinants and outcome of multiple and early recurrent cervical artery dissections
.
Neurology
.
2018
;
91
(
8
):
e769
80
.
19.
Debette
S
,
Metso
T
,
Pezzini
A
,
Metso
A
,
Leys
D
,
Bersano
A
, et al.
Association of vascular risk factors with cervical artery dissection and ischemic stroke in young adults
.
Circulation
.
2011
;
123
(
14
):
1537
44
.
20.
Charlson
ME
,
Pompei
P
,
Ales
KL
,
MacKenzie
CR
.
A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation
.
J Chronic Dis
.
1987
;
40
(
5
):
373
83
.
21.
Lévesque
LE
,
Hanley
JA
,
Kezouh
A
,
Suissa
S
.
Problem of immortal time bias in cohort studies: example using statins for preventing progression of diabetes
.
BMJ
.
2010
;
340
(
7752
):
907
11
.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.