Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Carotid and vertebral artery dissections are estimated to account for ∼20% of strokes in patients under 45-years-old. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents to determine the optimal therapy. We searched 4 electronic databases for clinical trials published from January 1, 1980 to August 25, 2021 that included patients who received anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy for carotid and/or vertebral artery dissections. The curative effect was judged by recanalization evaluated by imaging. The primary outcomes were all cause death and ischemic stroke; secondary outcomes included hemorrhage and transient ischemic attack (TIA). Patients who received only a single drug treatment were divided into antiplatelet or anticoagulant groups; all received conservative treatment without surgical intervention. For this investigation, we pooled the available studies to conduct a meta-analysis, which included 7 articles with 1126 patients. The curative effect of vascular recanalization was not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups (odds ratio [OR] = 0.913, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.611-1.365, P = .657); similarly, no significant differences were found regarding the primary outcomes all cause death (OR = 1.747, 95%CI: 0.202-15.079, P = .612) and ischemic stroke (OR = 2.289, 95%CI: 0.997-5.254, P = .051). Patients treated with anticoagulants were more likely to experience TIA (OR = 0.517, 95%CI: 0.252-1.060, P = .072) and hemorrhage (OR = 0.468, 95%CI: 0.210-1.042, P = .063), but the differences were not statistically significant. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between anticoagulant therapy and antiplatelet therapy for the treatment of carotid and vertebral artery dissections.

Keywords

anticoagulant antiplatelet carotid artery dissection vertebral artery dissection stroke

Introduction

Cervical artery dissection is one of the most common causes of strokes, accounting for ∼20% of strokes in patients under the age of 45.^1,2 Among these patients, carotid artery dissection comprises 70% to 80% of cases and vertebral artery dissection accounts for 15%.³ Cervical artery dissection has an associated mortality rate of up to 5%, with full resolution occurring in >90% of cases.⁴ Many factors are related to cervical artery dissection, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, neck trauma, hyperlipidemia, and atherosclerosis. The pathophysiology of strokes involves endothelial damage. Disruptions to the endothelium can activate platelets and the coagulation cascade, leading to thrombus formation and distal embolization.⁵ Therefore, antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelets or anticoagulants can reduce the risk of stroke in patients with cervical artery dissection. The American Heart Association Guidelines⁶ indicate that antithrombotic therapy for at least 3 to 6 months is reasonable for patients to prevent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the guidelines also point out that the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy are relatively uncertain.

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies using meta-analysis techniques to determine the optimal treatment for cervical artery dissection. The outcomes analyzed included recanalization (imaging), all cause death, ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, and TIA.

Methods

Literature Search

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until August 25, 2021. The search employed the term(s) “Carotid and/or vertebral artery dissections,” which were combined with each of the following Boolean operators: “antiplatelet therapy,” and “anticoagulation therapy.” Abstracts of the citations identified by the search were then scrutinized by 2 investigators (Ye and Tang) to determine eligibility for inclusion in the analysis. The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compared anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies; (2) comparative studies, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, retrospective or prospective studies; (3) effective and intact clinical data; and (4) included 4 or more patients. There were no language restrictions.

We identified 7 studies that met our criteria (Figure 1). Two investigators independently extracted data utilizing a data abstraction tool: number of patients in the experimental (anticoagulant and antiplatelet) groups, study quality, time of follow-up, patients’ characteristics, curative effect, and primary and secondary outcomes. The curative effect was judged by recanalization, as defined by imaging. The primary outcomes were all cause death and ischemic stroke. The secondary outcomes measures included hemorrhage and TIA. Antithrombotic therapy (antiplatelet or anticoagulation) was defined as administration of any antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid or clopidogrel dipyridamole) or anticoagulation treatment (oral coumarin or therapeutic heparin doses). Patients who received only a single drug treatment were divided according to their initial treatment into antiplatelet or anticoagulant groups; all received conservative treatment without surgical intervention.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of literature review.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Publication details, inclusion and exclusion criteria, enrolled patient demographics, interventions used, and outcomes were collected. Risk of bias in these works (including masking of participants, methods of sequence generation and allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis, incomplete or unclear data, time to follow-up, and loss to follow-up) was assessed. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Any disagreements between investigators were resolved by consensus.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed by Stata version 13.0. We used fixed-effects models to measure the outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by I². The level of heterogeneity was divided into low (I² = 25%-49%), moderate (I² = 50%-74%), and high (I²≥75%). Outcomes were analyzed using odds ratios, with a 2-sided statistical significance level of 5%.

Results

Studies and Quality

The initial search strategy identified 45 full-text articles, and then 38 citations that were initially screened. Of these, 7 trials^7-12,13 met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). The 7 works included 1126 patients divided into anticoagulant therapy and antiplatelet therapy groups. The quality of these 7 articles, as evaluated by NOS, is shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics for participants in each trial.

Table 1.

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Study Quality Assessment.

Study	SELECTION	COMPARABILITY	OUTCOME
2019 CADISS	☆ ☆ ☆ ☆	☆ ☆	☆ ☆ ☆
2017 Daou	☆ ☆ ☆	☆ ☆	☆ ☆
2017 Ramchand	☆ ☆ ☆	☆ ☆	☆ ☆
2000 Engelter	☆ ☆	☆ ☆	☆ ☆ ☆
2014 Caprio	☆ ☆ ☆	☆ ☆	☆ ☆
2009 Georgiadis	☆ ☆ ☆ ☆	☆ ☆	☆ ☆
2021 TREAT-CAD	☆ ☆ ☆ ☆	☆ ☆	☆ ☆ ☆

Table 2.

Baseline Characteristics of Included Clinical Trials.

Study	Group	Sample	Follow-up (months)	Average age	Female (%)	TIA (%)	Stroke (%)	Hypertension (%)	Diabetes (%)	Hyperlipidemia (%)	Smoking history (%)	Cardiovascular disease (%)
2019 CADISS¹¹	AP	101	12	48.5	32	20	73	21	3	12	52	NA
	AC	96	12	48.1	31	16	80	20	3	12	53	NA
2017 Daou⁸	AP	207	23	49	56	NA	24	36	8	22	26	15
	AC	106	30	44	57	NA	37	39	7	19	26	7
2018 Ramchand¹²	AP	44	3	47	41	NA	NA	36	5	25	23	11
	AC	40	3	46	45	NA	NA	40	13	25	28	5
2000 Engelter⁹	AP	8	26	47.8	37.5	0	62.5	12.5	NA	NA	50	NA
	AC	25	26	44.5	28	24	60	28	NA	NA	40	NA
2014 Caprio⁷	AP	40	7.5	48.1	57.5	NA	0	20	2.5	7.5	NA	7.5
	AC	70	7.5	41.4	70	NA	4.3	18.6	1.4	10	NA	1.4
2009 Georgiadis¹⁰	AP	96	3	46	44.8	12.5	49	26	0	35.4	47.9	1
	AC	202	3	45	43.1	12.4	58.4	27.7	1	30.2	33.1	0.5
2021 TREAT-CAD²⁸	AP	91	3	46.7	38	13	52	33	1	20	47	NA
	AC	82	3	45.5	34	12	52	30	4	22	51	NA

Abbreviations: AP, antiplatelet; AC, anticoagulant; TIA, transient ischemic attack; NA, not available.

Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 treatment groups are shown in Table 3. The 2 groups were similar with respect to age, sex, history of TIA and stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and smoking history. The antiplatelet group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with cardiovascular disease (antiplatelet vs anticoagulation: 10.3% vs 2.6%, P < .01); however, the number of patients with cardiovascular disease was too small to be representative. Therefore, there were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 groups.

Table 3.

Baseline Characteristics of the 2 Treatment Groups.

	AP (n = 587)	AC (n = 621)
	N/Total (%)	N/Total (%)	P
Average age	47.6	45
Female	270/587(46.0%)	279/621(44.9%)	.709
Hypertension	176/587(30.0%)	177/621(28.5%)	.572
Diabetes	24/579(4.1%)	21/596(3.5%)	.579
Hyperlipidemia	124/579(21.4%)	128/596(21.5%)	.151
Smoking history	210/547(38.4%)	209/551(37.9%)	.875
Cardiovascular disease	40/387(10.3%)	11/418(2.6%)	<.0001

Abbreviations: AP, antiplatelet; AC, anticoagulant.

Outcomes

Primary and secondary outcomes are shown in Table 4. To investigate the efficacy of the 2 procedures, we first analyzed recanalization, which is diagnosed by an imaging examination. As shown in Figure 1, recanalization rates in the 2 treatment groups were not significantly different (odds ratio [OR] = 0.913, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.611-1.365, P = .657, I² = 0.0%). However, due to the lack of imaging follow-up data for some patients, full recanalization results were not available for of all patients in these trials. Therefore, more clinical trials are required to confirm this conclusion.

Table 4.

Primary and Secondary Outcomes in Clinical Trials.

Study	Group	Sample	Ischemic stroke	Death	Hemorrhage	TIA	Recanalization (N/Total)
2019 CADISS¹¹	AP	101	4	1	0	2	41/92
	AC	96	1	0	1	4	41/89
2017 Daou⁸	AP	194	6	NA	4	9	NA
	AC	94	2	NA	2	7	NA
2018 Ramchand¹²	AP	44	1	NA	2	NA	21/44
	AC	40	1	NA	4	NA	20/40
2000 Engelter⁹	AP	8	0	0	0	0	6/6
	AC	25	2	1	0	1	16/22
2014 Caprio⁷	AP	40	1	NA	2	NA	18/40
	AC	70	1	NA	11	NA	40/70
2009 Georgiadis¹⁰	AP	96	0	NA	1	2	NA
	AC	202	1	NA	2	8	NA
2021 TREAT-CAD²⁸	AP	91	7	0	0	0	NA
	AC	82	0	0	1	2	NA

Abbreviations: AP, antiplatelet; AC, anticoagulant; TIA, transient ischemic attack; NA, not available.

The important complications reported in these 7 studies included all cause death, ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, and TIA. Our meta-analysis indicated that there were no differences between antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant therapy for these complications. First, no significant differences were found in terms of the primary outcomes all cause death (OR = 1.747, 95%CI: 0.202-15.079, P = .612, I² = 0.0%) or ischemic stroke (OR = 2.289, 95%CI: 0.997-5.254, P = .051, I² = 0.0%). Only 3 studies mentioned all cause death; therefore, the mortality results are not representative. Additionally, the secondary outcomes TIA and hemorrhage occurred more frequently in patients treated with anticoagulation therapy, but the differences were not statistically significant (TIA: OR = 0.517, 95%CI: 0.252-1.060, P = .072, I² = 0.0%; hemorrhage: OR = 0.468, 95%CI: 0.210-1.042, P = .063, I² = 0.0%).

Figure 2.

Meta-analysis of outcomes of clinical trials. (A) Meta-analysis of recanalization (OR = 0.913; 95%CI 0.611-1.365; P = .657). (B) Meta-analysis of death (OR = 1.747; 95%CI 0.202-15.079; P = .612). (C) Meta-analysis of ischemic stroke (OR = 2.289; 95%CI 0.997-5.254; P = .051). (D) Meta-analysis of hemorrhage (OR = 0.468; 95%CI 0.210-1.042; P = .063). (E) Meta-analysis of transient ischemic attack (OR = 0.517; 95%CI 0.252-1.060; P = .072).

Discussion

Carotid and vertebral artery dissections are important causes of ischemic stroke in patients <45-years-old. Embolism from thrombus formation at the dissection site plays the major role in stroke pathogenesis.¹⁴ According to the American Heart Association Guidelines, antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelets or anticoagulants is reasonable for patients to prevent stroke or TIA, but the efficacy and safety of both therapies are uncertain. Despite this, anticoagulant therapy is often used for stroke prevention in patients with carotid artery dissection.¹⁵ For a long time, there was insufficient scientific evidence to support that anticoagulation therapy prevented stroke, which led to a number of randomized controlled trials, including the Warfarin-Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease Study and the Warfarin-Aspirin Recurrent Stroke Study. Both found that the benefit of warfarin for reducing stroke recurrence did not exceed that of aspirin.^7,15-18 The same debate has occurred over the treatment strategy for vertebral artery dissection. Anticoagulation has been used for secondary stroke prevention despite the lack of evidence that it is superior to aspirin.

We pooled the currently available studies to conduct a meta-analysis. Based on 7 articles that included 1126 patients, we demonstrated that both the antiplatelet and anticoagulation groups had low rates of recurrent stroke; all cause death also seemed to be equally low for each treatment. On the other hand, TIA and hemorrhage occurred more frequently in patients treated with anticoagulants, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) was the first randomized controlled prospective trial to compare antiplatelet and anticoagulation treatments.¹¹ Among the 181 patients with confirmed dissection and complete follow-up imaging, there was no difference in the presence of residual narrowing or occlusion between patients who received antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy. Additionally, this study showed a low rate of recurrent stroke (2.4%) and no difference between the 2 groups. Besides, the choice of antiplatelet agent was at the clinician’s discretion. In this study, ∼55% of patients received a single antiplatelet drug (either clopidogrel or aspirin) and 45% received dual antiplatelet treatment. All patients who received anticoagulation therapy were given warfarin. Expanding evidence suggests that the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel might have a greater ability to prevent early recurrent stroke risk in patients with atherosclerotic artery stenosis. It is therefore conceivable that antiplatelet therapies are more effective if all patients are given combination antiplatelet treatment. Recently, noninferiority of aspirin has not been demonstrated in the multicenter, randomized controlled trial (TREAT-CAD) comparing aspirin with vitamin K antagonists for carotid artery dissection.¹³ As with CADISS, in this trial, ischemic strokes occurred numerically more often in the aspirin group and the only hemorrhage occurred in the anticoagulant group. This may be related to the fact that in the vitamin K antagonist group, patients who had received the recommended bridging with heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in addition to a vitamin K antagonist before reaching the target INR might have had better protection against early ischemic strokes. It is important to emphasize that although aspirin was not inferior to vitamin K antagonists, these results do not mean that aspirin is inferior to anticoagulants or that vitamin K antagonists are superior to aspirin. In the study by Ramchand et al,¹² the rate of recanalization in patients with cervical arterial dissection did not differ between those treated with anticoagulants and those treated with antiplatelet therapy, and the same was true for stroke recurrence. That study also highlighted that anticoagulation therapy is used more frequently in patients with symptomatic anatomy and greater stenosis on imaging. Furthermore, in multivariate analysis, hypertension was the only important factor related to vascular recanalization, and it was closely associated with vascular recanalization failure. Moreover, hypertension was previously considered to be a risk factor for arterial dissection.^19-21 Engelter et al⁹ found that efficacy of anticoagulants may be higher than antiplatelets in the prevention of thromboembolic cerebral infarcts but increased the risk of hemorrhagic complications.²² Therefore, anticoagulation therapy has the potential risk of aggravating the intramural hemorrhage, leading to an additional narrowing of the arterial lumen, which may worsen hemodynamic failure. Antiplatelets seem to be a reasonable treatment choice. Other studies have reported that both antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation therapy have a lower incidence of complications and a higher number of patients with good clinical outcomes for all types of dissections.

In clinical practice, clinicians prefer to choose novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) instead of traditional anticoagulants. Compared with vitamin K, NOACs have similar or better efficacy in preventing ischemic stroke with a lower risk of bleeding. In the first report with NOACs and cervical artery dissection (CAD), there were no major bleeds and 5% minor hemorrhagic complications being equal to the rate in the antiplatelet group.¹⁹ The European Society of Cardiology recommends NOACs in preference to Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).²³ As the literature on the use of NOACs for treatment and prevention of CAD in patients is sparse, the safety and efficacy of NOAC in primary and secondary prevention in stroke patients with CAD are uncertain, more clinical trials are needed to investigate the short- and long-term use of NOACs in populations of patients with CAD.

However, in most studies, the decision to choose an antithrombotic agent and the duration of treatment for cervical artery dissection remains empirical. This treatment is customized by clinicians for the specific risks and benefits of each patient. Theoretically, antithrombotic agents could diminish the risk of thrombus formation and embolization, which is the proposed mechanism of cerebral ischemia,^24-26 despite the fact that stroke might additionally occur as a result of hemodynamic insufficiency.²⁷ Anticoagulation may be preferred when there is a severely stenotic or occluded vessel,¹⁹ or when a luminal thrombus or micro embolism is detected.²⁸ Conversely, antiplatelet agents may be favored when there is a large cerebral infarction, intracranial extension of the dissection, spinal cord trauma, or a medical contraindication to anticoagulants such as systemic hemorrhage or recent surgery.^19,27,29 For these cases, AP agents may be favored due to concern over intramural hematoma expansion.¹⁹

The main limitation of this study was the lack of randomized controlled trials, which caused our sample size to be too small. With most of the included data coming from case series and retrospective analyses, the quality of our evidence may be classified as very low. Furthermore, in the included studies, treatment decisions were made by clinicians and lacked random selection, which may also affect the results, and subsequently, this meta-analysis. Another limitation of this study was that the duration of follow-up from those included studies was relatively short. Long-term follow-ups for complications of these therapies are necessary for further evaluations. More randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results. According to previous estimates,³⁰ thousands of patients are needed. Assuming an annual stroke risk of 2%, one would need 600 dissection patients in each group (1200 total) with average follow-up of 4 years²³ to compare the efficacy of anticoagulation to antiplatelet in preventing stroke in patients with CAD.

Conclusion

Overall, there were no significant differences between anticoagulant therapy and antiplatelet therapy when treating carotid and vertebral artery dissections in terms of curative effect, all cause death, and ischemic stroke. Additionally, TIA and hemorrhage occurred more frequently in patients treated with anticoagulants, but the rates were not statistically significant. Finally, more randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Footnotes

Authors’ Contributions

Sheng-Lin Ye and Tao Tang conceived of the idea and were major contributors in writing the manuscript; Sheng-Lin Ye and Chuang Wang collected the data; Lu-Lu Wang, Tao Tang, and Sheng-Lin Ye performed the statistical analysis. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results and critically reviewed the first draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code Availability

Stata version 13.0.

Ethics Approval and Consent for Participate

The data for this research were extracted from studies published in public databases, thus not needing informed consent. According to local regulations, this retrospective and noninterventional study did not require the approval of the institutional review board (The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.).

Consent for Publication

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants.

ORCID iD

Tao Tang

References

Redekopp

. Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection: a review. Can J Neurol Sci. 2008;35(2):146-152. doi:10.1017/s0317167100008556

Schievink

. Spontaneous dissection of the carotid and vertebral arteries. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(12):898-906. doi:10.1056/NEJM200103223441206

Thanvi

Munshi

Dawson

Robinson

. Carotid and vertebral artery dissection syndromes. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81(956):383-388. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2003.016774

Epley

. Carotid artery dissection. J Vasc Nurs. 2001;19(1):2-7; quiz 8–9. doi:10.1067/mvn.2001.113885.

Caplan

Biousse

. Cervicocranial arterial dissections. J Neuroophthalmol. 2004;24(4):299-305. doi:10.1097/00041327-200412000-00007

Furie

Kasner

Adams

, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke. 2011;42(1):227-276. doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e3181f7d043

Caprio

Bernstein

Alberts

, et al. Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with cervical artery dissections. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;38(4):247-253. doi:10.1159/000366265

Daou

Hammer

Mouchtouris

, et al. Anticoagulation versus antiplatelet treatment in patients with carotid and vertebral artery dissection: a study of 370 patients and literature review. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(3):368-379. doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw086

Engelter

Lyrer

Kirsch

Steck

. Long-term follow-up after extracranial internal carotid artery dissection. Eur Neurol. 2000;44(4):199-204. doi:10.1159/000008236

10.

Georgiadis

Arnold

von Buedingen

, et al. Aspirin versus anticoagulation in carotid artery dissection: a study of 298 patients. Neurology. 2009;72(21):1810-1815. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a2a50a

11.

Markus

Levi

King

Madigan

Norris

, Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study, I. Antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulation therapy in cervical artery dissection: the cervical artery dissection in stroke study (CADISS) randomized clinical trial final results. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(6):657-664. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0072

12.

Ramchand

Mullen

Bress

, et al. Recanalization after extracranial dissection: effect of antiplatelet compared with anticoagulant therapy. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27(2):438-444. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.09.065

13.

Engelter

Traenka

Gensicke

, et al. Aspirin versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection (TREAT-CAD): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(5):341-350. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00044-2

14.

Kennedy

Lanfranconi

Hicks

, et al. Antiplatelets versus anticoagulation for dissection: cADISS nonrandomized arm and meta-analysis. Neurology. 2012;79(7):686-689. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318264e36b

15.

Menon

Markus

Norris

. Results of a UK questionnaire of diagnosis and treatment in cervical artery dissection. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(5):612. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.127639

16.

Chimowitz

Kokkinos

Strong

, et al. The warfarin-aspirin symptomatic intracranial disease study. Neurology. 1995;45(8):1488-1493. doi:10.1212/wnl.45.8.1488

17.

Gensicke

Ahlhelm

Jung

, et al. New ischemic brain lesions in cervical artery dissection stratified to antiplatelets or anticoagulants. Eur J Neurol. 2015;22(5):859-865, e61. doi:10.1111/ene.12682.

18.

Mohr

Thompson

Lazar

, et al. A comparison of warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(20):1444-1451. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa011258

19.

Debette

Leys

. Cervical-artery dissections: predisposing factors, diagnosis, and outcome. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(7):668-678. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70084-5

20.

Juvonen

Ergin

Galla

, et al. Risk factors for rupture of chronic type B dissections. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;117(4):776-786. doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70299-0

21.

Pezzini

Caso

Zanferrari

, et al. Arterial hypertension as risk factor for spontaneous cervical artery dissection. A case-control study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77(1):95-97. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.063107

22.

The International Stroke Trial (IST): a randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19435 patients with acute ischemic stroke. International stroke trial collaborative group. Lancet. 1997;349(9065):1569-1581. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9174558

23.

Yaghi

Kamel

Elkind

. Potential new uses of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants to treat and prevent stroke. Neurology. 2015;85(12):1078-1084. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001817

24.

Fisher

Ojemann

Roberson

. Spontaneous dissection of cervical-cerebral arteries. Can J Neurol Sci. 1978;5(1):9-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/647502

25.

Hart

Easton

. Dissections of cervical and cerebral arteries. Neurol Clin. 1983;1(1):155-182. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6680158

26.

Lucas

Moulin

Deplanque

Tatu

Chavot

. Stroke patterns of internal carotid artery dissection in 40 patients. Stroke. 1998;29(12):2646-2648. doi: 10.1161/01.str.29.12.2646

27.

Lyrer

P. A.

(2005). Extracranial arterial dissection: anticoagulation is the treatment of choice: against. Stroke, 36(9), 2042 to 2043. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000177507.67817.cb

28.

Engelter

Brandt

Debette

, et al. Antiplatelets versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection. Stroke. 2007;38(9):2605-2611. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.489666

29.

Arnold

Bousser

Fahrni

, et al. Vertebral artery dissection: presenting findings and predictors of outcome. Stroke. 2006;37(10):2499-2503. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000240493.88473.39

30.

Beletsky

Nadareishvili

Lynch

, et al.

Cervical arterial dissection: time for a therapeutic trial?

Stroke. 2003;34(12):2856-2860. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000098649.39767.BC

Oral Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapy for Cervical Artery Dissection: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Literature Search

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Statistical Analysis

Results

Studies and Quality

Baseline Characteristics

Outcomes

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Authors’ Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Availability of Data and Materials

Code Availability

Ethics Approval and Consent for Participate

Consent for Publication

ORCID iD

References