Skip to main content
Download PDF

Antiplatelets or anticoagulants? Secondary prevention in cervical artery dissection: an updated meta-analysis

Neurological Research and Practice volume 4, Article number: 23 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Extracranial artery dissection involving either internal carotid artery or vertebral artery is a major cause of stroke in adults under 50 years of age. There is no conclusive evidence whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants are better suited in the treatment of extracranial artery dissection.

Objectives

To determine whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants have advantage over the other in the treatment of extracranial artery dissection for secondary prevention of recurrent ischemic events or death.

Methods

Present meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Database search was done in Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2021 using pre-defined search strategy. Additional studies were identified from reference lists from included studies, reviews and previous meta-analyses. Outcome measures were ischaemic stroke, ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and death.

Results

Two RCTs and 64 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. While the outcome measures of stroke, stroke or TIA and death were numerically higher with antiplatelet use, there were no statistically significant differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants.

Conclusion

We found no significant difference between antiplatelet and anticoagulation treatment after extracranial artery dissection. The choice of treatment should be tailored to individual cases.

Background

Cervical artery dissection is an important cause of stroke in patients under 50 years of age [1, 2]. It involves dissection of either internal carotid artery or vertebral artery or both and can be unilateral or bilateral or multi-vessel [3]. It is estimated to affect 2.6 to 2.9 per 100,000 individuals per year [4]. While it can resolve spontaneously within 3 to 6 months, it can recur in a minority of individuals and mortality has been reported up to 5% of the affected individuals [4].

In severe cases, especially in multi-vessel dissections, interventional treatment with stenting may be needed. Conversely, in milder cases, conservative treatment with medication and regular follow-up till spontaneous resolution is indicated [5]. However, the choice of medication, in the form of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, is still largely dependent on the treating physicians’ preference and evidence to support one treatment over the other is lacking. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have been limited in sample size [6, 7] and meta-analyses aggregating the data have not been conclusive [8,9,10,11,12,13].

It is the aim of the present study to include recent clinical trials to update the data and determine whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants have advantage over the other in the treatment of extracranial artery dissection for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events or death.

Methods

Present meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [14].

Data search

An electronic database search was made in MEDLINE database and CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2021. The search words used and the steps involved for MEDLINE database search is shown in table S1 [Please see the details in Additional file 1] and it was adapted for searches in CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Titles and abstracts from search results were scrutinized to determine the eligibility of a result to be included in the analysis. Additional search was made by reviewing references from previous meta-analyses and review papers. Subsequently, selected studies were then read in details for data extraction.

Screening, study selection and data extraction were done by a team of two investigators (CJC and JCWL) and independently reviewed by another team of two investigators (EZT and NNL). Any disagreement on study inclusion and data extraction were resolved by discussion. Summary of methods involved is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 PICOs framework and applied inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies are included in the analysis if it fulfills following inclusion criteria—1. The study must provide evidence of dissection by either magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or magnetic resonance angiography or computed tomography (CT) angiography or digital subtraction angiography. 2. The outcome data allows comparison between patients on antiplatelets and anticoagulants. A study is excluded—1. If there are four or less cases, 2. If cases with severe traumatic causes of arterial dissections, for example, motor vehicle collision, could not be excluded. Dissection associated with minor trauma, for example, recreational activities or sport related minor injuries are allowed to be included in the meta-analysis. 3. If concurrent intracranial dissection could not be excluded, 4. If cases treated with stents or surgical repairs as first treatment could not be excluded, and 5. If the study population comprises of children.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures for analysis include death related to carotid or vertebral artery dissection, ischaemic stroke and a composite outcome of stroke or TIA. If a study is to be included in the analysis, it must report at least one of the outcome measures.

Data extraction

Patients with surgical treatment or switching from one treatment group to another or receiving both antiplatelets and anticoagulants were excluded. In circumstances of studies with overlapping populations, the study with the most complete data or larger sample population was selected. Patients were grouped as either receiving antiplatelet or anticoagulation, most times using vitamin-K-antagonists, depending on the initial treatment they received. In cases with initial treatment with heparin, it is classified as in anticoagulant group if it is prolonged and used anticoagulation dose and it is classified as in antiplatelet group if it is given only for the initial days before transitioning to antiplatelet treatment. Data extraction was done with the aim to get as much complete data as possible, i.e. per-protocol data as much as possible.

Data analysis

Data analyses were done using Review Manager (version 5.4) developed by The Cochrane Collaboration [15]. Risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used since it was expected that there will be zero outcome events and Odd Ratio (OR) or Risk Ratio (RR) could not be calculated for each study before pooling the data in the meta-analysis. Nevertheless, ORs based on total population and outcome events were calculated for each outcome measure.

Results

The database and registries searches were done on 22nd June 2021 and the search was limited to end of May 2021 from the inception of the database and the registries. The search identified 3402 results after removing duplicates. After initial screening of titles and abstracts, 336 articles were selected for full reading. Subsequently, 286 articles were excluded with reasons of less than 5 cases (139), study population being children (6), review articles (25), treatment comparison not possible (63), severe traumatic cases and intracranial dissections could not be excluded (24), population overlaps (15) and article not available (14). As a result, 50 articles were available to be included in the analysis [6, 7, 11, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]. Additional searches done from the reference list of the included articles identified a further 16 articles and were added to the analysis [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. The steps involved in article selection process is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flow chart

Full size image

There are only two RCTs [6, 7]—Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) and Biomarkers and Antithrombotic Treatment in Cervical Artery Dissection (TREAT–CAD) – and the rest is made up of mostly observation studies in the form of case reports, case series, and diagnostic studies. There are 25 studies [16,17,18,19, 21,22,23,24, 27, 31, 32, 35, 46, 47, 50, 61, 63,64,65,66,67,68,69, 71, 73] reporting outcomes on internal carotid artery dissection only, 13 studies [20, 26, 28,29,30, 33, 34, 42, 52, 56, 57, 62, 70] reporting outcomes on vertebral artery dissection only and 28 studies [6, 7, 11, 25, 36,37,38,39,40,41, 43,44,45, 48, 49, 51, 53,54,55, 58,59,60, 72, 74,75,76,77,78] reporting outcomes on both. There were two studies [41, 52] with overlapping cases of vertebral artery dissection and data is taken from the study [52] published later in time. And the data on carotid artery dissection is taken from the other study [41] published earlier in time since it included both types of dissections. The follow-up period in each studies varies from less than 1 month to more than 3 months: 49 studies [6, 7, 11, 17,18,19,20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29,30,31, 33,34,35, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52, 54, 57, 59, 63,64,65,66, 68,69,70, 72,73,74,75,76,77,78] with follow-up period of 3 or more months and 17 studies [16, 21, 23, 26, 28, 32, 36, 37, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60,61,62, 67, 71] with follow-up period of less than 3 months.

For CADISS RCT, data is taken from the results [10] published in 2015 and not the results [79] published in 2019. The reason for this is that there are many individuals who are not still on the initial treatment given at the start of randomization and it could not be certain that the effects of that treatment continue to exist. In TREAT-CAD RCT, there are clinical outcomes as well as MRI surrogate findings [11] and the MRI findings of acute ischaemic lesions without clinical symptoms have been taken as ischaemic stroke.

Ischaemic stroke

There are 63 studies included in the analysis for the outcome of ischaemic stroke [6, 7, 11, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, 52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. There are 3418 individuals in total and 1119 individuals received antiplatelets and 2299 individual received anticoagulants. There are 43 (3.84%) and 60 (2.61%) ischaemic stroke outcomes in antiplatelet group and anticoagulant group, respectively (OR 1.49). The risk difference was not statistically significant (0.00 [ − 0.01, 0.01], p = 0.77). Random effect model was used and there was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 1.00) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot for ischaemic stroke outcome

Full size image

Stroke or TIA

There are 58 studies included in the analysis for the outcome of stroke or TIA [6, 7, 11, 16,17,18,19,20, 22, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36, 38,39,40, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48, 50, 51, 53, 55,56,57,58,59, 61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. There are 2961 individuals in total and 1007 individuals received antiplatelets and 1954 individual received anticoagulants. There are 79 (7.85%) and 91 (4.66%) stroke or TIA outcomes in antiplatelet group and anticoagulant group, respectively (OR 1.74). The risk difference was not statistically significant (0.00 [ − 0.02, 0.02], p = 0.82). Random effect model was used and there was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 8%, p = 0.30) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for ischaemic stroke or TIA outcome

Full size image

Death

There are 63 studies included in the analysis for the death outcome [6, 7, 11, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44, 46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53, 55,56,57,58, 60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. There are 3128 individuals in total and 989 individuals received antiplatelets and 2139 individuals received anticoagulants. There are 8 (0.81%) and 17 (0.79%) deaths in antiplatelet group and anticoagulant group, respectively (OR 1.02). The risk difference was not statistically significant (0.00 [ − 0.01, 0.01], p = 0.84). Random effect model was used and there was no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 1.00) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot for death outcome

Full size image

Subgroup with RCT data alone

Analyses with data from the only two RCTs on this topic were performed. For ischaemic stroke outcome, there are higher numbers of ischaemic stroke events in antiplatelet group compared to anticoagulant group (7.81% vs. 4.49%, respectively; OR 1.80, p = 0.20), but this did not reach significance (Fig. 5). Similarly, for the combined stroke and TIA outcome, there are higher number of events in antiplatelet group than in anticoagulant group (8.85% vs. 7.30%, respectively; OR 1.23, p = 0.65) but this did not reach significance (Fig. 6). No deaths were reported in both RCTs.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot for ischaemic stroke outcome for RCTs

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot for stroke or TIA outcome for RCTs

Full size image

Subgroup analyses with carotid artery or vertebral artery dissection alone

Analyses with data on carotid artery dissection alone and vertebral artery dissection alone were performed as well. There are no risk difference to minimal risk difference with no statistical significance in the analyses for carotid artery dissection alone: in favour of antiplatelet treatment for ischaemic stroke outcome (total 1403 subjects in 36 studies; − 0.01 [ − 0.02, 0.01], p = 0.52), no risk difference for ischaemic stroke or TIA outcome (total 1030 subjects in 29 studies; 0.00 [ − 0.05, 0.05], p = 0.93), and no risk difference for death outcome (total 1347 subjects in 36 studies; 0.00 [ − 0.01, 0.01], p = 0.91). [Please see the details in figure S1 to S3 in Additional file 1.]

Similarly, there are minimal risk differences with no statistical significance in the analyses for vertebral artery dissection alone: in favour of antiplatelet treatment for ischaemic stroke outcome (total 555 subjects in 19 studies; − 0.02 [ − 0.06, 0.02], p = 0.26), in favour of antiplatelet treatment for ischaemic stroke or TIA outcome (total 237 subjects in 15 studies; − 0.02 [ − 0.08, 0.04], p = 0.50), and in favour of anticoagulant treatment for death outcome (total 448 subjects in 19 studies; 0.01 [ − 0.04, 0.05], p = 0.76). [Please see the details in Additional file 1: Figs. S4 to S6]

Discussion

In the literature, there have been five meta-analyses that compared the results of using antiplatelets and anticoagulants in the secondary prevention of cervical artery dissection [8, 10,11,12,13]. Despite the various methodologies used, there is still no conclusive evidence that either class of the antithrombotic medication is superior to the other. Present meta-analysis with updated data also failed to find statistically significant differences between the two treatments (Figs. 2, 3, 4). However, it differs from the rest in that there are two RCTs, CADISS and TREAT-CAD [6, 7], included in the present meta-analysis. Both of these RCTs included both internal carotid and vertebral artery dissections and each failed to show significant differences between the two treatments. This is in agreement with the results of the present meta-analyses overall or with data from just these two RCTs (Figs. 5, 6) or with data on carotid and vertebral artery dissections separately (Additional file 1: Figs. S1 to S6).

CADISS was the first RCT to be published with the aim to determine the feasibility of a clinical trial to compare the effects of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in cervical artery dissection [80]. However, it found no statistically significant differences between the two treatments (in both per-protocol analysis and intention-to-treat analysis). Nonetheless, it highlighted that the diagnostic imaging criteria of dissection were often not applied correctly in clinical practice [6]. With the realization of lower than expected clinical outcome rates in CADISS and the RCT being underpowered, another RCT, TREAT-CAD, attempted to overcome this by adding MRI surrogate outcomes to determine non-inferiority of antiplatelets to anticoagulation [7]. However, TREAT-CAD found no significant differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants nor non-inferiority of aspirin even after adding MRI findings, in both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses and despite a generous 12% non-inferiority margin.

CADISS also made power calculation using their findings on composite outcome of stroke, death or major bleeding (2.97%, 95% CI 0.62–8.44 with antiplatelets vs 2.08%, 95% CI 0.25–7.32 with anticoagulants) in per-protocol data to assess the feasibility of another trial. A sample size of 4876 individuals in each arm will be required for a study with 0.8 power and 0.05 significance level [6]. Such a trial would be too resource intensive and would take a tremendous amount of time to complete. As a comparison, it took over seven years to recruit 250 subjects (in total and around 200 per-protocol subjects) in CADISS (UK alone) and over five years to recruit 194 subjects (in total and 173 per-protocol subjects) in TREAT–CAD (Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark).

Comparing effects of antiplatelets and anticoagulants in medical treatment of extracranial artery dissection without taking into consideration of initial presentation, type of dissection (aneurysmal or stenotic or occlusive) and other demographic characteristics may be an oversimplification of a complex picture. Nevertheless, treatment with antithrombotics appears to be effective regardless of the underlying characteristics and may improve the survival of individuals with internal carotid or vertebral artery dissections. Rosati et al.reported that individuals on either antiplatelet treatment or anticoagulant treatment have significantly lowered risk of adverse outcomes [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04–0.55, p = 0.005 and HR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04–0.88, p = 0.034, respectively] compared to those without either treatment [81].

Baseline differences in types of dissections could have introduced some biases and obscured actual difference between the two treatments, i.e. type II error. In fact, selection bias was looked at by Ramchand et al. where he determined that there was a significantly higher degree of stenosis in individuals on anticoagulants and a non-significantly higher chance of receiving anticoagulants by patients with “stroke or TIA.”[60] The latter point was a significant finding in Daou et al. in which patients who received antiplatelet treatment have the lowest chance of presenting with stroke compared to those who received anticoagulation or combined treatments [59]. Another one factor that increased the difficulty in finding differences between anticoagulation and antiplatelet treatment was due to the fact that heparin is commonly used in the initial phase of treatment in addition to an antiplatelet, and this (early anticoagulation) was recommended in the early versions of European guidelines on management of stroke [82, 83].

Evidence on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are still limited with very small sample size studies [54, 84, 85]. Similarly, the evidence for dual antiplatelet treatment is limited. In CADISS, almost half of the participants (28% received aspirin and clopidogrel, and 16% received aspirin and dipyridamole) received dual antiplatelet treatment. But the outcomes reported did not differentiate between single and dual antiplatelet treatments. In total (per-protocol), there were 3% ischaemic stroke outcome, 5% any stroke or TIA outcome and 0% major bleeding outcome. In contrast, in TREAT–CAD, only single antiplatelet treatment was used (Aspirin oral 300 mg or intravenous 250 mg). There were 8% ischaemic stroke, 0% TIA and 0% major bleeding (per-protocol sample). It is plausible that these differences in outcomes between these two RCTs could reflect the effects of single and dual antiplatelet treatments. However, more evidence is needed to either confirm or refute this.

Given the findings from CADISS and TREAT–CAD, there has been some consideration that the evidence to support antiplatelet treatment is weak albeit sufficient for the treatment of individuals with only symptoms and without haemodynamic compromise. Nevertheless, early treatment with either modality has been suggested, based on the finding that diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) lesions have been detected to occur soon after diagnosis of the dissection [78].

Limitations

Present meta-analysis considered only three outcomes which did not include bleeding adverse effect which is a potentially problematic adverse effect associated with antithrombotics. Also, cases due to severe trauma are excluded which could be considered as valid clinical variant that needs equal clinical attention. Cases that were stented and surgically treated were excluded since they could potentially be different from medically treated patients and could introduce further bias into the analysis. Present meta-analysis included studies with follow up periods less than three months and these could have altered the actual rates of outcome events and the final results. Majority of the included studies are observational studies which are prone to different biases. Per-protocol data was favored over intention-to-treat data which might be a pragmatic choice but can introduce bias.

Conclusion

Present meta-analysis did not find significant differences between antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatments despite increased sample size. The choice of antithrombotics should be tailored to the patient on an individual basis.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

CADISS:

Cervical artery dissection in stroke study

CCT:

Controlled clinical trials

CENTRAL:

Cochrane central register of controlled trials

CI,:

Confidence interval

CT:

Computed tomography

DOAC:

Direct oral anticoagulants

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

HR:

Hazard ratio

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

OR:

Odd ratio

PICOs:

Population, intervention, comparison, outcome and study design

PRISMA:

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

RCT:

Randomized controlled trials

RD:

Risk difference

RR:

Risk ratio

TIA:

Transient ischaemic attack

TREAT–CAD:

Biomarkers and antithrombotic treatment in cervical artery dissection

References

  1. Leys, D., Bandu, L., Hénon, H., Lucas, C., Mounier-Vehier, F., Rondepierre, P., & Godefroy, O. (2002). Clinical outcome in 287 consecutive young adults (15 to 45 years) with ischemic stroke. Neurology, 59(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.59.1.26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Putaala, J., Metso, A. J., Metso, T. M., Konkola, N., Kraemer, Y., Haapaniemi, E., Kaste, M., & Tatlisumak, T. (2009). Analysis of 1008 consecutive patients aged 15 to 49 with first-ever ischemic stroke: The Helsinki young stroke registry. Stroke, 40(4), 1195–1203. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.529883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Compter, A., Schilling, S., Vaineau, C. J., Goeggel-Simonetti, B., Metso, T. M., Southerland, A., Pezzini, A., Kloss, M., Touzé, E., Worrall, B. B., Thijs, V., Bejot, Y., Reiner, P., Grond-Ginsbach, C., Bersano, A., Brandt, T., Caso, V., Lyrer, P. A., Traenka, C., … CADISP-plus Consortium. (2018). Determinants and outcome of multiple and early recurrent cervical artery dissections. Neurology, 91(8), e769–e780. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Debette, S., & Leys, D. (2009). Cervical-artery dissections: Predisposing factors, diagnosis, and outcome. The Lancet. Neurology, 8(7), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70084-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Biller, J., Sacco, R. L., Albuquerque, F. C., Demaerschalk, B. M., Fayad, P., Long, P. H., Noorollah, L. D., Panagos, P. D., Schievink, W. I., Schwartz, N. E., Shuaib, A., Thaler, D. E., Tirschwell, D. L., & Council, A. H. A. S. (2014). Cervical arterial dissections and association with cervical manipulative therapy: A statement for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association. Stroke, 45(10), 3155–3174. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. CADISS trial investigators, Markus, H. S., Hayter, E., Levi, C., Feldman, A., Venables, G., & Norris, J. (2015). Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): A randomised trial. The Lancet. Neurology, 14(4), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70018-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Engelter, S. T., Traenka, C., Gensicke, H., Schaedelin, S. A., Luft, A. R., Simonetti, B. G., Fischer, U., Michel, P., Sirimarco, G., Kägi, G., Vehoff, J., Nedeltchev, K., Kahles, T., Kellert, L., Rosenbaum, S., von Rennenberg, R., Sztajzel, R., Leib, S. L., Jung, S., Gralla, J., et al. (2021). Aspirin versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection (TREAT-CAD): An open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. Neurology, 20(5), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00044-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Menon, R., Kerry, S., Norris, J. W., & Markus, H. S. (2008). Treatment of cervical artery dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 79(10), 1122–1127. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2007.138800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim, Y. K., & Schulman, S. (2009). Cervical artery dissection: Pathology, epidemiology and management. Thrombosis Research, 123(6), 810–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2009.01.013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lyrer, P., & Engelter, S. (2010). Antithrombotic drugs for carotid artery dissection. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD000255. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000255.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kennedy, F., Lanfranconi, S., Hicks, C., Reid, J., Gompertz, P., Price, C., Kerry, S., Norris, J., Markus, H. S., & Investigators, C. A. D. I. S. S. (2012). Antiplatelets vs anticoagulation for dissection: CADISS nonrandomized arm and meta-analysis. Neurology, 79(7), 686–689. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318264e36b

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sarikaya, H., da Costa, B. R., Baumgartner, R. W., Duclos, K., Touzé, E., de Bray, J. M., Metso, A., Metso, T., Arnold, M., Arauz, A., Zwahlen, M., & Jüni, P. (2013). Antiplatelets versus anticoagulants for the treatment of cervical artery dissection: Bayesian meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e72697. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chowdhury, M. M., Sabbagh, C. N., Jackson, D., Coughlin, P. A., & Ghosh, J. (2015). Antithrombotic treatment for acute extracranial carotid artery dissections: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery: The Official Journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery, 50(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.04.034

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Declaración PRISMA 2020: Una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia (English ed.), 74(9), 790–799.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020.

  16. Biller, J., Hingtgen, W. L., Adams, H. P., Jr., Smoker, W. R., Godersky, J. C., & Toffol, G. J. (1986). Cervicocephalic arterial dissections. A ten-year experience. Archives of Neurology, 43(12), 1234–1238. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1986.00520120019010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bogousslavsky, J., Despland, P. A., & Regli, F. (1987). Spontaneous carotid dissection with acute stroke. Archives of Neurology, 44(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1987.00520140009010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Landre, E., Roux, F. X., & Cioloca, C. (1987). Dissection spontanée de la carotide interne exocrânienne. Aspects thérapeutiques [Spontaneous dissection of the exocranial internal carotid artery. Therapeutic aspects]. Presse medicale (Paris, France: 1983), 16(26), 1273–1276.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Marx, A., Messing, B., Storch, B., & Busse, O. (1987). Spontane Dissektionen hirnversorgender Arterien [Spontaneous dissection of arteries supplying the brain]. Der Nervenarzt, 58(1), 8–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mas, J. L., Bousser, M. G., Hasboun, D., & Laplane, D. (1987). Extracranial vertebral artery dissections: A review of 13 cases. Stroke, 18(6), 1037–1047. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.18.6.1037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lepojärvi, M., Tarkka, M., Leinonen, A., & Kallanranta, T. (1988). Spontaneous dissection of the internal carotid artery. Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica, 154(10), 559–566.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Bray, J. M., Dubas, F., Joseph, P. A., Causeret, H., Pasquier, J. P., & Emile, J. (1989). Etude ultrasonique de 22 dissections carotidiennes [Ultrasonic study of 22 cases of carotid artery dissection]. Revue Neurologique, 145(10), 702–709.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Müller-Forell, W., Rothacher, G., & Krämer, G. (1989). Carotis-Dissektionen [Carotid dissections]. Der Radiologe, 29(9), 432–436.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eljamel, M. S., Humphrey, P. R., & Shaw, M. D. (1990). Dissection of the cervical internal carotid artery. The role of Doppler/Duplex studies and conservative management. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 53(5), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.53.5.379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Schievink, W. I., & Limburg, M. (1990). Dissectie van cervicale arteriën als oorzaak van hersenischemie of uitval van hersenzenuwen [Dissection of cervical arteries as a cause of cerebral ischemia or cranial nerve dysfunction]. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde, 134(38), 1843–1848.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Josien, E. (1992). Extracranial vertebral artery dissection: Nine cases. Journal of Neurology, 239(6), 327–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00867589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ast, G., Woimant, F., Georges, B., Laurian, C., & Haguenau, M. (1993). Spontaneous dissection of the internal carotid artery in 68 patients. The European Journal of Medicine, 2(8), 466–472.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sturzenegger, M., Mattle, H. P., Rivoir, A., Rihs, F., & Schmid, C. (1993). Ultrasound findings in spontaneous extracranial vertebral artery dissection. Stroke, 24(12), 1910–1921. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.24.12.1910

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pego, R., Marey, J., López-Facal, M. S., & Marín-Sánchez, M. (1996). Disección de la arteria vertebral extracraneal: Ocho casos [Eight cases of extracranial vertebral artery dissection]. Revista de Neurologia, 24(126), 172–175.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Plaza, I., Díez-Tejedor, E., Lara, M., & Barreiro, P. (1996). Disección espontánea de arteria vertebral [Spontaneous dissection of the vertebral artery]. Revista de Neurologia, 24(126), 163–171.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Srinivasan, J., Newell, D. W., Sturzenegger, M., Mayberg, M. R., & Winn, H. R. (1996). Transcranial Doppler in the evaluation of internal carotid artery dissection. Stroke, 27(7), 1226–1230. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.27.7.1226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Treiman, G. S., Treiman, R. L., Foran, R. F., Levin, P. M., Cohen, J. L., Wagner, W. H., & Cossman, D. V. (1996). Spontaneous dissection of the internal carotid artery: A nineteen-year clinical experience. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 24(4), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0741-5214(96)70075-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. de Bray, J. M., Penisson-Besnier, I., Dubas, F., & Emile, J. (1997). Extracranial and intracranial vertebrobasilar dissections: Diagnosis and prognosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 63(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.63.1.46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Han, D. H., Kwon, O. K., & Oh, C. W. (1998). Clinical characteristics of vertebrobasilar artery dissection. Neurologia Medico-Chirurgica, 38(Suppl), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.38.suppl_107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Engelter, S. T., Lyrer, P. A., Kirsch, E. C., & Steck, A. J. (2000). Long-term follow-up after extracranial internal carotid artery dissection. European Neurology, 44(4), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1159/000008236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Droste, D. W., Junker, K., Stögbauer, F., Lowens, S., Besselmann, M., Braun, B., & Ringelstein, E. B. (2001). Clinically silent circulating microemboli in 20 patients with carotid or vertebral artery dissection. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 12(3), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1159/000047701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Gonzales-Portillo, F., Bruno, A., & Biller, J. (2002). Outcome of extracranial cervicocephalic arterial dissections: A follow-up study. Neurological Research, 24(4), 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1179/016164102101200087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Beletsky, V., Nadareishvili, Z., Lynch, J., Shuaib, A., Woolfenden, A., Norris, J. W., Canadian Stroke Consortium. (2003). Cervical arterial dissection: time for a therapeutic trial? Stroke, 34(12), 2856–2860. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000098649.39767.BC

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Campos, C. R., Evaristo, E. F., Yamamoto, F. I., Puglia, P., Jr., Lucato, L. T., & Scaff, M. (2004). Dissecção espontânea cervical carotídea e vertebral: Estudo de 48 pacientes [Spontaneous cervical carotid and vertebral arteries dissection: Study of 48 patients]. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 62(2B), 492–498. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-282x2004000300021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Caso, V., Paciaroni, M., Corea, F., Hamam, M., Milia, P., Pelliccioli, G. P., Parnetti, L., & Gallai, V. (2004). Recanalization of cervical artery dissection: Influencing factors and role in neurological outcome. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 17(2–3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1159/000075775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Arauz, A., Hoyos, L., Espinoza, C., Cantú, C., Barinagarrementeria, F., & Román, G. (2006). Dissection of cervical arteries: Long-term follow-up study of 130 consecutive cases. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 22(2–3), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1159/000093244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Arnold, M., Bousser, M. G., Fahrni, G., Fischer, U., Georgiadis, D., Gandjour, J., Benninger, D., Sturzenegger, M., Mattle, H. P., & Baumgartner, R. W. (2006). Vertebral artery dissection: Presenting findings and predictors of outcome. Stroke, 37(10), 2499–2503. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000240493.88473.39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. de Bray, J. M., Marc, G., Pautot, V., Vielle, B., Pasco, A., Lhoste, P., & Dubas, F. (2007). Fibromuscular dysplasia may herald symptomatic recurrence of cervical artery dissection. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 23(5–6), 448–452. https://doi.org/10.1159/000101470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nyberg, J., Olsson, T., & Malm, J. (2007). Karotis- och vertebralisdissektion vanlig orsak till stroke hos yngre. Lindrigt trauma utlösande faktor hos mer än hälften, visar retrospektiv studie [Carotid and vertebral artery dissection a common cause of stroke among younger persons. Minor trauma a precipitating factor in more than fifty percent according to a retrospective study]. Läkartidningen, 104(1–2), 24–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pieri, A., Spitz, M., Valiente, R. A., Avelar, W. M., Silva, G. S., & Massaro, A. R. (2007). Dissecção espontânea das artérias carótidas e vertebrais em uma população multiétnica [Spontaneous carotid and vertebral arteries dissection in a multiethnic population]. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 65(4A), 1050–1055. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-282x2007000600029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rigamonti, A., Iurlaro, S., Reganati, P., Zilioli, A., & Agostoni, E. (2008). Cluster headache and internal carotid artery dissection: Two cases and review of the literature. Headache, 48(3), 467–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.01034.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Georgiadis, D., Arnold, M., von Buedingen, H. C., Valko, P., Sarikaya, H., Rousson, V., Mattle, H. P., Bousser, M. G., & Baumgartner, R. W. (2009). Aspirin vs anticoagulation in carotid artery dissection: A study of 298 patients. Neurology, 72(21), 1810–1815. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a2a50a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schwartz, N. E., Vertinsky, A. T., Hirsch, K. G., & Albers, G. W. (2009). Clinical and radiographic natural history of cervical artery dissections. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases: The Official Journal of National Stroke Association, 18(6), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2008.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Weimar, C., Kraywinkel, K., Hagemeister, C., Haass, A., Katsarava, Z., Brunner, F., Haverkamp, C., Schmid, E., Diener, H. C., German Stroke Study Collaboration. (2010). Recurrent stroke after cervical artery dissection. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 81(8), 869–873. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2009.192153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Divjak, I., Slankamenac, P., Jovićević, M., Zikić, T. R., Prokin, A. L., & Jovanović, A. (2011). A case series of 22 patients with internal carotid artery dissection. Medicinski Pregled, 64(11–12), 575–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Yaghi, S., Maalouf, N., & Keyrouz, S. G. (2012). Cervical artery dissection: Risk factors, treatment, and outcome; a 5-year experience from a tertiary care center. The International Journal of Neuroscience, 122(1), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/00207454.2011.622453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Arauz, A., Ruiz, A., Pacheco, G., Rojas, P., Rodríguez-Armida, M., Cantú, C., Murillo-Bonilla, L., Ruiz-Sandoval, J. L., & Barinagarrementeria, F. (2013). Aspirin versus anticoagulation in intra- and extracranial vertebral artery dissection. European Journal of Neurology, 20(1), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2012.03825.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Machet, A., Fonseca, A. C., Oppenheim, C., Touzé, E., Meder, J. F., Mas, J. L., & Naggara, O. (2013). Does anticoagulation promote mural hematoma growth or delayed occlusion in spontaneous cervical artery dissections? Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 35(2), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1159/000346592

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Caprio, F. Z., Bernstein, R. A., Alberts, M. J., Curran, Y., Bergman, D., Korutz, A. W., Syed, F., Ansari, S. A., & Prabhakaran, S. (2014). Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with cervical artery dissections. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 38(4), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1159/000366265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Kelly, J. C., Safain, M. G., Roguski, M., Edlow, A. G., & Malek, A. M. (2014). Postpartum internal carotid and vertebral arterial dissections. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 123(4), 848–856. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yamaoka, Y., Ichikawa, Y., Kimura, T., Sameshima, T., Ochiai, C., & Morita, A. (2014). A novel method for transcranial Doppler microembolic signal monitoring at the vertebrobasilar junction in vertebral artery dissection patients. Journal of Neuroimaging : Official Journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging, 24(2), 191–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6569.2012.00749.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Shanmugalingam, R., Reza Pour, N., Chuah, S. C., Vo, T. M., Beran, R., Hennessy, A., & Makris, A. (2016). Vertebral artery dissection in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: A case series and literature review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16(1), 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0953-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Brunser, A. M., Lavados, P. M., Hoppe, A., Muñoz-Venturelli, P., Sujima, E., López, J., Mansilla, E., Cárcamo, D., & Díaz, V. (2017). Transcranial doppler as a predictor of ischemic events in carotid artery dissection. Journal of Neuroimaging: Official Journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging, 27(2), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/jon.12379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Daou, B., Hammer, C., Mouchtouris, N., Starke, R. M., Koduri, S., Yang, S., Jabbour, P., Rosenwasser, R., & Tjoumakaris, S. (2017). Anticoagulation vs antiplatelet treatment in patients with carotid and vertebral artery dissection: A study of 370 patients and literature review. Neurosurgery, 80(3), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyw086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ramchand, P., Mullen, M. T., Bress, A., Hurst, R., Kasner, S. E., Cucchiara, B. L., & Messé, S. R. (2018). Recanalization after extracranial dissection: Effect of antiplatelet compared with anticoagulant therapy. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases: The Official Journal of National Stroke Association, 27(2), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.09.065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Baldino, G., Di Girolamo, C., De Blasis, G., & Gori, A. (2020). Eagle syndrome and internal carotid artery dissection: Description of five cases treated in two Italian institutions and review of the literature. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 67, 565.e17-565.e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2020.02.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Chen, F., Liu, X., Qiu, T., Jia, C., Liu, M., Jin, Q., Gao, P., & Li, X. (2020). Cervical posterior Spinal artery syndrome caused by spontaneous vertebral artery dissection: Two case reports and literature review. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases: The Official Journal of National Stroke Association, 29(3), 104601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2019.104601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Fisher, C. M., Ojemann, R. G., & Roberson, G. H. (1978). Spontaneous dissection of cervico-cerebral arteries. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences. Le Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques, 5(1), 9–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Luken, M. G., 3rd., Ascherl, G. F., Jr., Correll, J. W., & Hilal, S. K. (1979). Spontaneous dissecting aneurysms of the extracranial internal carotid artery. Clinical Neurosurgery, 26, 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/neurosurgery/26.cn_suppl_1.353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Friedman, W. A., Day, A. L., Quisling, R. G., Sypert, G. W., & Rhoton, A. L., Jr. (1980). Cervical carotid dissecting aneurysms. Neurosurgery, 7(3), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-198009000-00001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sellier, N., Chiras, J., Benhamou, M., & Bories, J. (1983). Spontaneous dissection of the internal carotid artery. Clinical, radiologic and evolutive aspects. Apropos of 46 cases. Journal of Neuroradiology = Journal de Neuroradiologie, 10(3), 243–259.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Chen, S. T., Ryu, S. J., & Hsi, M. S. (1984). Cervico-cerebral artery dissection. Taiwan yi xue hui za zhi. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 83(8), 846–861.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Vanneste, J. A., & Davies, G. (1984). Spontaneous dissection of the cervical internal carotid artery. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, 86(4), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0303-8467(84)90295-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Mokri, B., Sundt, T. M., Jr., Houser, O. W., & Piepgras, D. G. (1986). Spontaneous dissection of the cervical internal carotid artery. Annals of Neurology, 19(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.410190204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Mokri, B., Houser, O. W., Sandok, B. A., & Piepgras, D. G. (1988). Spontaneous dissections of the vertebral arteries. Neurology, 38(6), 880–885. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.38.6.880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kaps, M., Dorndorf, W., Damian, M. S., & Agnoli, L. (1990). Intracranial haemodynamics in patients with spontaneous carotid dissection. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound follow-up studies. European Archives of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences, 239(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01738579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Landini, G., Cordopatri, F., Scarti, L., Spolveri, S., Pennati, P., & Rosselli, A. (1996). Dissezione dei vasi epiaortici: una patologia emergente come causa di ischemia cerebrale focale. Valutazione di una casistica di 7 pazienti [Dissection of the epiaortic vessels: an emergency pathology as the cause of focal cerebral ischemia. The evaluation of a case load of 7 patients]. Annali Italiani di Medicina Interna : Organo Ufficiale Della Societa Italiana di Medicina Interna, 11(1), 12–16.

  73. Biousse, V., Schaison, M., Touboul, P. J., D’Anglejan-Chatillon, J., & Bousser, M. G. (1998). Ischemic optic neuropathy associated with internal carotid artery dissection. Archives of Neurology, 55(5), 715–719. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.55.5.715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Dziewas, R., Konrad, C., Dräger, B., Evers, S., Besselmann, M., Lüdemann, P., Kuhlenbäumer, G., Stögbauer, F., & Ringelstein, E. B. (2003). Cervical artery dissection–clinical features, risk factors, therapy and outcome in 126 patients. Journal of Neurology, 250(10), 1179–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-003-0174-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Touzé, E., Gauvrit, J. Y., Moulin, T., Meder, J. F., Bracard, S., Mas, J. L., Multicenter Survey on Natural History of Cervical Artery Dissection. (2003). Risk of stroke and recurrent dissection after a cervical artery dissection: A multicenter study. Neurology, 61(10), 1347–1351. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000094325.95097.86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Simões, R., Biscoito, L., Parreira, E., & Pinto, A. (2007). A comparison study of cervical artery dissections—hospital series of 61 patients. Sinapse, 7, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Metso, T. M., Metso, A. J., Salonen, O., Haapaniemi, E., Putaala, J., Artto, V., Helenius, J., Kaste, M., & Tatlisumak, T. (2009). Adult cervicocerebral artery dissection: A single-center study of 301 Finnish patients. European Journal of Neurology, 16(6), 656–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02535.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Gensicke, H., Ahlhelm, F., Jung, S., von Hessling, A., Traenka, C., Goeggel Simonetti, B., Peters, N., Bonati, L. H., Fischer, U., Broeg-Morvay, A., Seiffge, D. J., Gralla, J., Stippich, C., Baumgartner, R. W., Lyrer, P. A., Arnold, M., & Engelter, S. T. (2015). New ischaemic brain lesions in cervical artery dissection stratified to antiplatelets or anticoagulants. European Journal of Neurology, 22(5), 859-e61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.12682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Markus, H. S., Levi, C., King, A., Madigan, J., Norris, J., Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) Investigators. (2019). Antiplatelet therapy vs anticoagulation therapy in cervical artery dissection: the cervical artery dissection in stroke study (CADISS) randomized clinical trial final results. JAMA Neurology, 76(6), 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0072

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study Trial Investigators. (2007). Antiplatelet therapy vs. anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection: rationale and design of the cervical artery dissection in stroke study (CADISS). International Journal of Stroke: Official Journal of the International Stroke Society, 2(4), 292–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2007.00165.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rosati, L. M., Vezzetti, A., Redd, K. T., McMillian, B., Giamberardino, L., Kodumuri, N., Kothari, R., Yallapragada, A. V., & Sen, S. (2020). Early anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy is critical in craniocervical artery dissection: results from the COMPASS registry. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 49(4), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Hacke, W., Kaste, M., Skyhoj Olsen, T., Orgogozo, J. M., & Bogousslavsky, J. (2000). European Stroke Initiative (EUSI) recommendations for stroke management. The European Stroke Initiative Writing Committee. European Journal of Neurology, 7(6), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-1331.2000.00137.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Committee, E. S. I. E., Writing Committee, E. U. S. I., Olsen, T. S., Langhorne, P., Diener, H. C., Hennerici, M., Ferro, J., Sivenius, J., Wahlgren, N. G., & Bath, P. (2003). European stroke initiative recommendations for stroke management-update 2003. Cerebrovascular Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 16(4), 311–337. https://doi.org/10.1159/000072554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Mustanoja, S., Metso, T. M., Putaala, J., Heikkinen, N., Haapaniemi, E., Salonen, O., & Tatlisumak, T. (2015). Helsinki experience on nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants for treating cervical artery dissection. Brain and Behavior, 5(8), e00349. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.349

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Cappellari, M., & Bovi, P. (2017). Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cervical artery dissection and cerebral venous thrombosis. A case series and review of the literature. International Journal of Cardiology, 244, 282–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

The study acquired no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Ei Zune The, Benjamin Yong-Qiang Tan, Chee Seong Raymond Seet, Hock Luen Teoh, Joy Vijayan & Leong Litt Leonard Yeo

  2. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK

    Ei Zune The

  3. Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Rd, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK

    Ei Zune The

  4. University of Medicine 1, Yangon, Myanmar

    Ne Naing Lin

  5. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Ching Jocelyn Chan & Jason Cher Wei Loon

Authors
  1. Ei Zune The
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ne Naing Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ching Jocelyn Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jason Cher Wei Loon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin Yong-Qiang Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chee Seong Raymond Seet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hock Luen Teoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Joy Vijayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Leong Litt Leonard Yeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The meta-analysis was conceived and planned by EZT, CSRS, and HLT. Data acquisition was done by EZT, NNL, CJC, and JCWL. Data analysis was done by EZT and NNL. The interpretation of the results were done by EZT, NNL, BYQT, CSRS, HLT, JV, and LLLY. Manuscript drafting was done by EZT, NNL, CJC, and JCWL and revised critically by EZT, BYQT, CSRS, HLT, JV, and LLLY. All authors agreed on and accountable for the final version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ei Zune The.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors did not seek ethics approval since the study uses existing data from previously published articles.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file1:

Table S1. Search words used and the steps involved for MEDLINE database search. Figure S1. Forest plot for ischaemic stroke outcome in carotid artery dissection alone. Figure S2. Forest plot for ischaemic stroke or TIA outcome in carotid artery dissection alone. Figure S3. Forest plot for death outcome in carotid artery dissection alone. Figure S4. Forest plot for ischaemic stroke outcome in vertebral artery dissection alone. Figure S5. Forest plot for ischaemic stroke or TIA outcome in vertebral artery dissection alone. Figure S6. Forest plot for death outcome in vertebral artery dissection alone.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

The, E.Z., Lin, N.N., Chan, C.J. et al. Antiplatelets or anticoagulants? Secondary prevention in cervical artery dissection: an updated meta-analysis. Neurol. Res. Pract. 4, 23 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-022-00188-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-022-00188-7

Keywords

Neurological Research and Practice

ISSN: 2524-3489

Contact us