A recent observational study conducted by Shadi Yaghi, MD, of Brown Medical School in Providence, Rhode Island, explored the efficacy of anticoagulation compared to antiplatelet medication for stroke prevention after cervical artery dissection. The study included a total of 4,023 patients from 63 sites in 16 countries. The results were published in Stroke and presented at the American Stroke Association International Stroke Conference.
The study found that anticoagulation was at least as effective as antiplatelet medication for stroke prevention in patients with cervical artery dissection. While the numerical data showed that subsequent ischemic strokes were slightly less common in the anticoagulation group compared to the antiplatelet group at both 30 days (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45-1.12) and 180 days (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28-2.24), the difference was not statistically significant. However, for patients with occlusive dissection, anticoagulation showed a significant advantage (aHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18-0.88, P=0.009 for interaction).
One concern when using anticoagulation is the risk of major hemorrhage. The study found that in the first 30 days, anticoagulation did not carry a higher risk of major hemorrhage compared to antiplatelet medication (aHR 1.39, 95% CI 0.35-5.45, P=0.637). However, after 180 days, the risk of major hemorrhage became substantial (aHR 5.56, 95% CI 1.53-20.13, P=0.009). The researchers concluded that if anticoagulation is chosen, switching to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days may lower the risk of major bleeding.
Discussing the findings, Lauren Sansing, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, noted that early anticoagulation may be more beneficial, but after 30 days, it might be better to switch to antiplatelet therapy. However, she emphasized that there is no wrong way to approach treatment and that clinicians have been relying on intuition in the absence of clear guidelines.
Two prior trials, CADISS and TREAT-CAD, compared anticoagulation with antiplatelet therapy for cervical artery dissection. However, these trials did not definitively answer the question of superiority. The current study, with its large sample size of 4,023 patients, provides valuable insights, but there are limitations to consider. The study design was retrospective and observational, which introduces the potential for bias. Additionally, there was a lack of central and blinded outcome adjudication, and the study relied on inverse probability weighting and propensity matching to mitigate confounding by indication.
The findings of this study suggest that anticoagulation may be a viable option for reducing ischemic stroke risk in patients with cervical artery dissection, particularly those with occlusive dissection. However, more research is needed to validate these findings through large prospective studies. These studies would provide more definitive answers regarding the efficacy of anticoagulation and help guide clinical decision-making.
The study by Yaghi et al. highlights the potential benefits of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with cervical artery dissection. While the results did not show a statistically significant difference between anticoagulation and antiplatelet use, the advantage of anticoagulation in patients with occlusive dissection raises interesting possibilities. Clinicians should carefully consider individual patient factors and preferences when deciding on the appropriate treatment approach. Importantly, this study emphasizes the need for further research to establish clear guidelines and advance the field of stroke prevention in cervical artery dissection.
Leave a Reply