Search

Background: Assessments of subclinical connective tissue disorders depend on complex approaches, emphasizing the need for more accessible methods applicable to clinical routine. Therefore, we aimed to establish a reliable approach assessing cervical vessel tortuosity, which is known to be associated with such disorders., Methods: Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) images of ReSect study participants [single-center prospective cohort of spontaneous cervical artery dissection (sCeAD) patients] were used. Each patient underwent the same magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol. The segmentation procedure was done using MATrix LABoratory 9.4 [up-sampling of raw MRA images, distance metric (DM) calculation], ITK-SNAP [region of interest (ROI) determination, vessel segmentation] and Vascular Modelling ToolKit (centerline determination). To assess inter-user variability and validity, we (I) had two blinded independent users segment all arteries and we (II) compared the results of our method to visual appraisal of vessel tortuosity done by two blinded expert neuro-radiologists., Results: A total of 526 extracranial cervical arteries were available for analysis. The inter-user variability of our method users was below 0.5% throughout. Overall, our method outperformed the visual tortuosity appraisal, as the visual grading underestimated the DM in 38.8% subjects when tasked to assess overall cervical artery tortuosity (both vertebral and internal carotid arteries) and in 16.6% and 33.3% respectively if tasked to grade anterior or posterior circulation separately., Conclusions: We present a reliable method to assess cervical artery tortuosity derived from MRA images applicable in clinical routine and future research investigating the potential correlation of sCeAD and connective tissue disorder., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-23-1057/coif). All authors report that this study was supported by VASCage-Research Centre on Clinical Stroke Research. VASCage is a COMET Centre within the Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies (COMET) program and funded by the Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Economy, and the federal states of Tyrol, Salzburg and Vienna. COMET is managed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft), FFG Project number: 898252. S.P. Jr reports the support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): project P 29514-N32. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Even though cervical artery dissection is one of the main reasons for ischemic stroke in young patients, acute management and post-acute primary or secondary prevention of cerebral ischemia differ significantly in different centers and countries. These discrepancies are reflected by the differences in guideline recommendations of major stroke societies. Our narrative review aims to shed light on the different recommendations in guideline-statements of stroke societies and to give an overview of the current literature concerning acute management and post-acute treatment of cervical artery dissection patients. In general, intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy are recommended, irrespective of stroke etiology, if administered within the label. Secondary prevention of cerebral ischemia can be achieved by antiplatelet intake or anticoagulation, with, to date, neither treatment establishing superiority over the other. Duration of antithrombotic treatment, statin use as well as optimal endovascular approach are still up for debate and need further evaluation. Additionally, it is still unknown, whether the recommendations given in any of the guideline statements are similarly relevant in spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissection, as none of the stroke societies differentiates between the two., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)