Search

Background: The optimal endovascular management of cervical carotid dissection causing tandem occlusion remains uncertain. We investigated the impact of emergent carotid stenting during endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in patients with tandem occlusion secondary to cervical carotid artery dissection. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of patients treated with EVT for AIS due to occlusive carotid artery dissection and tandem occlusion included in the retrospective international Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection (STOP-CAD) study. We compared patients with and without emergent stenting. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 24h after EVT. Procedural outcome was successful intracranial recanalization (mTICI 2b/3). We used mixed-effect logistic regression adjusting for site, age, and NIHSS. In additional analyses, we used inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjusted for ASPECTS. Results: Of the 4023 patients enrolled in STOP-CAD, 328 presented with anterior circulation AIS due to tandem occlusion and underwent EVT. The median age was 51 years (interquartile range 44-58), and 96 patients (29.3%) were female. One hundred fifty patients (45.7%) underwent emergent stenting. There was no significant association between stenting and 90-day functional independence (62.0% vs 59.7%; aOR 1.23, 95% CI 0.82-1.86, p=0.315) or sICH (7.3% vs 7.9%; aOR OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.41-2.2, p=0.913). Emergent carotid stenting was associated with successful intracranial recanalization (81.8% vs 76.6% aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.52-4.5, p<0.001). Results did not meaningfully change in additional analyses. Conclusion: In patients presenting with an acute anterior circulation tandem occlusion secondary to cervical carotid artery dissection, emergent stenting was associated with a higher likelihood of successful intracranial recanalization but not improved functional outcomes or increased sICH. It remains unclear whether emergent stenting led to successful intracranial recanalization or patients with successful intracranial recanalization were more likely to be stented. Randomized trials are warranted.

Background: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation., Methods: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments., Results: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45-1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28-2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35-5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53-20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18-0.88]; P interaction =0.009)., Conclusions: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings., Competing Interests: Disclosures Disclosures provided by Dr Nguyen in compliance with American Heart Association annual Journal Editor Disclosure Questionnaire are available at https://www.ahajournals.org/editor-coi-disclosures. Dr Arnold reports compensation from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Covidien, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Amgen for consultant services. Dr Lester reports a provisional patent for Methods and compositions for disrupting tau aggregates. Dr Touze reports compensation from Elsevier for other services and employment by Caen. J.E. Kaufman reports grants from Goldschmidt Jacobson-Stiftung. Dr Traenka reports travel support from Bayer Healthcare. Dr Aguiar de Sousa reports compensation from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Fundação Bial for other services; compensation from the University of British Columbia for data and safety monitoring services; compensation from Organon & Co for consultant services. Dr Rosa reports grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation. Dr Field reports compensation from HLS Therapeutics, AstraZeneca Canada, and Roche for consultant services; service as a board member for Destine Health; and compensation from the Canadian Medical Protective Association for expert witness services; and grants from Bayer. Dr Leker reports compensation from Medtronic, Ischemaview, Bayer, Abbott Diabetes Care, Biogen, Janssen Biotech, and Boehringer Ingelheim for other services. Dr Nolte reports compensation from Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals for consultant services; and compensation from AstraZeneca, Abbott Canada, Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen, Novartis, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Deutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislaufforschung, and Novartis for other services. Dr Poppe reports grants from Foundation Brain Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Stryker; and compensation from Roche for other services. Dr Liebeskind reports compensation from Medtronic, Genentech, Cerenovus, Stryker, and Rapid Medical Ltd, for consultant services. B. Mac Grory reports grants from the National Institutes of Health; employment by Duke University Medical Center; compensation from Bayer for other services; grants from the American Heart Association, Duke Bass Connections, and the Duke Office of Physician Scientist Development. Dr Al Kasab reports compensation from Stryker for other services and employment by Medical University of South Carolina. Dr Kicielinski reports compensation from Stryker, Penumbra Inc, Medtronic, and MicroVention Inc, for other services; travel support from MicroVention Inc; and employment by Medical University of South Carolina and Elsevier. Dr de Havenon reports stock options in TitinKM and Certus; grants from the National Institutes of Health; and compensation from Novo Nordisk for consultant services. Dr Siegler reports grants from Philips and employment by the University of Chicago. Dr Willey reports compensation from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Abbott Fund for end point review committee services; compensation from Uptodate for other services; and compensation from the Abbott Laboratories for consultant services. Dr Sharma reports a provisional patent for a stroke etiology classifier algorithm and grants from the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. Dr Martins reports compensation from Pfizer, Medtronic, Servier Affaires Medicales, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Penumbra Inc, and Boehringer Ingelheim for other services. Dr Simpkins reports grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Stretz reports grants from Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr Furie reports compensation from Janssen Biotech for consultant services. The other authors report no conflicts

Objective: Illustrates the importance of differentiating limb-shaking transient ischemic attack (LS-TIA) from focal seizures and carefully selecting patients for intracranial stenting., Background: LS-TIA is associated with severe carotid stenosis or occlusion, often precipitated by cerebral hypoperfusion. A case study of 313 patients with symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis/occlusion reported 11% with LS-TIA. In our literature search, we did not find any other cases of successful treatment of LS-TIA with an intracranial Wingspan stent., Design/methods: A 66-year-old woman with a history of atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and left middle cerebral artery (MCA) stroke followed by a left internal carotid artery (ICA) endarterectomy presented with transient repetitive involuntary movements (TRIMs) over her right upper and lower limbs. She described episodes of numbness followed by TRIMs over the right side of her body lasting for 1 to 2 minutes. TRIMs occurred only while standing and usually resolved on sitting or lying down., Results: Conventional angiogram showed severe stenosis of left supraclinoid ICA and proximal MCA. Brain single photon emission computed tomography scan showed impaired vascular reserve in the left MCA territory. An ambulatory electroencephalogram captured TRIMs without epileptiform discharges. She continued to have symptoms with no improvement over a period of 3 months on maximal medical management. She underwent successful endovascular treatment with the Wingspan stent system in the left M1 segment and terminal ICA. Following the revascularization procedure, her symptoms resolved., Conclusions: It is vitally important to differentiate LS-TIA from focal seizures. This is the first documented case report of complete resolution of LS-TIA symptoms following an intracranial Wingspan stenting.