Dataset Information

Antiplatelet Therapy vs Anticoagulation Therapy in Cervical Artery Dissection: The Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) Randomized Clinical Trial Final Results.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, particularly in younger individuals. In some but not all observational studies, it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet agents (APs) and anticoagulants (ACs) are used to reduce stroke risk, but whether 1 treatment strategy is more effective is unknown. Objective:To determine whether AP or AC therapy is more effective in preventing stroke in cervical dissection and the risk of recurrent stroke in a randomized clinical trial setting. A secondary outcome was to determine the effect on arterial imaging outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized, prospective, open-label international multicenter parallel design study with central blinded review of both clinical and imaging end points. Recruitment was conducted in 39 stroke and neurology secondary care centers in the United Kingdom and 7 centers in Australia between February 24, 2006, and June 17, 2013. One-year follow-up and analysis was conducted in 2018. Two hundred fifty participants with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection with symptom onset within the last 7 days were recruited. Follow-up data at 1 year were available for all participants. Interventions:Randomization to AP or AC (heparin followed by warfarin) for 3 months, after which the choice of AP and AC agents was decided by the local clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was ipsilateral stroke and death. A planned per protocol (PP) analysis was performed in patients meeting the inclusion criteria following central review of imaging to confirm the diagnosis of dissection. A secondary end point was angiographic recanalization in those with imaging confirmed dissection. Results:Two hundred fifty patients were randomized (118 carotid and 132 vertebral), 126 to AP and 124 to AC. Mean (SD) age was 49 (12) years. Mean (SD) time to randomization was 3.65 (1.91) days. The recurrent stroke rate at 1 year was 6 of 250 (2.4%) on ITT analysis and 5 of 197 (2.5%) on PP analysis. There were no significant differences between treatment groups for any outcome. Of the 181 patients with confirmed dissection and complete imaging at baseline and 3 months, there was no difference in the presence of residual narrowing or occlusion between those receiving AP (n?=?56 of 92) vs those receiving AC (n?=?53 of 89) (P?=?.97). Conclusions and Relevance:During 12 months of follow-up, the number of recurrent strokes was low. There was no difference between treatment groups in outcome events or the rate of recanalization. Trial Registration:ISRCTN.com Identifier: CTN44555237.

SUBMITTER: Markus HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563567 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antiplatelet Therapy vs Anticoagulation Therapy in Cervical Artery Dissection: The Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) Randomized Clinical Trial Final Results.

Markus Hugh S HS Levi Christopher C King Alice A Madigan Jeremy J Norris John J

JAMA neurology 20190601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, particularly in younger individuals. In some but not all observational studies, it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet agents (APs) and anticoagulants (ACs) are used to reduce stroke risk, but whether 1 treatment strategy is more effective is unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether AP or AC therapy is more effective in preventing stroke in cervic ...[more]

PMID: 30801621

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: The optimal management for cervical artery dissection (CAD) is uncertain. This study aimed to summarize the current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies for CAD. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the major databases, such as MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Only the RCTs comparing the antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies for the patients with CAD were included. Combined estimates of the relative risk (RR) of antiplatelet vs. anticoagulation were analyzed. Heterogeneity was measured using the I 2 statistical analysis. The analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) population, respectively. Results: Two RCTs involving 444 patients in the ITT population and 370 patients in the PP population were included. The quality of studies was high overall. In the ITT population, compared with the patients in the anticoagulation group, the patients in the antiplatelet group showed a higher rate of ischemic stroke within 3 months (RR = 6.73 [95% CI, 1.22-37.15], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.029). No difference between these two treatment groups was found for the outcomes of transient ischemic attack (RR = 0.37 [95% CI, 0.09-1.58], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.181), intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.01-7.98], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.494), major extracranial bleeding (RR = 0.31 [95% CI, 0.01-7.60], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.476), or the composite of these outcomes within 3 months. For the PP population, the results of the meta-analysis of outcomes between the antiplatelet and anticoagulation groups were consistent with the ITT population. Conclusions: Compared with the antiplatelet group, the anticoagulation group has a lower risk of ischemic stroke without increasing bleeding risk when treating CAD. Anticoagulation seems to be superior over the antiplatelet in treating CAD but needs to be further tested by specifying several issues, such as location, initial symptom types, and treatment protocols.

Project description:IntroductionIn patients with stroke attributable to cervical artery dissection, we compared endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis regarding three-month outcome, recanalisation and complications.Materials and methodsIn a multicentre intravenous thrombolysis/endovascular therapy-register-based cohort study, all consecutive cervical artery dissection patients with intracranial artery occlusion treated within 6 h were eligible for analysis. Endovascular therapy patients (with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis) were compared to intravenous thrombolysis patients regarding (i) excellent three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1), (ii) symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (iii) recanalisation of the occluded intracranial artery and (iv) death. Upon a systematic literature review, we performed a meta-analysis comparing endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients regarding three-month outcome using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model.ResultsAmong 62 cervical artery dissection patients (median age 48.8 years), 24 received intravenous thrombolysis and 38 received endovascular therapy. Excellent three-month outcome occurred in 23.7% endovascular therapy and 20.8% with intravenous thrombolysis patients. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred solely among endovascular therapy patients (5/38 patients, 13.2%) while four (80%) of these patients had bridging therapy; 6/38 endovascular therapy and 0/24 intravenous thrombolysis patients died. Four of these 6 endovascular therapy patients had bridging therapy. Recanalisation was achieved in 84.2% endovascular therapy patients and 66.7% intravenous thrombolysis patients (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval [0.9-11.38]). Sensitivity analyses in a subgroup treated within 4.5 h revealed a higher recanalisation rate among endovascular therapy patients (odds ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval [1.00-14.95]), but no change in the key clinical findings. In a meta-analysis across eight studies (n = 212 patients), cervical artery dissection patients (110 intravenous thrombolysis and 102 endovascular therapy) showed identical odds for favourable outcome (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.38-2.44]) among endovascular therapy patients and intravenous thrombolysis patients.Discussion and conclusionIn this cohort study, there was no clear signal of superiority of endovascular therapy over intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients, which - given the limitation of our sample size - does not prove that endovascular therapy in these patients cannot be superior in future studies. The observation that symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and deaths in the endovascular therapy group occurred predominantly in bridging patients requires further investigation.

Project description:Background and objectivesIn young people aged < 50 years, cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is among the most common causes of stroke. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the safest and most effective antithrombotic treatment for CeAD. We aimed to synthesize concrete evidence from studies that compared the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet (AP) versus anticoagulant (AC) therapies for CeAD.MethodsWe searched major electronic databases/search engines from inception till September 2021. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets for CeAD were included. A meta-analysis was conducted using articles that were obtained and found to be relevant. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for continuous data and odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data.ResultsOur analysis included 15 studies involving 2064 patients, 909 (44%) of whom received antiplatelets and 1155 (56%) received anticoagulants. Our analysis showed a non-significant difference in terms of the 3-month mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.58), > 3-month mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.40-6.56), recurrent stroke (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46-2.02), recurrent transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.98), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19), and complete recanalization (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Regarding primary ischaemic stroke, the results favoured AC over AP among RCTs (OR 6.97, 95% CI 1.25-38.83).ConclusionOur study did not show a considerable difference between the two groups, as all outcomes showed non-significant differences between them, except for primary ischaemic stroke (RCTs) and complete recanalization (observational studies), which showed a significant favour of AC over AP. Even though primary ischaemic stroke is an important outcome, several crucial points that could affect these results should be paid attention to. These include the incomplete adjustment for the confounding effect of AP-AC doses, frequencies, administration compliance, and others. We recommend more well-designed studies to assess if unnecessary anticoagulation can be avoided in CeAD.

Project description:PURPOSE:To report a randomized study that investigated the safety (risk of major bleeds) and potential efficacy of edoxaban, an oral anticoagulant that targets the major components of arterial thrombi, to prevent loss of patency following endovascular treatment (EVT). METHODS:Between February 2012 and June 2014, 203 patients who underwent femoropopliteal EVT were randomized to receive aspirin plus edoxaban or aspirin plus clopidogrel for 3 months in the Edoxaban in Peripheral Arterial Disease (ePAD) study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01802775). Randomization assigned 101 patients (mean age 68.0±10.4 years; 67 men) to the edoxaban group and 102 patients (mean age 66.7±8.6 years; 78 men) to the clopidogrel group. The primary safety endpoint was bleeding as classified by the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) criteria and ISTH (International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis) criteria; the efficacy endpoint was the rate of restenosis/reocclusion. RESULTS:There were no major or life-threatening bleeding events in the edoxaban group, while there were 2 major and 2 life-threatening bleeding events in the clopidogrel group by the TIMI criteria. By the ISTH classification, there was 1 major and 1 life-threatening bleeding event vs 5 major and 2 life-threatening bleeding events, respectively [relative risk (RR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.70]. The bleeding risk was not statistically different with either treatment when assessed by TIMI or ISTH. Following 6 months of observation, there was a lower incidence of restenosis/reocclusion with edoxaban compared with clopidogrel (30.9% vs 34.7%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.34, p=0.643). CONCLUSION:These results suggest that patients who have undergone EVT have similar risks for major and life-threatening bleeding events with edoxaban and aspirin compared with clopidogrel and aspirin. The incidence of restenosis/reocclusion events, while not statistically different, was lower with edoxaban and aspirin, but an adequately sized trial will be needed to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Antiplatelet Therapy vs Anticoagulation Therapy in Cervical Artery Dissection: The Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) Randomized Clinical Trial Final Results.

Publications

Antiplatelet Therapy vs Anticoagulation Therapy in Cervical Artery Dissection: The Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS) Randomized Clinical Trial Final Results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets