Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, especially in young people. In some observational studies it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulant drugs are used to reduce risk of stroke but whether one treatment strategy is more effective than the other is unknown. We compared their efficacy in the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS), with the additional aim of establishing the true risk of recurrent stroke. METHODS: We did this randomised trial at hospitals with specialised stroke or neurology services (39 in the UK and seven in Australia). We included patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection with onset of symptoms within the past 7 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an automated telephone randomisation service to receive antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulant drugs (specific treatment decided by the local clinician) for 3 months. Patients and clinicians were not masked to allocation, but investigators assessing endpoints were. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke or death in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with EUDract (2006-002827-18) and ISRN (CTN44555237). FINDINGS: We enrolled 250 participants (118 carotid, 132 vertebral). Mean time to randomisation was 3·65 days (SD 1·91). The major presenting symptoms were stroke or transient ischaemic attack (n=224) and local symptoms (headache, neck pain, or Horner's syndrome; n=26). 126 participants were assigned to antiplatelet treatment versus 124 to anticoagulant treatment. Overall, four (2%) of 250 patients had stroke recurrence (all ipsilateral). Stroke or death occurred in three (2%) of 126 patients versus one (1%) of 124 (odds ratio [OR] 0·335, 95% CI 0·006-4·233; p=0·63). There were no deaths, but one major bleeding (subarachnoid haemorrhage) in the anticoagulant group. Central review of imaging failed to confirm dissection in 52 patients. Preplanned per-protocol analysis excluding these patients showed stroke or death in three (3%) of 101 patients in the antiplatelet group versus one (1%) of 96 patients in the anticoagulant group (OR 0·346, 95% CI 0·006-4·390; p=0·66). INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in efficacy of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs at preventing stroke and death in patients with symptomatic carotid and vertebral artery dissection but stroke was rare in both groups, and much rarer than reported in some observational studies. Diagnosis of dissection was not confirmed after review in many cases, suggesting that radiographic criteria are not always correctly applied in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: Stroke Association.Hugh S Markus is supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator award and his work is supported by the Cambridge University Hospital Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre. Adina Feldman was supported by a project grant from the British Heart Foundation (PG/13/30/30005).This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422%2815%2970018-9/abstract

Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial

Background: Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, especially in young people. In some observational studies it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulant drugs are used to reduce risk of stroke but whether one treatment strategy is more effective than the other is unknown. We compared their efficacy in the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS), with the additional aim of establishing the true risk of recurrent stroke. Methods: We did this randomised trial at hospitals with specialised stroke or neurology services (39 in the UK and seven in Australia). We included patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection with onset of symptoms within the past 7 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an automated telephone randomisation service to receive antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulant drugs (specific treatment decided by the local clinician) for 3 months. Patients and clinicians were not masked to allocation, but investigators assessing endpoints were. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke or death in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with EUDract (2006-002827-18) and ISRN (CTN44555237). Findings: We enrolled 250 participants (118 carotid, 132 vertebral). Mean time to randomisation was 3·65 days (SD 1·91). The major presenting symptoms were stroke or transient ischaemic attack (n=224) and local symptoms (headache, neck pain, or Horner's syndrome; n=26). 126 participants were assigned to antiplatelet treatment versus 124 to anticoagulant treatment. Overall, four (2%) of 250 patients had stroke recurrence (all ipsilateral). Stroke or death occurred in three (2%) of 126 patients versus one (1%) of 124 (odds ratio [OR] 0·335, 95% CI 0·006–4·233; p=0·63). There were no deaths, but one major bleeding (subarachnoid haemorrhage) in the anticoagulant group. Central review of imaging failed to confirm dissection in 52 patients. Preplanned per-protocol analysis excluding these patients showed stroke or death in three (3%) of 101 patients in the antiplatelet group versus one (1%) of 96 patients in the anticoagulant group (OR 0·346, 95% CI 0·006–4·390; p=0·66). Interpretation: We found no difference in efficacy of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs at preventing stroke and death in patients with symptomatic carotid and vertebral artery dissection but stroke was rare in both groups, and much rarer than reported in some observational studies. Diagnosis of dissection was not confirmed after review in many cases, suggesting that radiographic criteria are not always correctly applied in routine clinical practice. Funding: Stroke Association.H.S. Markus ... T. Kleinig ... et al. (CADISS trial investigators

Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial

Background Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, especially in young people. In some observational studies it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulant drugs are used to reduce risk of stroke but whether one treatment strategy is more effective than the other is unknown. We compared their efficacy in the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS), with the additional aim of establishing the true risk of recurrent stroke. Methods We did this randomised trial at hospitals with specialised stroke or neurology services (39 in the UK and seven in Australia). We included patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection with onset of symptoms within the past 7 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an automated telephone randomisation service to receive antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulant drugs (specific treatment decided by the local clinician) for 3 months. Patients and clinicians were not masked to allocation, but investigators assessing endpoints were. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke or death in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with EUDract (2006-002827-18) and ISRN (CTN44555237). Findings We enrolled 250 participants (118 carotid, 132 vertebral). Mean time to randomisation was 3·65 days (SD 1·91). The major presenting symptoms were stroke or transient ischaemic attack (n=224) and local symptoms (headache, neck pain, or Horner's syndrome; n=26). 126 participants were assigned to antiplatelet treatment versus 124 to anticoagulant treatment. Overall, four (2%) of 250 patients had stroke recurrence (all ipsilateral). Stroke or death occurred in three (2%) of 126 patients versus one (1%) of 124 (odds ratio [OR] 0·335, 95% CI 0·006–4·233; p=0·63). There were no deaths, but one major bleeding (subarachnoid haemorrhage) in the anticoagulant group. Central review of imaging failed to confirm dissection in 52 patients. Preplanned per-protocol analysis excluding these patients showed stroke or death in three (3%) of 101 patients in the antiplatelet group versus one (1%) of 96 patients in the anticoagulant group (OR 0·346, 95% CI 0·006–4·390; p=0·66). Interpretation We found no difference in efficacy of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs at preventing stroke and death in patients with symptomatic carotid and vertebral artery dissection but stroke was rare in both groups, and much rarer than reported in some observational studies. Diagnosis of dissection was not confirmed after review in many cases, suggesting that radiographic criteria are not always correctly applied in routine clinical practice. Funding Stroke Association

Diagnosis of vertebral artery dissection in childhood posterior circulation arterial ischaemic stroke

Aim: Review a series of children with posterior circulation arterial ischaemic stroke (PCAIS) to identify diagnostic modality and associations in cases of vertebral artery dissection (VAD). Method: Retrospective analysis of 30 cases of childhood PCAIS identified from two tertiary centres over 11 years. Clinical and demographic details were recorded. Brain and cerebrovascular imaging were reviewed. Aetiology was classified using the Childhood Arterial Ischaemic Stroke Standardized Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation criteria. Outcome was evaluated using standardized paediatric stroke outcome scores. Logistic regression was used to explore variables associated with diagnosis. Results: Twenty‐three patients were male (77%) and 7 were female (23%). VAD was the most commonly identified aetiology, in 15 cases (50%). Aetiology was undetermined in 12 (40%), probable cardioembolism in two, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome in one. In those with VAD, diagnosis was made on initial magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in six (40%). Further cases of VAD were diagnosed with catheter angiography (n=6), computed tomographic angiography (n=1), or follow‐up MRA (n=2). Presence of multiple infarcts was associated with a diagnosis of VAD. Interpretation: Endoluminal cerebrovascular imaging increases the rate of diagnosis of VAD in childhood PCAIS and should especially be considered if there are multiple infarcts