Related Experiment Videos
Treatment of cervical artery dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
1Clinical Neuroscience, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK.
Insights
Current treatments for cervical dissection, including antithrombotic drugs, thrombolysis, and stenting, lack strong evidence. No significant difference was found between antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies for stroke risk. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm treatment efficacy.
Area of Science:
- Neurology
- Vascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Cervical dissection is a significant cause of stroke in young individuals.
- Effective treatment strategies for cervical dissection remain under investigation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness of antithrombotic drugs, thrombolysis, and stenting for cervical dissection.
- To compare anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in the acute phase of cervical dissection.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies.
- Searched Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to April 2007.
- Included studies on anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy, thrombolysis, and stenting.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in death or stroke risk between antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies (p=0.88 and p=0.66, respectively).
- Thrombolysis appears safe but lacks sufficient efficacy data.
- Stenting is technically feasible but lacks efficacy data.
Conclusions:
- Current evidence does not support the superiority of anticoagulants over antiplatelet agents for cervical dissection.
- More research, particularly randomized controlled trials, is needed to establish optimal treatment strategies.
- Thrombolysis and stenting show potential but require further efficacy evaluation.
Background And Purpose:
Cervical dissection is an important cause of stroke in the young. This paper presents a systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches: antithrombotic drugs, thrombolysis and stenting.
Methods:
Medline and PubMed were searched from 1966 to 8 April 2007. Reference lists were reviewed. Separate searches were performed for treatment with anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy during the acute phase (within 1 month of symptoms), thrombolysis and stenting.
Results:
There were only sufficient data for meta-analysis for the comparison of antiplatelet versus anticoagulation therapy. No randomised trials were identified. 34 non-randomised studies included 762 patients. There was no significant difference in risk of death (antiplatelet 5/268 (1.8%), anticoagulation 9/494 (1.8%), p = 0.88); stroke (antiplatelet 5/268 (1.9%), anticoagulant 10/494 (2.0%), p = 0.66), or stroke and death. Four non-randomised studies of thrombolysis provided insufficient data for assessment of efficacy but complication rates were no greater than thrombolysis for other ischaemic stroke. Six studies included 96 patients undergoing stenting for both acute dissection and chronic complications, providing insufficient data for assessment of efficacy, although complication rates appeared similar to those published for carotid atherosclerosic stenosis.
Conclusions:
There are no data to support the therapeutic superiority of anticoagulants over antiplatelet agents. Thrombolysis in dissection appears safe but more data on efficacy are required. Stenting is technically possible but there are no data to demonstrate efficacy. There is little evidence to support current treatment approaches in cervical dissection. Randomised controlled prospective trials, particularly assessing anticoagulation versus antiplatelet agents, are required.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
01:22Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
01:27Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
01:26Arteries of the Head and Neck
The internal carotid arteries supply blood to the anterior portion of the cerebrum. They enter the...