Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection: The STOP-CAD Study

Background: Small, randomized trials of cervical artery dissection (CAD) patients showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with CAD treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. Methods: This is a multi-center observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included CAD patients without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation vs. 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 (IPTW) to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an "as treated" cross-over approach and only included outcomes occurring on the above treatments. Results: The study included 3,636 patients [402 (11.1%) received exclusively anticoagulation and 2,453 (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 IPTW, compared to antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a non-significantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted 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) (Pinteraction=0.009). Conclusions: Our study does not rule out a 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.

Small vessel disease is associated with later onset of major adverse cardiovascular events after acute cervicocerebral artery dissection

BACKGROUND

Cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) is common among the elderly and has been associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and increased risk of long-term disability. Little is known whether CSVD affects outcomes after cervicocerebral artery dissection (CAD), which predominantly affects younger patients. Specifically, there is a paucity as to whether CSVD increases the risk of MACE after CAD and whether this risk is different for early versus late events.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 140 consecutive patients with acute CAD. We determined CSVD on MRI using the STRIVE criteria and calculated the CSVD sum score based on the individual CSVD components. For statistical analysis the CSVD burden was dichotomized to mild (score 0-1) versus severe (score 2-4). The primary outcome of interest was the 6-month MACE risk. Secondary outcomes of interest were early versus late MACE, stroke at presentation, and good 90-day outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2).

RESULTS

There was no difference in overall MACE between subjects when stratified by CSVD burden (10.1% versus 9.8%, Log-rank P = 0.953). We found that patients with severe CSVD had significantly more late MACE as compared to mild CSVD (9.8% versus 1.1%, P = 0.024). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of stroke at the time of CAD diagnosis (50.6% versus 47.1%, P = 0.690) and the 90-day disability-free survival in subjects with mild versus severe CSVD (93.7% versus 91.7%, P = 0.729).

CONCLUSION

Severe CSVD burden was associated with a significantly greater risk of late MACE. CSVD assessment in CAD patients may aid risk stratification and treatment optimization.

Pre-stroke Adherence to Hypertension Medications in a Bi-racial United States Stroke Belt

INTRODUCTION

Blood pressure is not optimally reduced in 3 of 4 patients with hypertension (HTN) in the United States.

AIM

We analyzed for factors associations with premorbid non-adherence to HTN medications in acute stroke patients.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 225 acute stroke patients with self-reported adherence to HTM medications in a stroke registry in the Southeastern United States. We defined medication non-adherence as < 90% of prescribed. Logistic regression analyzed demographic and socioeconomic factors for prediction of adherence.

RESULTS

There were 145 (64%) patients with adherence and 80 (36%) with non-adherence. The likelihood of adherence to HTN medications was decreased among black patients, OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26-0.93), p = 0.03, and those without health insurance, OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.13-0.64), p = 0.002. Specific reasons for non-adherence were high medication cost in 26 (33%), side effects in 8 (10%), and other unspecified reasons in 46 (58%) patients.

CONCLUSION

In this study, adherence to HTN medications was significantly lower among black patients and those without health insurance.

Antiplatelet use and CADASIL: a retrospective observational analysis

OBJECTIVES

Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) is hallmarked by age-dependent accumulation of microangiopathy with antiplatelet medications commonly used for stroke prevention though without known therapeutic benefit. Our objective was to identify whether antiplatelet therapy impacted the incidence of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in those with reported CADASIL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Owing to the rarity of the disease, we performed a retrospective study of anonymized data from the international TriNetX Research Network (Oct 2015 through January 2021). Individuals had an ICD-10 code (I67.850) for CADASIL. The primary outcome was incidence of validated ICD-10 codes for AIS (I63) and ICH (I61) linked with unique hospital admission encounters. The primary exposure was use of an antiplatelet medication for at least 1 month prior to the primary outcome. Age-adjusted logistic regression was used for likelihood ratios.

RESULTS

We identified 455 individuals: 36% female, 40 (8.8%) antiplatelet exposed. Those with antiplatelet use were older (antiplatelet: 61±12 years vs. unexposed: 57±14 years, p = 0.034) with similar rates of AIS [antiplatelet: 23%(9/40) vs. unexposed: 14%(60/415); p=0.18] and ICH [antiplatelet: 3%(1/40) vs. unexposed: 5%(19/415); p = 0.54) and without significant impact on age-adjusted AIS likelihood (OR 1.62, 95%CI 0.73-3.60, p=0.23). Sample size precluded ICH regression analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that antiplatelet use did not significantly impact incidence of AIS or ICH within a group of individuals with suspected CADASIL This study highlights the need for further understanding of the pathophysiology of CADASIL to lead to disease modifying treatments.

Abstract TP163: Antiplatelet Use And CADASIL: A Multicenter Analysis Of The Trinetx Research Database

Introduction: Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) is hallmarked by a mutation in the NOTCH3 receptor resulting in impaired cerebrovascular autoregulation with subsequent vessel fragility and progressive accumulation of cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). Antiplatelet medications are commonly prescribed for secondary stroke prevention though this is of unknown therapeutic benefit in preventing acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to identify whether antiplatelet therapy reduced incidence of AIS in those with reported CADASIL.

Methods: Data was collected through the TriNetX Research Network database. Those included were adults with the ICD-10 code (I67.850) for CADASIL. The primary outcome was the validated ICD-10 code for AIS (I63) which were linked with hospital admission encounters. Demographic data and medication use was recorded. The primary exposure was use of an antiplatelet medication for at least 1 month prior to admission for AIS. Standard descriptive and regression analyses were used.

Results: Our cohort included 455 individuals: mean age 57±14 years, 36% being female and with similar rates of vascular risk factors between the groups. The antiplatelet cohort was older (antiplatelet: 61 ± 12 yrs vs. unexposed: 57±14 yrs, p = 0.034) and included 40 (8.8%) participants. Rate of AIS trended higher in the antiplatelet group but was not significantly different (antiplatelet: 23%, 9/40 vs. unexposed: 14%, 60/415; p=0.18). Age adjusted logistic regression showed higher odds of AIS (OR 1.62, 95%CI 0.73 - 3.60, p = 0.23).

Conclusions: In this hypothesis generating study, our data suggests that antiplatelet use did not significantly impact incidence of AIS. It is unclear if the likelihood findings are related to the natural history of the disease, though this model accounted for differences in age. Further studies are needed to improve power for robust statistical analysis to confirm or refute our findings.