Stenting as a treatment for cranio‐cervical artery dissection: Improved major adverse cardiovascular event‐free survival. Issue 1 (3rd August 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vezzetti, Alexandra; Rosati, Lauren M.; Lowe, Forrest J.; Graham, C. Blease; Moftakhar, Roham; Mangubat, Erwin; Sen, Souvik
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 99:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 134
• Page End: 139
• Publication Date: 2021-08-03
• Subjects: anticoagulation -- antiplatelet -- cervical -- dissection; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29890
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Cranio‐cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is a common cause of cerebrovascular events in young subjects with no clear treatment strategy established. We evaluated the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in CeAD patients treated with and without stent placement. Methods: COMParative effectiveness of treatment options in cervical Artery diSSection (COMPASS) is a single high‐volume center observational, retrospective longitudinal registry that enrolled consecutive CeAD patients over a 2‐year period. Patients were ≥ 18 years of age with confirmed extra‐ or intracranial CeAD on imaging. Enrolled participants were followed for 1 year evaluating MACE as the primary endpoint. Results: One‐hundred ten patients were enrolled (age 53 ± 15.9, 56% Caucasian, and 50% male, BMI 28.9 ± 9.2). Grade I, II, III, and IV blunt vascular injury was noted in 16%, 33%, 19%, and 32%, respectively. Predisposing factors were noted in the majority (78%), including sneezing, carrying heavy load, chiropractic manipulation. Stent was placed in 10 (10%) subjects (extracranial carotid n = 9; intracranial carotid n = 1; extracranial vertebral n = 1) at the physician's discretion along with medical management. Reasons for stent placement were early development of high‐grade stenosis or expanding pseudoaneurysm. Stented patients experienced no procedural or in‐hospital complications and no MACE between discharge and 1 year follow up. CeAD patients treated with medical management only had 14% MACE at 1 year. Conclusion: In this single high‐volume center cohort of CeAD patients, stenting was found to be beneficial, particularly with development of high‐grade stenosis or expanding pseudoaneurysm. These results warrant confirmation by a randomized clinical trial.