Abstract W P223: Treatment of Cervical Artery Dissection with Different Antithrombotic Agents

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants are both accepted and commonly used agents for treatment of cervical artery dissection (CAD), though randomized clinical trials are lacking. We report on the use of novel oral anticoagulants for CAD and compared their efficacy and safety to traditional anticoagulants. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients diagnosed with CAD at a single academic center between July 2010 and December 2012. Patients treated with novel anticoagulants (NOAC: dabigatran or rivaroxaban), other anticoagulants (AC: warfarin, heparin, or low molecular weight heparin), or antiplatelet agents (AP: aspirin, clopidogrel, or aspirin-dypyridamole) were compared for baseline characteristics, recurrent stroke, vessel recanalization on follow-up, and bleeding complications using Fisher’s exact and student t-tests. Results: During the study period, 110 patients with CAD were included, of whom 20 (18%), 61 (55%), and 29 (26%) were treated initially with a NOAC, AC, and AP, respectively. Clinical follow-up was available in 98 (89.1%) patients while radiographic follow-up was available in 88 (80%) patients. NOAC-treated patients were more likely to have presented with ischemic stroke symptoms (90% vs. 55.7%, p=0.007) but had similar rates of severe stenosis (60% vs. 53.3%, p=0.522) and intraluminal/intramural thrombus (70% vs. 57.6%, p=0.327) on initial vascular imaging compared to AC patients. There was 1 recurrent stroke in the NOAC group and 1 in the AC group. Similar proportions of patients had resolved or improved stenosis on follow-up imaging (NOAC: 66.7 vs. AC: 63.3%, p=0.217). Hemorrhagic complications were more likely to occur in AC compared to NOAC patients (17.0% vs. 0%, p=0.019). Conclusion: In this retrospective study, use of novel oral anticoagulants for CAD was associated with similar rates of recurrent stroke and vessel recanalization on follow-up imaging but with fewer hemorrhagic complications. Given their safety profile, NOACs may be a reasonable alternative to traditional anticoagulants in CAD. Prospective validation of these findings is needed.