Antithrombotic drugs for carotid artery dissection: Updated systematic review

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Introduction: Extracranial internal carotid artery dissection (eICAD) is a leading cause of stroke in younger patients. In this Cochrane Review update we compared benefits and harms of eICAD-patients treated with either antiplatelets or anticoagulants. Patients and methods: Eligible studies were identified through Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE and personal search until December 2023. We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets in eICAD-patients. Co-primary outcomes were (i) death (all causes) and (ii) death or disability. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and major extracranial hemorrhage. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs were calculated for (i) all studies and (ii) separately for RCTs and non-randomized studies. Results: We meta-analyzed a total of 42 studies (2624 patients) including 2 RCTs (213 patients) for the primary outcome of death and 31 studies (1953 patients) including 1 RCT (115 patients) for the primary outcome of death or disability. Antiplatelet-treated patients had higher odds for death (ORall-studies 2.70, 95% CI 1.27–5.72; ORRTCs 6.80, 95% CI 0.14–345; ORnon-randomized studies 2.60, 95% CI 1.20–5.60) and death or disability (ORall-studies 2.1, 95% CI 1.58–2.66; ORRTCs 2.2, 95% CI 0.29–16.05; ORnon-randomized studies 2.1, 95% CI 1.58–2.66) than anticoagulated patients. Antiplatelet-treated patients had also higher odds for ischemic stroke, though this reached statistical significance only in the subgroup of RCTs (ORRTC 4.60, 95% CI 1.36–15.51). In turn, antiplatelet-treated patients had less symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ORall-studies 0.25, 95% CI 0.07–0.86) and a tendency toward less major extracranial hemorrhage (ORall-studies 0.17, 95% CI 0.03–1.03). Discussion and conclusion: The evidence considering antiplatelets as standard of care in eICAD is weak. Individualized treatment decisions balancing risks versus harms seem recommendable.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.