IMR Press / RCM / Volume 23 / Issue 1 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2301009
Open Access Review
Disparities between guideline statements on acute and post-acute management of cervical artery dissection
Show Less
1 Department of Neurology, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2 Excellence initiative VASCage (Center for Promoting Vascular Health in the Ageing Community), Research Center on Vascular Ageing and Stroke, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
*Correspondence: lukas.mayer@i-med.ac.at (Lukas Mayer-Suess)
Academic Editors: Filippos Triposkiadis, Massimo Volpe, Grigorios Korosoglou and Matteo Cameli
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2301009
Submitted: 17 November 2021 | Revised: 6 December 2021 | Accepted: 13 December 2021 | Published: 11 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-the-Art Cardiovascular Medicine in Europe 2022)
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract

Even though cervical artery dissection is one of the main reasons for ischemic stroke in young patients, acute management and post-acute primary or secondary prevention of cerebral ischemia differ significantly in different centers and countries. These discrepancies are reflected by the differences in guideline recommendations of major stroke societies. Our narrative review aims to shed light on the different recommendations in guideline-statements of stroke societies and to give an overview of the current literature concerning acute management and post-acute treatment of cervical artery dissection patients. In general, intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy are recommended, irrespective of stroke etiology, if administered within the label. Secondary prevention of cerebral ischemia can be achieved by antiplatelet intake or anticoagulation, with, to date, neither treatment establishing superiority over the other. Duration of antithrombotic treatment, statin use as well as optimal endovascular approach are still up for debate and need further evaluation. Additionally, it is still unknown, whether the recommendations given in any of the guideline statements are similarly relevant in spontaneous and traumatic cervical artery dissection, as none of the stroke societies differentiates between the two.

Keywords
Dissection
Treatment
Stroke
Guideline
Acute management
Share
Back to top