JNNP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
[Advanced]

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Published Online First: 26 February 2008. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.138800
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Menon, R.
Right arrow Articles by Markus, H. S
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Menon, R.
Right arrow Articles by Markus, H. S

Original articles

Treatment of cervical artery dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ranjith Menon 1, Sally Kerry 1, John W Norris 1 and Hugh S Markus 1*

1 St George's University of London, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: hmarkus{at}sgul.ac.uk.

Accepted 1 February 2008


*  Abstract

Background and Purpose: Cervical dissection is an important cause of stroke in the young. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of different treatment approaches; antithrombotic drugs, thrombolysis, and stenting.

Methods: Medline and PubMed were searched from 1966 to 8th April 2007. Reference lists were reviewed. Separate searches were performed for treatment with anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy during the acute phase (within one month of symptoms), thrombolysis, and stenting.

Results: There was only sufficient data for meta-analysis for the comparison of antiplatelet versus anticoagulation therapy. No randomised trials were identified. Thirty four non-randomised studies included 762 patients. There was no significant difference in risk of death (antiplatelet 5/268(1.8%), anticoagulation 9/494(1.8%), p=0.88); stroke (antiplatelet 5/268(1.9%), anticoagulant 10/494(2.0%), p=0.66), or stroke and death. Four non-randomised studies of thrombolysis provided insufficient data for assessment of efficacy, but complication rates were no greater than thrombolysis for other ischaemic stroke. Six studies included 96 patients undergoing stenting for both acute dissection, and chronic complications, providing insufficient data for assessment of efficacy, although complication rates appeared similar to those published for carotid atherosclerosic stenosis.

Conclusions:There is no data to support the therapeutic superiority of anticoagulants over antiplatelet agents. Thrombolysis in dissection appears safe but more data on efficacy is required. Stenting is technically possible but there is no data to demonstrate efficacy. There is little evidence to support current treatment approaches in cervical dissection. Randomised controlled prospective trials, particularly assessing antoicoagulation versus antiplatelet agents, are required.








HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.