Cervical Artery Dissection: Risk Factors, Treatment, and Outcome; A 5-Year Experience From a Tertiary Care Center

Abstract

Hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were risk factors in spontaneous dissections, speaking for vascular wall abnormalities as potential contributors to pathophysiology of CAD. There was no evidence supporting one type of treatment over the other. A large ongoing prospective study should quell this controversy.

Cervical Artery Dissection: A Review of the Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Treatment, and Outcome

“…Several retrospective studies and a meta-analysis did not show any difference between stroke recurrence and bleeding complications between the two treatments. 48, 49 . While the mechanism of stroke in patients with cervical artery dissection is thought to be artery-to-artery embolism, it is unclear whether or not anticoagulation is the treatment of choice in this instance.…”

Endovascular Treatment of Dissecting Aneurysms of the Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery and Predictors of Outcome

“…One study based on 5 years of data found that spontaneous dissections occurred more frequently in patients with preexisting hypertension. 25 Hemodynamic were also thought to be an etiological factor, which contributes to elastic lamina injury and subsequent aneurysm formation. Our result found that hypertension was associated with unfavorable outcome (P 5 .022), and we concluded that hypertension may be related with hemodynamic stress, which contributed to aneurysm rupture and affected the prognosis.…”

Delayed Diagnosis of Carotid Artery Dissection Complicates Ischemic Stroke Treatment

“…5 No significant differences in the risk of death or ischemic stroke between anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies have been shown, 11 and a 5-year study showed that patients on anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy fared equally well. 12 However, having no randomized trial to prove one more efficacious than the other leaves deciding on anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy to previous clinical experience and current clinical judgment.…”