Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagul...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial. / Markus, Hugh S.; Hayter, Elizabeth; Levi, Christopher et al.
In: Lancet Neurology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 04.2015, p. 361-367.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Markus, HS, Hayter, E, Levi, C, Feldman, A, Venables, G, Norris, J, Emsley, H & CADISS trial investigators 2015, 'Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial', Lancet Neurology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 361-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70018-9

APA

Markus, H. S., Hayter, E., Levi, C., Feldman, A., Venables, G., Norris, J., Emsley, H., & CADISS trial investigators (2015). Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial. Lancet Neurology, 14(4), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70018-9

Vancouver

Markus HS, Hayter E, Levi C, Feldman A, Venables G, Norris J et al. Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial. Lancet Neurology. 2015 Apr;14(4):361-367. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70018-9

Author

Markus, Hugh S. ; Hayter, Elizabeth ; Levi, Christopher et al. / Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS) : a randomised trial. In: Lancet Neurology. 2015 ; Vol. 14, No. 4. pp. 361-367.

Bibtex

@article{c3651ffa9ec34fc09df17207b16ed88d,
title = "Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS): a randomised trial",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, especially in young people. In some observational studies it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulant drugs are used to reduce risk of stroke but whether one treatment strategy is more effective than the other is unknown. We compared their efficacy in the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS), with the additional aim of establishing the true risk of recurrent stroke.METHODS: We did this randomised trial at hospitals with specialised stroke or neurology services (39 in the UK and seven in Australia). We included patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection with onset of symptoms within the past 7 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an automated telephone randomisation service to receive antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulant drugs (specific treatment decided by the local clinician) for 3 months. Patients and clinicians were not masked to allocation, but investigators assessing endpoints were. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke or death in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with EUDract (2006-002827-18) and ISRN (CTN44555237).FINDINGS: We enrolled 250 participants (118 carotid, 132 vertebral). Mean time to randomisation was 3·65 days (SD 1·91). The major presenting symptoms were stroke or transient ischaemic attack (n=224) and local symptoms (headache, neck pain, or Horner's syndrome; n=26). 126 participants were assigned to antiplatelet treatment versus 124 to anticoagulant treatment. Overall, four (2%) of 250 patients had stroke recurrence (all ipsilateral). Stroke or death occurred in three (2%) of 126 patients versus one (1%) of 124 (odds ratio [OR] 0·335, 95% CI 0·006-4·233; p=0·63). There were no deaths, but one major bleeding (subarachnoid haemorrhage) in the anticoagulant group. Central review of imaging failed to confirm dissection in 52 patients. Preplanned per-protocol analysis excluding these patients showed stroke or death in three (3%) of 101 patients in the antiplatelet group versus one (1%) of 96 patients in the anticoagulant group (OR 0·346, 95% CI 0·006-4·390; p=0·66).INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in efficacy of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs at preventing stroke and death in patients with symptomatic carotid and vertebral artery dissection but stroke was rare in both groups, and much rarer than reported in some observational studies. Diagnosis of dissection was not confirmed after review in many cases, suggesting that radiographic criteria are not always correctly applied in routine clinical practice.FUNDING: Stroke Association.",
keywords = "Adult, Aged, Aneurysm, Dissecting, Anticoagulants, Arteries, Carotid Artery, Internal, Dissection, Female, Humans, Ischemic Attack, Transient, Male, Middle Aged, Odds Ratio, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Spine, Stroke, Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't",
author = "Markus, {Hugh S.} and Elizabeth Hayter and Christopher Levi and Adina Feldman and Graham Venables and John Norris and Hedley Emsley and {CADISS trial investigators}",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2015 Markus et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.",
year = "2015",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70018-9",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "361--367",
journal = "Lancet Neurology",
issn = "1474-4422",
publisher = "Lancet Publishing Group",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antiplatelet treatment compared with anticoagulation treatment for cervical artery dissection (CADISS)

T2 - a randomised trial

AU - Markus, Hugh S.

AU - Hayter, Elizabeth

AU - Levi, Christopher

AU - Feldman, Adina

AU - Venables, Graham

AU - Norris, John

AU - Emsley, Hedley

AU - CADISS trial investigators

N1 - Copyright © 2015 Markus et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

PY - 2015/4

Y1 - 2015/4

N2 - BACKGROUND: Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, especially in young people. In some observational studies it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulant drugs are used to reduce risk of stroke but whether one treatment strategy is more effective than the other is unknown. We compared their efficacy in the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS), with the additional aim of establishing the true risk of recurrent stroke.METHODS: We did this randomised trial at hospitals with specialised stroke or neurology services (39 in the UK and seven in Australia). We included patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection with onset of symptoms within the past 7 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an automated telephone randomisation service to receive antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulant drugs (specific treatment decided by the local clinician) for 3 months. Patients and clinicians were not masked to allocation, but investigators assessing endpoints were. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke or death in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with EUDract (2006-002827-18) and ISRN (CTN44555237).FINDINGS: We enrolled 250 participants (118 carotid, 132 vertebral). Mean time to randomisation was 3·65 days (SD 1·91). The major presenting symptoms were stroke or transient ischaemic attack (n=224) and local symptoms (headache, neck pain, or Horner's syndrome; n=26). 126 participants were assigned to antiplatelet treatment versus 124 to anticoagulant treatment. Overall, four (2%) of 250 patients had stroke recurrence (all ipsilateral). Stroke or death occurred in three (2%) of 126 patients versus one (1%) of 124 (odds ratio [OR] 0·335, 95% CI 0·006-4·233; p=0·63). There were no deaths, but one major bleeding (subarachnoid haemorrhage) in the anticoagulant group. Central review of imaging failed to confirm dissection in 52 patients. Preplanned per-protocol analysis excluding these patients showed stroke or death in three (3%) of 101 patients in the antiplatelet group versus one (1%) of 96 patients in the anticoagulant group (OR 0·346, 95% CI 0·006-4·390; p=0·66).INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in efficacy of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs at preventing stroke and death in patients with symptomatic carotid and vertebral artery dissection but stroke was rare in both groups, and much rarer than reported in some observational studies. Diagnosis of dissection was not confirmed after review in many cases, suggesting that radiographic criteria are not always correctly applied in routine clinical practice.FUNDING: Stroke Association.

AB - BACKGROUND: Extracranial carotid and vertebral artery dissection is an important cause of stroke, especially in young people. In some observational studies it has been associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Both antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulant drugs are used to reduce risk of stroke but whether one treatment strategy is more effective than the other is unknown. We compared their efficacy in the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS), with the additional aim of establishing the true risk of recurrent stroke.METHODS: We did this randomised trial at hospitals with specialised stroke or neurology services (39 in the UK and seven in Australia). We included patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection with onset of symptoms within the past 7 days. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an automated telephone randomisation service to receive antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulant drugs (specific treatment decided by the local clinician) for 3 months. Patients and clinicians were not masked to allocation, but investigators assessing endpoints were. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral stroke or death in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with EUDract (2006-002827-18) and ISRN (CTN44555237).FINDINGS: We enrolled 250 participants (118 carotid, 132 vertebral). Mean time to randomisation was 3·65 days (SD 1·91). The major presenting symptoms were stroke or transient ischaemic attack (n=224) and local symptoms (headache, neck pain, or Horner's syndrome; n=26). 126 participants were assigned to antiplatelet treatment versus 124 to anticoagulant treatment. Overall, four (2%) of 250 patients had stroke recurrence (all ipsilateral). Stroke or death occurred in three (2%) of 126 patients versus one (1%) of 124 (odds ratio [OR] 0·335, 95% CI 0·006-4·233; p=0·63). There were no deaths, but one major bleeding (subarachnoid haemorrhage) in the anticoagulant group. Central review of imaging failed to confirm dissection in 52 patients. Preplanned per-protocol analysis excluding these patients showed stroke or death in three (3%) of 101 patients in the antiplatelet group versus one (1%) of 96 patients in the anticoagulant group (OR 0·346, 95% CI 0·006-4·390; p=0·66).INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in efficacy of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs at preventing stroke and death in patients with symptomatic carotid and vertebral artery dissection but stroke was rare in both groups, and much rarer than reported in some observational studies. Diagnosis of dissection was not confirmed after review in many cases, suggesting that radiographic criteria are not always correctly applied in routine clinical practice.FUNDING: Stroke Association.

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Aneurysm, Dissecting

KW - Anticoagulants

KW - Arteries

KW - Carotid Artery, Internal, Dissection

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Ischemic Attack, Transient

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Odds Ratio

KW - Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors

KW - Spine

KW - Stroke

KW - Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

KW - Comparative Study

KW - Journal Article

KW - Randomized Controlled Trial

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

U2 - 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70018-9

DO - 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70018-9

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 25684164

VL - 14

SP - 361

EP - 367

JO - Lancet Neurology

JF - Lancet Neurology

SN - 1474-4422

IS - 4

ER -