Antiplatelets or anticoagulants? Secondary prevention in cervical artery dissection: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Extracranial artery dissection involving either internal carotid artery or vertebral artery is a major cause of stroke in adults under 50 years of age. There is no conclusive evidence whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants are better suited in the treatment of extracranial artery dissection. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants have advantage over the other in the treatment of extracranial artery dissection for secondary prevention of recurrent ischemic events or death. METHODS: Present meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Database search was done in Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2021 using pre-defined search strategy. Additional studies were identified from reference lists from included studies, reviews and previous meta-analyses. Outcome measures were ischaemic stroke, ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and death. RESULTS: Two RCTs and 64 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. While the outcome measures of stroke, stroke or TIA and death were numerically higher with antiplatelet use, there were no statistically significant differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference between antiplatelet and anticoagulation treatment after extracranial artery dissection. The choice of treatment should be tailored to individual cases. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42466-022-00188-7.