The main purpose of treating CAD is to prevent stroke. The American heart association (AHA) guidelines state that for patients with dissection with a stroke or transient ischemic attack, antithrombotic treatment for at least 3 to 6 months is reasonable. These guidelines also state that the relative efficacy of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy is unknown (
42). Despite that, anticoagulation therapy is still often used in practice as a stroke prevention strategy in patients with cervical artery dissection (
43). Anticoagulation has been historically used in stroke prevention without good scientific evidence, which triggered several randomized trials including Warfarin-Aspirin symptomatic intracranial disease (WASID) and Warfarin-Aspirin recurrent stroke study (WARSS) that showed no benefit of Warfarin over Aspirin in reducing stroke recurrence (
44-
47). The same argument likely holds for cervical arterial dissection where anticoagulation has been historically used in secondary stroke prevention despite the lack of evidence of superiority over aspirin. 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. In patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis, the stroke mechanism involves rupture of an unstable plaque followed by platelet aggregation and thrombus formation on top of a ruptured plaque, which may break off and embolize distally leading to downstream ischemia (
34). Even in this instance, anticoagulation has not been shown to be superior to antiplatelet therapy in reducing stroke recurrence risk (
50). Although the clot compositions in patients with dissection and atherosclerotic plaque differ, the two entities share a similar stroke mechanism. In patients with cervical artery dissection, the pathophysiology of stroke involves endothelial injury that causes platelet aggregation and activation of the coagulation cascade leading to thrombus formation (
51), which may embolize distally causing ischemic symptoms. Therefore, theoretically, inhibiting platelet aggregation with antiplatelet agents or inhibiting the coagulation cascade with antithrombotics is likely to stabilize the thrombus, reduce further thrombus formation, and thereby reduce stroke risk in patients with CAD. This has been translated clinically in a meta-analysis showing no difference in stroke risk between the two treatments (
49).
Furthermore, the recently published cervical artery dissection in stroke study (CADISS trial) (
52) randomized 250 patients within 1 week from stroke onset to antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. This study showed that there was no difference in stroke risk between the anticoagulant arm (1%) and the antiplatelet arm (3%) (odds ratio 0.335, 95% CI 0.006 - 4 233; P = 0.63). One major limitation of this study is that given the extremely low stroke recurrent rates in the two groups, this study was underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference between the two treatments. Given the enrollment window of 7 days, early recurrent strokes may have been missed.
Thus given the mechanism of CAD, which involves platelet aggregation and activation of the coagulation cascade, its resemblance to symptomatic carotid stenosis in terms of mechanism which typically responds to antiplatelet agents, and the very low stroke recurrence rate, aspirin is likely to be as effective as anticoagulation in reducing stroke risk in patients with cervical artery dissection.