Lyrer Philippe, Engelter Stefan
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel, Switzerland, 4031.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6(10):CD000255. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000255.pub2.
Extracranial internal carotid artery dissection (eICAD) is a leading cause of stroke in younger patients.
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 3 October 2009). In addition, we performed comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2009) and EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2009), checked all relevant papers for additional eligible studies and contacted authors and researchers in the field.
Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and non-randomised studies (if they reported on outcome stratified by antithrombotic treatment and included at least four patients) of anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents for the treatment of extracranial internal carotid artery dissection. Two review authors independently extracted data.
Primary outcomes were death (all causes) and death or disability. Secondary outcomes were ischaemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, and major extracranial haemorrhage during the reported follow-up period. The first choice treatment was taken for analyses.
We did not find any completed randomised trials. Comparing antiplatelets with anticoagulants across 36 observational studies (1285 patients), there were no significant differences in the odds of death (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.60), or the occurrence of ischaemic stroke (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86) (34 studies, 1262 patients). For the outcome of death or disability, there was a non-significant trend in favour of anticoagulants (OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.22; P = 0.06) (26 studies, 463 patients). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages (5/627; 0.8%) and major extracranial haemorrhages (7/425; 1.6%) occurred only in the anticoagulation group; however, for both these outcomes, the estimates were imprecise and indicated no significant difference between the two treatment modalities.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were no randomised trials comparing either anticoagulants or antiplatelet drugs with control, thus there is no evidence to support their routine use for the treatment of extracranial internal carotid artery dissection. There were also no randomised trials that directly compared anticoagulants with antiplatelet drugs and the reported non-randomised studies did not show any evidence of a significant difference between the two.
颅外段颈内动脉夹层(eICAD)是年轻患者中风的主要原因。
我们检索了Cochrane中风组试验注册库(最后检索时间为2009年10月3日)。此外,我们还对Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2009年第2期)、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2009年11月)和EMBASE(1980年1月至2009年11月)进行了全面检索,检查所有相关论文以寻找其他符合条件的研究,并联系了该领域的作者和研究人员。
关于抗凝剂或抗血小板药物治疗颅外段颈内动脉夹层的随机对照试验、对照临床试验和非随机研究(如果它们报告了按抗血栓治疗分层的结局且至少纳入四名患者)。两名综述作者独立提取数据。
主要结局为全因死亡和死亡或残疾。次要结局为报告随访期内的缺血性中风、有症状的颅内出血和颅外大出血。分析采用首选治疗方法。
我们未找到任何完成的随机试验。在36项观察性研究(1285例患者)中比较抗血小板药物与抗凝剂,死亡几率(Peto比值比(Peto OR)2.02,95%可信区间0.62至6.60)或缺血性中风的发生率(OR 0.63,95%可信区间0.21至1.86)(34项研究,1262例患者)无显著差异。对于死亡或残疾结局,有一个倾向于抗凝剂的非显著趋势(OR 1.77,95%可信区间0.98至3.22;P = 0.06)(26项研究,463例患者)。有症状的颅内出血(5/627;0.8%)和颅外大出血(7/425;1.6%)仅发生在抗凝治疗组;然而,对于这两个结局,估计值不精确,表明两种治疗方式之间无显著差异。
没有随机试验比较抗凝剂或抗血小板药物与对照治疗,因此没有证据支持它们常规用于治疗颅外段颈内动脉夹层。也没有随机试验直接比较抗凝剂与抗血小板药物,且报告的非随机研究未显示两者之间有显著差异的任何证据。