Service de Neurologie et Pathologie Neurovasculaire, Université Lille Nord France, EA 1046, Hôpital Roger Salengro, rue Emile Laine, CHRU de Lille, 59037 Lille, France.
Neurology. 2011 Sep 20;77(12):1174-81. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31822f03fc. Epub 2011 Sep 7.
To examine whether risk factor profile, baseline features, and outcome of cervical artery dissection (CEAD) differ according to the dissection site.
We analyzed 982 consecutive patients with CEAD included in the Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients observational study (n = 619 with internal carotid artery dissection [ICAD], n = 327 with vertebral artery dissection [VAD], n = 36 with ICAD and VAD).
Patients with ICAD were older (p < 0.0001), more often men (p = 0.006), more frequently had a recent infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.31]), and tended to report less often a minor neck trauma in the previous month (OR = 0.75 [0.56-1.007]) compared to patients with VAD. Clinically, patients with ICAD more often presented with headache at admission (OR = 1.36 [1.01-1.84]) but less frequently complained of cervical pain (OR = 0.36 [0.27-0.48]) or had cerebral ischemia (OR = 0.32 [0.21-0.49]) than patients with VAD. Among patients with CEAD who sustained an ischemic stroke, the NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at admission was higher in patients with ICAD than patients with VAD (OR = 1.17 [1.12-1.22]). Aneurysmal dilatation was more common (OR = 1.80 [1.13-2.87]) and bilateral dissection less frequent (OR = 0.63 [0.42-0.95]) in patients with ICAD. Multiple concomitant dissections tended to cluster on the same artery type rather than involving both a vertebral and carotid artery. Patients with ICAD had a less favorable 3-month functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score >2, OR = 3.99 [2.32-6.88]), but this was no longer significant after adjusting for baseline NIHSS score.
In the largest published series of patients with CEAD, we observed significant differences between VAD and ICAD in terms of risk factors, baseline features, and functional outcome.
探讨颈内动脉夹层(CEAD)的危险因素、基线特征和预后是否因夹层部位而异。
我们分析了 Cervical Artery Dissection and Ischemic Stroke Patients 观察性研究中纳入的 982 例连续 CEAD 患者(619 例颈内动脉夹层[ICAD],327 例椎动脉夹层[VAD],36 例 ICAD 和 VAD)。
ICAD 患者年龄较大(p<0.0001),男性更多(p=0.006),近期感染更多(优势比[OR] = 1.59 [95%置信区间(CI)1.09-2.31]),且前一个月颈部轻微外伤的报告频率较低(OR = 0.75 [0.56-1.007])。临床方面,ICAD 患者入院时更常出现头痛(OR = 1.36 [1.01-1.84]),但较少出现颈痛(OR = 0.36 [0.27-0.48])或脑缺血(OR = 0.32 [0.21-0.49])。在发生缺血性脑卒中的 CEAD 患者中,ICAD 患者入院时 NIH 卒中量表(NIHSS)评分高于 VAD 患者(OR = 1.17 [1.12-1.22])。ICAD 患者更常见动脉瘤样扩张(OR = 1.80 [1.13-2.87]),双侧夹层较少(OR = 0.63 [0.42-0.95])。多个并发夹层倾向于聚集在同一动脉类型上,而不是同时累及椎动脉和颈动脉。ICAD 患者 3 个月的功能结局较差(改良 Rankin 量表评分>2,OR = 3.99 [2.32-6.88]),但在调整基线 NIHSS 评分后,这不再具有统计学意义。
在发表的最大系列 CEAD 患者中,我们观察到 VAD 和 ICAD 在危险因素、基线特征和功能结局方面存在显著差异。