Systematic review identifies risk factors for recurrent ischemic events after cervical artery dissection, suggesting clinical monitoring enhancements.
Background and aims: Methods Systematically identify prognostic factors associated with recurrent ischemic events after cervical artery dissection. Results A comprehensive systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through December 2025. Inclusion criteria were Studies reporting recurrence definitions, baseline characteristics, and follow-up data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool across six domains. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2. Event rates in recurrent versus non-recurrent groups were extracted, and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were summarized when available. Conclusions Study included four retrospective cohort studies (n = 18000) published between 1995 and 2025. Definitions of recurrence varied but consistently included new or worsening ischemic neurological events confirmed clinically and/or radiologically. Follow-up duration ranged from 3 to 31 months. Overall risk of bias was low to moderate. Factors significantly associated with recurrent ischemic events included anterior circulation occlusion (RR 3.30, 95% CI 2.48–4.40), cervical artery occlusion (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17–2.17), intracranial embolism (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.26–6.03), poor Circle of Willis (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.33–2.89), intracranial large-vessel occlusion (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19–1.75), prior ischemic stroke (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.08–2.90), and coronary artery disease (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.28–2.06). In contrast, a.fib, trauma, pseudoaneurysm, TIA at presentation, and absence of antithrombotic therapy were not consistently associated with recurrence. Conflict of interest
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: