Evidence Hub

Hereditary connective tissue disorders in unselected patients with spontaneous cervical artery dissection: a targeted next generation sequencing approach and systematic review

Corradi L, Ferraro C, Tesi F, Abrignani G, Castellini P, Latte L, Trapasso MC, Genovese A et al.

Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2026

330 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Whether spontaneous cervical artery dissection (sCeAD), the leading cause of ischemic stroke in young adults, represents the manifestation of unrecognized hereditary connective tissue disorders (HCTDs) and whether HCTDs have a major impact in the epidemiology of the disease is a matter of ongoing debate. We aimed at determining the frequency of clinically relevant genetic variants (CRGVs) in a cohort of unselected sCeAD patients by targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach.

Methods: We designed a high-throughput sequencing panel to identify variants in 38 candidate genes associated with arterial dissection or aneurysm and screened patients with apparently sporadic sCeAD, consecutively referred to one comprehensive stroke center from August 2020 to December 2025. The frequency of known disease-causing and pertinent variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was calculated. Then, we performed a systematic review of all studies evaluating the prevalence of monogenic disorders among sCeAD patients up to December 2025.

Results: Among 183 patients (males, 51.3%; mean age, 42.0 ± 11.3 years), 2 (1.1%) carried a CeAD-causing variant in COL3A1 (NM_000090.4:c.2959G > A:p.Gly987Ser) and ABCC6 (NM_001351800.1:c.3071G > A:p.Arg1024Gln), respectively. In addition, we identified 30 (16.4%) VUS in 25 (13.6%) patients. The analysis of 330 patients across 14 studies yielded a prevalence of carriers of disease-causing variants ranging between 0.4% in series of unselected…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 330 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free