Evidence Hub

Recurrent Cervical Artery Dissection Prevalence and Predictors: A Secondary Analysis of the STOP-CAD Study

Marto JP, Shu L, Wu E, Mendel DM, Heldner MR, Kaufmann JE, Leker RR, Zedde M et al.

Stroke, 2026

4,023 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with cervical artery dissection (CeAD) may experience a recurrent dissection, but its frequency, risk factors, and clinical implications are not well defined. We aimed to determine the risk, associated factors, and clinical impact of recurrent CeAD.

METHODS: The STOP-CAD study (Antithrombotic Treatment for Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection) was a multicenter international retrospective observational study of patients with CeAD treated between January 2015 and June 2022. Recurrent dissection was defined as a CeAD occurring at least 7 days after the diagnosis of the index event that affects a different artery or a different segment of the same artery. Patients were followed from day 7 up to 2 years. The absolute risk of recurrent CeAD over time was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess predictors of CeAD recurrence.

RESULTS: Of the 4023 patients included in STOP-CAD, 3836 (median age 46 years, 45% women) were eligible for this analysis. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 295 (97-720) days, 88 (2.29%) patients had a CeAD recurrence. Median time-to-recurrent CeAD was 53 (interquartile range, 18-157) days. The estimated risk of recurrent CeAD at 2 years was 3.22% (95% CI, 2.59%-4.00%). In multivariable analyses, younger age (adjusted odds ratios, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]), migraine (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.14-3.07]), and fibromuscular…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,023 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