Anticoagulants versus Antiplatelet Treatment in the Medical Management of Carotid Floating Thrombus

You might want to make sure your hospital has this written into protocols and training done so when you show up with this your doctors aren't 'winging it'.

Anticoagulants versus Antiplatelet Treatment in the Medical Management of Carotid Floating Thrombus

• Hassan Aboul-Nour, MD
• Qasem Alshaer, MD
• Fatima Chughtai Khalid, MD
• 
  
• Mahmoud H. Mohammaden, MD, MSc, PhD
• Diogo C. Haussen, MD
• Jaydevsinh N. Dolia, MD
• Show all authors

Published:May 06, 2024DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.107760

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Carotid free-floating thrombus (CFT) is a rare cause of stroke describing an intraluminal thrombus that is loosely associated with the arterial wall and manifesting as a filling defect fully surrounded by flow on vascular imaging. Unfortunately, there is no clear consensus among experts on the ideal treatment for this pathology.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients diagnosed with CFT on computed tomography angiogram (CTA) between January 2015-March 2023. We aimed to compare two treatment regimens: anticoagulation (ACT) and antiplatelet (APT) in the treatment of CFT. APT regimens included the use of dual or single antiplatelets (DAPT or SAPT; aspirin, clopidogrel and ticagrelor) and ACT regimens included the use of direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin, heparin or low molecular weight heparin +/- ASA. Patients that underwent mechanical thrombectomy were excluded.

RESULTS

During study time there were 8252 acute ischemic stroke hospitalizations, of which 135 (1.63 %) patients were diagnosed with CFT. Sixty-six patients were included in our analysis. Patients assigned to APT were older (60.41years ± 12.82;p < 0.01). Other demographic variables were similar between ACT and APT groups. Complete CFT resolution on repeat vascular imaging was numerically higher at 30 days (58.8 vs 31.6 %, respectively; p = 0.1) and at latest follow-up (70.8 vs 50 %; p = 0.1) on ACT vs APT, respectively without reaching statistical significance. Similarly, there was numerically higher rates of any ICH with ACT compared to APT but it did not achieve statistical significance (27.6 % vs 13.5 %; p = 0.5). There were similar rates of PH1/2 hemorrhagic transformation, independence at discharge and similar hospital length of stay between ACT and APT groups. Patients assigned to APT were more likely to be discharged on their assigned treatment compared to those assigned to ACT (86.5 vs 55.2 %; p < 0.001). The rate of 30-day recurrent stroke was comparable among ACT and APT at 30 days (3.4 vs 0 %; p = 0.1, respectively). Subgroup analysis comparing exclusive ACT vs Dual APT lead to similar results.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in CFT patients who were exclusively managed medically with ACT vs APT. Larger prospective studies are needed.

To read this article in full you will need to make a payment