Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Emergency stenting for acute symptomatic carotid stenosis: dissecting the evidence
  1. David J Werring1,
  2. Fergus J Robertson2
  1. 1Stroke Research Group, Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK
  2. 2Lysholm Department of Neuroradiology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr David J Werring, Stroke Research Group, Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Institute of Neurology, Box 6, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK; d.werring{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Most neurologists, vascular neuroradiologists and stroke physicians encounter carotid artery dissection regularly, yet its management remains challenging. The main goal is the prevention of ischaemic stroke in the territory of the affected artery. Such strokes usually result from thromboembolism, though they can also occur due to critically reduced flow in the dissected arterial segment, a so-called haemodynamic stroke. Unfortunately, we do not have randomised controlled trial evidence for the optimal medical treatment of extracranial arterial dissection: antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants are considered reasonable options.1

Why is carotid dissection still a treatment challenge? First, like stroke itself, carotid dissection is not one disease. The aetiology (traumatic versus spontaneous), site of dissection (intracranial versus extracranial), degree of luminal stenosis and extent of intracranial collateral circulation all vary from patient to patient, with profound effects on the risk, distribution and extent of any resultant cerebral infarction. Second, although carotid artery dissection accounts for about 20% of …

View Full Text


  • Contributors DJW wrote the first draft. FJR reviewed the literature and made critical revisions, and approved the final version.

  • Funding This work was undertaken at UCLH/UCL who received a proportion of funding from the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you