Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2012
  • Online publication date: August 2012

Chapter 50 - Cervical artery dissections

from Section 2 - Vascular topographic syndromes


Low-flow infarctions, also called borderzone infarctions, are considered the result of critically reduced cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) in far-downstream brain arteries that causes critically compromised cerebral blood flow and insufficient oxygen supply in certain vulnerable brain areas. Transhemispheric and interterritorial collateral blood flow via the anterior and posterior communicating arteries and their individual distributions must be considered with respect to the site and size of borderzone infarctions. Cardiac arrest and hypotension can also cause low-flow infarcts that are usually bilateral. Although hypoxic-ischemic cerebellar damage is often found at necropsy, clinical signs of cerebellar dysfunction are rare and are usually overshadowed by cerebral abnormalities. The general medical prognosis of patients with low-flow infarcts is poor. Deaths as a result of cardiovascular complications are frequent and account for about 10% of deaths per year. An important diagnostic improvement in identifying low-flow infarcts was the use of rCBF techniques.


1. BiousseV, D'Anglejan-ChatillonJ, MassiouH, BousserMG.Time course of symptoms in extracranial carotid artery dissections. A series of 80 patients. Stroke 1995; 26: 235–239.
2. GiroudM, FayolleH, AndreN, et al. Incidence of internal carotid artery dissection in the community of Dijon. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995; 57: 1443.
3. LeeVH, BrownRD, MandrekarJN, MokriB.Incidence and outcome of cervical artery dissection. A population-based study. Neurology 2006; 67: 1809–1812.
4. SchievinkWI.Spontaneous dissection of the carotid and vertebral arteries. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 899–906.
5. ArnoldM, KappelerL, GeorgiadisD, et al. Gender differences in spontaneous cervical artery dissection. Neurology 2006; 67: 1050–1052.
6. GuillonB, BerthetK, BenslamiaL, et al. Infection and the risk of spontaneous cervical artery dissection: a case-control study. Stroke 2003; 34: 79–81.
7. BrandtT, OrberkE, WeberR, et al. Pathogenesis of cervical artery dissections: association with connective tissue abnormalities. Neurology 2001; 57: 24–30.
8. ArnoldM, PannierB, ChabriatH, et al. Vascular risk factors and morphometric data in cervical artery dissection: a case-control study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009; 80: 232–234.
9. SturzeneggerM.Spontaneous internal carotid artery dissection: early diagnosis and management in 44 patients. J Neurol 1995; 242: 231–238.
10. ArnoldM, De MarchisGM, StapfC, et al. Triple and quadruple spontaneous cervical artery dissection: presenting characteristics and long-term outcome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009; 80: 171–174.
11. GeorgiadisD, ArnoldM, Von BüdingenC, et al. Aspirin versus anticoagulation in carotid artery dissection: a study of 298 patients. Neurology 2009; 72: 1810–1815.
12. SrinivasanJ, NewellDW, SturzeneggerM, MaybergMR, WinnHR.Transcranial Doppler in the evaluation of internal carotid artery dissection. Stroke 1996; 27: 1226–1230.
13. EngelterST, BrandtT, DebetteS, et al. for the Cervical Artery Dissection in Ischemic Stroke Patients (CADISP) Study Group. Antiplatelets versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection. Stroke 2007; 38: 2605–2611.
14. KremerC, MossoM, GeorgiadisD, et al. Carotid dissection with permanent and transient occlusion or severe stenosis: long-term outcome. Neurology 2003; 60: 271–275.
15. TouzéE, GauvritJY, MoulinT, et al. Multicenter survey on natural history of cervical artery dissection. Risk of stroke and recurrent dissection after a cervical artery dissection: a multicenter study. Neurology 2003; 61: 1347–1351.
16. MizutaniT, ArugaT, KirinoT, et al. Recurrent subarachnoid hemorrhage from untreated ruptured vertebrobasilar dissecting aneurysms. Neurosurgery 1995; 36: 905–911.
17. DittrichR, NassensteinJ, BachmannR, et al. Polyarterial clustered recurrence of cervical artery dissection seems to be the rule. Neurology 2007; 69: 180–186.