Long-term risk of atrial fibrillation or flutter after transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure: a nationwide Danish study

Atrial Fibrillation After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Incidence, Pathophysiology, and Management

This comprehensive review explores the incidence, pathophysiology, and management of atrial fibrillation (AF) following percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO). Although AF is considered a common adverse event post PFO closure, its incidence, estimated at <5%, varies based on monitoring methods. The review delves into the challenging task of precisely estimating AF incidence, given subclinical AF and diverse diagnostic approaches. Notably, a temporal pattern emerges, with peak incidence around the 14th day after closure and a subsequent decline after the 45th day, mimicking general population AF trends. The pathophysiological mechanisms behind post PFO closure AF remain elusive, with proposed factors including local irritation, device-related interference, tissue stretch, and nickel hypersensitivity. Management considerations encompass rhythm control, with flecainide showing promise, and anticoagulation tailored to individual risk profiles. The authors advocate for a personalized approach, weighing factors like age, comorbidities, and device characteristics. Notably, postclosure AF is generally considered benign, often resolving spontaneously within 45 days, minimizing thromboembolic risks. Further studies are required to refine understanding and provide evidence-based guidelines.

Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) does not predict atrial fibrillation following patent foramen ovale closure

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a known complication following patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure. AI-enabled ECG (AI-ECG) acquired during normal sinus rhythm has been shown to identify individuals with AF by noting high-risk ECG features invisible to the human eye. We sought to characterize the value of AI-ECG in predicting AF development following PFO closure and investigate key clinical and procedural characteristics possibly associated with post-procedural AF.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent PFO closure at our hospital from January 2011 to December 2022. We recorded the probability (%) of AF using the Mayo Clinic AI-ECG dashboard from pre- and post-procedure ECGs. The cut-off point of ≥ 11 %, which was found to optimally balance sensitivity and specificity in the original derivation paper (the Youden index) was used to label an AI-ECG "positive" for AF. Pre-procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and pre- and post-procedure transcranial doppler (TCD) data was also recorded.

Results

Out of 93 patients, 49 (53 %) were male, mean age was 55 ± 15 years with mean post-procedure follow up of 29 ± 3 months. Indication for PFO closure in 69 (74 %) patients was for secondary prevention of transient ischemic attack (TIA) and/or stroke. Twenty patients (22 %) developed paroxysmal AF post-procedure, with the majority within the first month post-procedure (15 patients, 75 %). Patients who developed AF were not significantly more likely to have a positive post-procedure AI-ECG than those who did not develop AF (30 % AF vs 27 % no AF, p = 0.8).Based on the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification, patients who had PFO closure for secondary prevention of TIA and/or stroke in the "possible" group were significantly more likely to develop AF than patients in "probable" and "unlikely" groups (p = 0.034). AF-developing patients were more likely to have post-procedure implantable loop recorder (ILR) (55 % vs 9.6 %, p < 0.001), and longer duration of ILR monitoring (121 vs 92.5 weeks, p = 0.035). There were no significant differences in TCD and TEE characteristics, device type, or device size between those who developed AF vs those who did not.

Conclusions

In this small, retrospective study, AI-ECG did not accurately distinguish patients who developed AF post-PFO closure from those who did not. Although AI-ECG has emerged as a valuable tool for risk prediction of AF, extrapolation of its performance to procedural settings such as PFO closure requires further investigation.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of results from REDUCE and RESPECT-two randomized trials on patent foramen ovale closure devices to prevent recurrent cryptogenic stroke

AIMS

Two randomized clinical trials, REDUCE and RESPECT, demonstrated that patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in combination with antithrombotic therapy was more effective for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke compared with antithrombotic therapy alone. The aim of this study was to determine the relative efficacy and safety of the PFO closure devices used in REDUCE (HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders) compared with the device used in RESPECT (Amplatzer PFO Occluder).

METHODS

An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the PFO closure arms of the REDUCE and RESPECT trials was performed using patient-level data from REDUCE weighted to match baseline characteristics from RESPECT. Comparisons of the following outcomes were made between the devices assessed in the trials: risk of recurrent ischemic stroke; recurrent ischemic stroke one year after randomization; any serious adverse event (SAE) related to the procedure or device; and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as an SAE related to the procedure or device.

RESULTS

After conducting the MAIC, baseline characteristics were well-matched between the two trials. Compared to RESPECT, PFO closure using the devices from REDUCE resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.43; p = 0.17) for the risk of recurrent stroke. For the recurrence of stroke after one year, SAE related to the procedure or device, and atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as SAE related to the procedure or device, the MAIC resulted in a rate difference of -0.68 (95%CI -2.06 to 0.70; p = .34), -1.29 (95%CI -3.82 to 1.25; p = .32), and -0.19 (95%CI -1.16 to 0.78; p = .71), respectively. These findings were consistent across scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This MAIC analysis found no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety outcomes between PFO closure with the HELEX and CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders versus the Amplatzer PFO Occluder, as used in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials.

Percutaneous suture-based patent foramen ovale closure: A state-of-the-art review

Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), a common variation of interatrial septum anatomy, is a commonly performed procedure in the catheterization laboratory to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in selected patients and to treat other PFO-related syndromes. In the last twenty years, disc-based devices have represented the armamentarium of the interventional cardiologist; recently, suture-based devices have become an attractive alternative, despite limited data regarding their long-term performance. The present review gives an overview of the current evidence regarding suture-based PFO closure, the device's characteristics, the echocardiographic evaluation of the PFO anatomy, and recommendations for patient selection. A detailed procedural guide is then provided, and potential complications and future developments in the field are discussed.

Incidence of atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale closure: protocol for the prospective, observational PFO-AF study

INTRODUCTION

After closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) due to stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs in up to one in five patients. However, data are sparse regarding the possible pre-existence of AF in these patients prior to PFO closure, and about recurrence of AF in the long term after the procedure. No prospective study to date has investigated these topics in patients with implanted cardiac monitor (ICM). The PFO-AF study (registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT04926142) will investigate the incidence of AF occurring within 2 months after percutaneous closure of PFO in patients with prior stroke. AF will be identified using systematic ICM. Secondary objectives are to assess incidence and burden of AF in the 2 months prior to, and up to 2 years after PFO closure.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Prospective, multicentre, observational study including 250 patients with an indication for PFO closure after stroke, as decided by interdisciplinary meetings with cardiologists and neurologists. Patients will undergo implantation of a Reveal Linq device (Medtronic). Percutaneous PFO closure will be performed 2 months after device implantation. Follow-up will include consultation, ECG and reading of ICM data at 2, 12 and 24 months after PFO closure. The primary endpoint is occurrence of AF at 2 months, defined as an episode of AF or atrial tachycardia/flutter lasting at least 30 s, and recorded by the ICM and/or any AF or atrial tachycardia/flutter documented on ECG during the first 2 months of follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee 'Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) Sud-Méditerranéen III' on 2 June 2021 and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04926142). Findings will be presented in national and international congresses and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04926142.