Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: “Closed” door after the last randomized trials?

Current Dataset for Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in Cryptogenic Stroke: Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Studies

Approximately one-third of all strokes have no apparent cause. A patent foramen ovale (PFO) is present in as many as 60% of these patients with cryptogenic strokes, which is significantly more frequent than that of the general population. The presumed biologic mechanisms of ischemic stroke in the setting of a PFO are paradoxic embolism from the peripheral venous system through this interatrial shunt or embolism from in situ thrombosis. In this review, the authors summarize and critically assess the contemporary studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of PFO closure for prevention of recurrent cryptogenic strokes.

Searching for patent foramen ovale in a 44-year-old female patient after ischemic stroke - diagnostic problems

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is associated with the occurrence of cryptogenic strokes in young patients. Transesophageal echocardiography with contrast is the established standard in PFO diagnostics. We present the case of a 44-year-old female patient after ischemic stroke, in whom PFO was not detected by echocardiography; the defect was ultimately diagnosed by right heart catheterization.

How to Understand Patent Foramen Ovale Clinical Significance - Part II: Therapeutic Strategies in Cryptogenic Stroke

In the first part of this review, we reminded that patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a slit or tunnel-like passage in the interatrial septum occurring in approximately 25% of the population and that a number of conditions have been linked to its presence, the most important being cryptogenic stroke (CS) and migraine. We have also shown how, in the setting of neurological events, it is not often clear whether the PFO is pathogenically-related to the index event or an incidental finding, and therefore we thought to provide some useful key points for understanding PFO clinical significance in a case by case evaluation. The controversy about PFO pathogenicity has consequently prompted a paradigm shift of research interest from medical therapy with antiplatelets or anticoagulants to percutaneous transcatheter closure, in secondary prevention. Observational data and meta-analysis of observational studies previously suggested that PFO closure with a device was a safe procedure with a low recurrence rate of stroke, as compared to medical therapy. However, so far, published randomized controlled trials (CLOSURE I^®, RESPECT^® and PC Trial^®) have not shown the superiority of PFO closure over medical therapy. Thus, the optimal strategy for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism in patients with a PFO remains unclear. Moreover, the latest guidelines for the prevention on stroke restricted indications for PFO closure to patients with deep vein thrombosis and high-risk of its recurrence. Given these recent data, in the second part of the present review, we aim to discuss today treatment options in patients with PFO and CS, providing an updating on patients’ management.

Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale - Data from Randomized Clinical Trials and Meta-Analyses

Data from epidemiologic studies have indicated a close association between the presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) and cryptogenic stroke that is suggestive of paradoxical embolism as the underlying cause. Percutaneous closure of PFO has been proposed for the secondary prevention among patients suffering from paradoxical embolism. While observational data support this strategy, three randomized trials investigating percutaneous PFO closure with medical therapy have failed to detect a statistically significant reduction of the primary endpoint of recurrent ischemic cerebrovascular events, peripheral embolism, and death in the intention-to-treat analysis. Several reasons have been discussed as basis for the negative primary study results, including long recruitment rates, low number of recurrent events, and the use of different devices. In order to provide an answer to these unresolved factors, several meta-analyses have been published that have provided conflicting results. This article will review the available evidence of percutaneous PFO closure, will provide an overview on randomized clinical trials, and summarize the evidence from meta-analyses.