Abstract
Three previous reports of PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention failed to find any significant benefit. Recently however, three conflicting reports were published suggesting a benefit in select patients. Although we are enthusiastic for PFO closure in appropriate patients, caution is warranted in the extrapolation of this data and the application of this intervention to broader patient groups. Only small minorities of stroke patients are likely to benefit from PFO closure, the intervention has a notable complication rate, and it has not been compared against modern anticoagulation options. Clinicians should consider all of these points as discussions around PFO closure are likely to become more and more common going forward.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Guillon B et al (2017) Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med 377:1011–1021
Saver JL, Carroll JD, Thaler DE et al (2017) Long-term outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy after stroke. N Engl J Med 377:1022–1032
Sondergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF et al (2017) Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 377:1033–1042
Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J et al (2012) Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 366:991–999
Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE et al (2013) Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 368:1092–1100
Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP et al (2013) Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 368:1083–1091
Meier B, Nietlispach F (2017) Editorial commentary: Closure of the patent foramen ovale viewed from a different angle. Trends Cardiovasc Med 27:582–584
De Rosa S, Sievert H, Sabatino J et al (2018) Percutaneous closure versus medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-3033
Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD (1984) Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clin Proc 59:17–20
Connolly SJ, Eikelboom J, Joyner C et al (2011) Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 364:806–817
Bien JY, Daughety MM, Tao DL et al (2017) The safety of aspirin vs. direct oral anticoagulants: a meta-analysis of currently published clinical trials. Blood 130:3720
Shah R, Nayyar M, Jovin IS et al (2018) Device closure versus medical therapy alone for patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-2679
Li L, Yiin GS, Geraghty OC et al (2015) Incidence, outcome, risk factors, and long-term prognosis of cryptogenic transient ischaemic attack and ischaemic stroke: a population-based study. Lancet Neurol 14:903–913
Chai-Adisaksopha C, Crowther M, Isayama T et al (2014) The impact of bleeding complications in patients receiving target-specific oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood 124:2450–2458
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shatzel, J.J., Daughety, M.M., Prasad, V. et al. PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention: is the discussion closed?. J Thromb Thrombolysis 46, 74–76 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-018-1633-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-018-1633-2