Patent foramen ovale closure to prevent secondary neurologic events

被引:7
作者
Jasper, Rosie [1 ]
Blankenship, James C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Geisinger Med Ctr, Dept Internal Med, 100 North Acad Dr, Danville, PA 17822 USA
[2] Geisinger Med Ctr, Dept Cardiol, 100 North Acad Dr, Danville, PA 17822 USA
关键词
Patent foramen closure; Cryptogenic stroke; Amplatzer; ATRIAL SEPTAL ANEURYSM; CRYPTOGENIC STROKE; MEDICAL THERAPY; PERCUTANEOUS CLOSURE; TRANSCATHETER CLOSURE; AMERICAN-ACADEMY; RECURRENT STROKE; DEVICE CLOSURE; TRANSESOPHAGEAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; MIGRAINE INTERVENTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejim.2017.06.015
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
In October of 2016 the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the Amplatzer Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) occluder device for use in patients with cryptogenic stroke, to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. This event followed 15 years of off-label use of atrial septal occluder devices, 3 randomized trials, and enormous controversy over the efficacy of this procedure. While none of the trials reached the primary endpoint needed to prove the efficacy of PFO closure in preventing recurrent stroke, meta-analyses and 5-year follow-up of 1 trial suggest that PFO closure decreases the risk of recurrent stroke, especially in sub-groups with large shunts and atrial septal aneurysms, and especially when the Amplatzer device (rather than other devices) is used. While the relative reduction in stroke associated with PFO closure is large (about 50%), the absolute reduction is low (1-2%) and must be balanced against complications of the procedure (about 3%). Thus, PFO closure is restricted to patients with cryptogenic stroke, and depends heavily on patients' personal preferences. Uncertainties about the etiology of stroke in patients with PFO and the efficacy of PFO closure cause a difficult problem for the internal medicine specialist. At one extreme the internist may wonder if every patient with a documented PFO should be referred to a cardiologist. At the other extreme, supported by specialty society guidelines, internists may conclude that PFO closure is rarely necessary. In this paper we review the current status of PFO closure and suggest a rational strategy for this procedure. (C) 2017 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 11
页数:11
相关论文
共 79 条
  • [1] Short and Long Term Complications of Device Closure of Atrial Septal Defect and Patent Foramen Ovale: Meta-Analysis of 28,142 Patients From 203 Studies
    Abaci, Adnan
    Unlu, Serkan
    Alsancak, Yakup
    Kaya, Ulker
    Sezenoz, Burak
    [J]. CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2013, 82 (07) : 1123 - 1138
  • [2] Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Patent Foramen Ovale in Prevention of Recurrent Neurological Events After Presumed Paradoxical Embolism
    Agarwal, Shikhar
    Bajaj, Navkaranbir Singh
    Kumbhani, Dharam J.
    Tuzcu, E. Murat
    Kapadia, Samir R.
    [J]. JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2012, 5 (07) : 777 - 789
  • [3] Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Incidental or Pathogenic?
    Alsheikh-Ali, Alawi A.
    Thaler, David E.
    Kent, David M.
    [J]. STROKE, 2009, 40 (07) : 2349 - 2355
  • [4] Transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
    Bin Riaz, Irbaz
    Dhoble, Abhijeet
    Mizyed, Ahmad
    Hsu, Chiu-Hsieh
    Husnain, Muhammad
    Lee, Justin Z.
    Lotun, Kapildeo
    Lee, Kwan S.
    [J]. BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS, 2013, 13
  • [5] Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors' decision-making biases
    Bornstein, BH
    Emler, AC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2001, 7 (02) : 97 - 107
  • [6] Diagnosis and management of patent foramen ovale
    Buchholz, Stefan
    Shakil, Ayesha
    Figtree, Gemma A.
    Hansen, Peter S.
    Bhindi, Ravinay
    [J]. POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 88 (1038) : 217 - 225
  • [7] Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Currently Available Clinical Evidence on Migraine and Patent Foramen Ovale Percutaneous Closure: Much Ado About Nothing?
    Butera, Gianfranco
    Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe G. L.
    Carminati, Mario
    Caputi, Luigi
    Usai, Susanna
    Bussone, Gennaro
    Meola, Giovanni
    Delogu, Angelica Bibiana
    Sheiban, Imad
    Sangiorgi, Giuseppe
    [J]. CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2010, 75 (04) : 494 - 504
  • [8] Updating the evidence on patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of 2,303 patients from three randomised trials and 2,231 patients from 11 observational studies
    Capodanno, Davide
    Milazzo, Giovanni
    Vitale, Luca
    Di Stefano, Daniele
    Di Salvo, Marilena
    Grasso, Carmelo
    Tamburino, Corrado
    [J]. EUROINTERVENTION, 2014, 9 (11) : 1342 - 1349
  • [9] Migraine intervention with STARFlex technology trial a controversial trial of migraine and patent foramen ovale closure
    Carroll, John D.
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2008, 117 (11) : 1358 - 1360
  • [10] Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale versus Medical Therapy after Cryptogenic Stroke
    Carroll, John D.
    Saver, Jeffrey L.
    Thaler, David E.
    Smalling, Richard W.
    Berry, Scott
    MacDonald, Lee A.
    Marks, David S.
    Tirschwell, David L.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2013, 368 (12) : 1092 - 1100