SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • antithrombotic;
  • aspirin;
  • device closure;
  • patent foramen ovale;
  • prevention;
  • stroke

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References

Patent foramen ovale is found in 24% of healthy adults and 38% of patients with cryptogenic stroke. This ratio and case reports indicate that patent foramen ovale and stroke are associated, probably because of paradoxical embolism. In healthy people with patent foramen ovale, embolic events are not more frequent than in controls, and therefore no primary prevention is needed. However, once ischaemic events occur, the risk of recurrence is substantial and prevention becomes an issue. Acetylsalicylic acid and warfarin reduce this risk to the same level as in patients without patent foramen ovale. Patent foramen ovale with a coinciding atrial septal aneurysm, spontaneous or large right-to-left shunt, or multiple ischaemic events potentiates the risk of recurrence. Transcatheter device closure has therefore become an intriguing addition to medical treatment, but its therapeutic value still needs to be confirmed by randomised-controlled trials.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References

Paradoxical embolism is a commonly suspected cause of stroke, particularly in younger patients. The term paradoxical embolism was coined by J. Cohnheim in 1877 (1) to describe a condition in which emboli of venous origin enter the systemic circulation by being shunted from the right to the left atrium through a patent foramen ovale (PFO).

During foetal life, the PFO is an integral part of the circulation. The collapsed lungs substantially increase the resistance in the pulmonary circulation, requiring the blood to be shunted from the right atrium directly into the left atrium and systemic circulation. After birth, resistance in pulmonary circulation declines and facilitates flow through the lungs. The pressure in the right atrium falls below that of the left atrium, the septum primum is shoved against the septum secundum and the two generally fuse. However, in some persons, a slit-like opening persists, which is called PFO, and gives rise to (momentary) right-to-left shunts (RLS) (Fig. 1).

image

Figure 1.  Aspect of patent foramen ovale (PFO) from the left atrial side in a cadaver heart. ASA, atrial septal aneurysm of the septum primum; SS, septum secundum.

Download figure to PowerPoint

A right-to-left shunt can be diagnosed easily using a bubble test and transcranial Doppler sonography (2). The gold standard to diagnose a PFO is transoesophageal echocardiography (3).

Patent foramen ovale is not the only but the most common RLS promoting paradoxical embolism, and with a prevalence of 24% in the general population (4). It accounts for up to 95% of RLS (5, 6), pulmonary shunts for only 5%, and atrial septal defects (ASD) for 1% or even less. In autopsy series, the prevalence of PFO ranges from 17 to 27% (7, 8) and from 16 to 73% in stroke patients (Tables 1 and 2) (9, 10).

Table 1.   Prevalence of PFO in patients with ischaemic stroke and nonstroke controls
First authorYear publishedStroke patients with PFOAll stroke patientsNonstroke controls with PFOAll nonstroke controlsOdds ratio (OR)Lower confidence intervalUpper confidence interval% with PFO in stroke patients% of PFOs in controlsProbability of PFO being incidental =1/OR (in %)Age categories (years)
  1. PFO, patent foramen ovale.

Lechat (11)19882460101006·002·6113·80401017<55
Webster (12)198820406405·671·9516·46501518<55
Chen (13)199115347403·721·2910·74441827<55
de Belder (14)199213643564·501·2116·7420522>55
de Belder (14)19925391395·590·6250·2513318<55
Cabanes (15)1993431009503·441·517·83431829<55
Job (16)1994387427631·410·722·77514371<55
Jones (17)19947262193·130·5717·18271132<55
Jones (17)199428194291830·900·511·571416112>55
Zahn (18)19955012011552·861·346·07422035<55
Zahn (18)199515684261·560·465·22221564>55
Del Sette (19)199826738502·901·197·11361634<55
Petty (20)2006392911085190·590·400·881321170All ages
Sum of all studies 323118322512401·691·402·06271859All ages
Table 2.   Prevalence of PFO in patients with cryptogenic strokes and in patients with known cause of stroke
First authorYear publishedCryptogenic stroke patients with PFOAll cryptogenic stroke patientsPatients with known cause of stroke and PFOAll stroke controls with known cause of strokeOdds ratio (OR)Lower confidence intervalUpper confidence interval% with PFO in patients with cryptogenic strokes% of PFOs in controlsProbability of PFO being incidental (in %)Age categories (years)
  1. PFO, patent foramen ovale.

Lechat (11)198820414193·571·0112·61492128<55
Webster (12)19881934166·330·6760·16561716<55
Jeanrenaud (21)1990811053·671·409·627300<55
Hausmann (22)1992929041·451·141·853100<55
Hausmann (22)199274510440·830·221·831623160>55
De Belder (14)199293510692·040·745·62261449All ages
Di Tullio (23)1992102112420·912·37184·524845<55
Di Tullio (23)19929246777·102·2022·9638814>55
Di Tullio (24)19939198251·910·566·55473252All ages
Cabanes (15)199336647365·332·0413·94561919<55
Ranoux (25)1993315411417·522·14143·705776<55
Job (16)1994274111333·861·4610·17663326<55
Homma (26)199416367383·541·2410·14441828All ages
Albers (27)1994325391200·280·081·001233353All ages
Jones (17)19944143121·200·216·88292583<55
Jones (17)19941057181371·410·613·27181371>55
Klötsch (28)1994314019719·433·8023·40782711All ages
Zahn (18)19955011818702·121·114·06422647All ages
Schminke (29)199533608404·891·9412·35552020All ages
Yeung (30)199616270152·461·563·875900<55
Yeung (30)1996278917791·590·793·20302263>55
Petty (31)1997225515612·040·924·52402549All ages
Roijer (32)199717673545·781·5920·9525617All ages
Serena (33)19983053381503·842·007·41572526All ages
Steiner (34)1998194212532·821·176·84452335All ages
Kanda (35)19981971304334·912·589·3427720All ages
Petty (20)200622133171581·640·833·25171161All ages
Handke (36)200777227342763·652·335·74341227>55
Force (37)200812622708·161·7538·1019312>55
Sum of all studies 602159433921933·322·853·87381530 
Sum of all studies of age categories <55 years 180336281685·773·659·13541717<55
Sum of all studies of age categories >55 years 142504876832·692·003·62281337>55

Several clinical conditions have been attributed to RLS or paradoxical embolism: ischaemic stroke (38), peripheral embolism (39, 40), brain abscess (41), decompression sickness in scuba divers (42), myocardial infarction (43), refractory hypoxaemia following right-sided myocardial infarction or severe lung disease (44), platypnoea–orthodeoxia syndrome (45), some forms of sleep apnoea syndrome (46), high-altitude pulmonary oedema (47) and migraine with aura (19, 48).

Although PFO is present in 24% of the general population, paradoxical embolism is relatively rare. After age adjustment to the European population, the annual incidence of first-ever ischaemic stroke is 139 per 100 000 inhabitants (49). However, in 60–70% of all ischaemic strokes, other causes are assumed so that the risk attributed to paradoxical embolism was estimated at 28 per 100 000 persons with PFO per year (50). In other words, during an average lifespan of 70 years, only 2% of all PFOs will be symptomatic. Given this low lifetime risk, no primary prevention is currently recommended and screening for PFO in asymptomatic persons can hardly be justified. Prevention of further events in persons with PFO and symptoms is the important issue. This review therefore focuses on secondary prevention.

Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References

Individual case reports have confirmed Cohnheim's observation of paradoxical embolism through a PFO (51, 52) (Fig. 2). Furthermore, several studies have assessed the frequency of atrial septal abnormalities in patients with stroke and transient ischaemic attacks (TIA) and kindled the interest in PFO and cryptogenic stroke, i.e. in stroke where none of the traditional stroke causes is present (11, 12, 23, 53–55). The authors postulated an association between PFO and ischaemic stroke. In 2000, a meta-analysis summarised the evidence that PFO, atrial septal aneurysm (ASA), or a combination of both abnormalities were more likely to be found in patients with stroke than in stroke-free individuals (38). Trials were categorised by age, clinical comparison, and abnormality.

image

Figure 2.  Surgical view of a 1-cm-thick longish thrombus stuck in the patent foramen ovale (PFO) of a 45-year-old man admitted for pulmonary embolism.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Tables 1 and 2 show an updated meta-analysis derived from case–control studies. The updated meta-analysis confirms the association of PFO with stroke both when strokes are compared with non-stroke controls and when cryptogenic strokes are checked against strokes of known cause. The most important data published since Overell's meta-analysis in 2000 are a negative study with strokes and a population-based control group (20) and two positive studies that examined PFOs in elderly patients (36, 37); Petty and colleagues cast doubt on the association of PFO with stroke (56). The frequency of PFOs in their stroke group was only 13% compared with an average of 32% in other studies. This raises the question of whether the techniques to search for PFOs were adequate in Petty's stroke victims. Nevertheless, the updated meta-analysis remains positive for the association of PFO and stroke even after inclusion of this large negative study. On the other hand, the two studies addressing the comparison of PFO in cryptogenic stroke and stroke of known cause strengthened the data, indicating an association of PFO with stroke of unknown cause also in patients older than 55 years. In addition, older patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO had significantly less severe atherosclerosis of the aorta than patients without PFO, strengthening the likelihood of a pathogenetic role of the PFO (36). Our updated meta-analysis demonstrates a higher prevalence of PFO in ischaemic stroke patients than in stroke-free individuals and a higher prevalence of PFO in cryptogenic stroke patients than in patients with stroke of known cause for all age groups. In addition, ASA concomitant to PFO is more frequent among patients with cryptogenic stroke than in patients with stroke of known cause, both in younger and in older age groups (36, 38).

The anatomical and functional size of the PFO and the mobility of the interatrial septum vary. This might be of clinical relevance and may influence treatment decisions. Patients with cryptogenic strokes have larger PFOs with more extensive RLS than patients with stroke of conventional cause (26, 34). Stroke patients with larger PFOs show more brain imaging features of embolic infarcts than those with small PFOs (34). The presence of a concomitant ASA is independently associated with multiple cerebral ischaemic lesions in PFO stroke, which may indicate an increased embolic risk (57). Another anatomical structure of relevance might be the Eustachian valve (EV). Before birth, the EV directs oxygenated blood from the inferior vena cava towards and across the PFO into the systemic circulation. In patients with a PFO, a persisting EV is frequently encountered. By directing the blood from the inferior vena cava to the interatrial septum, a persisting EV may prevent spontaneous closure of PFO after birth and may, therefore, doubly predispose to a paradoxical embolism (58).

The amount of shunting seems to be clinically significant as well. On the one hand, a case–control study linked increasing RLS at rest and high membrane mobility with a higher risk of recurrent brain embolism (59), and on the other, there is a high correlation between the size of the PFO on transoesophageal echocardiography and the amount of microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler sonography in stroke and TIA patients (60). In addition, atrial septal mobility predicts the degree of RLS across PFOs (61). Increasing deviation of the mobile interatrial septum is associated with larger PFOs, giving rise to more shunting, and thus a greater opportunity for a paradoxical embolism and an increased risk for stroke (61–63).

A hypercoagulable state might contribute to the risk of paradoxical emboli in PFO patients as well. At least two studies have shown an increased frequency of prothrombotic genotypes in such patients (64, 65), while other studies found no difference between PFO patients and controls (66, 67).

The current data indicate that there is a biological gradient of the risk of stroke associated with PFO, which grows with increasing amount of shunting and can be further enhanced by other factors such as a hypercoagulable state. ASA or EV in this context can be regarded as a marker of increased shunting. This biological gradient may also indicate that PFO is not only associated with cryptogenic stroke by chance but is also causally related via paradoxical emboli as a mediator. The presence of such a pathogenetic mechanism is supported by the PELVIS study with a 20% frequency of pelvic vein thrombosis in acute stroke patients with PFO as opposed to a rate of only 4% in patients with a known cause of stroke (68). It is rather amazing that the current diagnostic techniques were able to pick up pelvic vein thrombosis in 20% of cryptogenic stroke patients, considering the small diameter of thrombi causing occlusion of cerebral vessels and stroke in relation to the large size of veins. This might also explain why only a few calf thromboses are found as a source of cryptogenic strokes, which has been quoted often to argue against the mechanism of a paradoxical embolism through PFOs. Similar to the PELVIS study, a population-based cohort study showed a substantially increased long-term risk of subsequent arterial cardiovascular events including stroke in patients with venous thromboembolism also supporting the mechanism of paradoxical embolisation (69). Arrhythmias including atrial fibrillation related to the septal abnormality might represent an alternative mechanism by which PFO could induce strokes (70, 71). It is also conceivable that thrombi formed in the PFO tunnel or in the ASA are causing strokes. However, if this was a frequent mechanism, dislodgement of thrombi by the catheter crossing the PFO tunnel during PFO closure would be expected but such an event has yet to be described.

Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References

As outlined above, the association between PFO and ischaemic stroke has been demonstrated by individual case reports and case–control studies. Two population-based studies addressed the issue of PFO-related first-ever stroke risk prospectively: one in the Olmsted county, MN, and the other in the northern Manhattan population of New York (4, 9). Both studies failed to establish the role of PFO as an independent risk factor for stroke in the general population. There was only a non-significant trend towards a higher stroke incidence in persons with PFO in both studies.

The Olmsted county study (Stroke Prevention: Assessment of Risk in a Community, SPARC) enrolled 588 randomly sampled subjects, whose mean age was 67 years (4). A PFO was identified in 24% and an ASA in 2% of subjects. During a median follow-up of 5·1 years, cerebrovascular events (cerebrovascular-related death, ischaemic stroke, and TIA) occurred in 41 subjects (7%). After adjustment for age and comorbidity, PFO was not a significant independent predictor of stroke (hazard ratio 1·46, 95% CI 0·74–2·88, P=0·28). Even when looking at large-size PFOs, a significant risk for cerebrovascular events was not detected. The risk of stroke among subjects with ASA was nearly fourfold greater than that in those without ASA, but the proportional hazards regression analysis did not establish statistical significance (hazard ratio 3·72, 95% CI 0·88–15·71, P=0·074). The relatively small sample size and the advanced age of the study participants evoked some criticism within the scientific community (72, 73). The sample size of 1100 stroke-free subjects in the Northern Manhattan study (NOMAS) (9) was almost double that of the SPARC study. Patent foramen ovale was detected in 15% and ASA in 3% of the participants. During a follow-up of 6·6 years, ischaemic stroke occurred in 68 subjects (6%). After adjustment for demographic and risk factors, PFO was not found to be significantly associated with stroke (hazard ratio 1·64, 95% CI 0·87–3·09). Isolated ASA was associated with elevated stroke incidence (hazard ratio 3·66, 95% CI 0·88–15·30), but the coexistence of PFO and ASA was not (hazard ratio 1·25, 95% CI 0·17–9·24). Transthoracic echocardiography was used to detect PFO instead of the more sensitive transoesophageal echocardiography. Underdiagnosis of interatrial shunts may be responsible for the relatively low prevalence of PFO detected in the NOMAS study and may have biased the results.

Both SPARC and NOMAS suggest that the risk of stroke from a PFO in the general population is low. While the identification of PFOs that are just ‘innocent bystanders’ with a low risk does not appear to be meaningful, searching for PFOs that may expose a healthy individual to a relevant stroke risk does. Future studies might have to address the issue, which PFOs are dangerous enough to warrant primary preventive measures.

Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References

The natural course after cryptogenic stroke in patients with PFO needs to be further elucidated. Currently, the following treatment options for the secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism are in clinical use or evaluation: (1) antithrombotic treatment (ATT) with antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, (2) transcatheter device closure (TDC) of PFO, (3) percutaneous suture closure of PFO, (4) percutaneous device-less closure and (5) surgical closure of PFO by open access or thoracoscopy.

Stroke recurrence under ATT

The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) recently published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with recurrent stroke, PFO, and ASA, after a critical review of the literature (74). The recommendations were largely based on one randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with blinded outcome assessments, the Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS) (75), and three prospective-matched cohort studies (59, 76, 77). The first cohort study, the Lausanne study, reported 3·8% of recurrent, non-fatal, cerebral ischaemic events (stroke or TIA) per year during 3 years of prospective follow-up in 140 patients (76). Treatment type, administered in a non-random fashion (antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and PFO closure), was not related to stroke recurrence in the multivariate analysis. The largest cohort study, the French PFO/ASA study, was an unblinded trial of 581 patients with stroke. Of these, 37% of the patients had a PFO and 1·7% had a PFO combined with an ASA (77). All received acetylsalicylic acid (300 mg per day). After 4 years of follow-up, the risk of recurrent stroke was 2·3% in patients with PFO compared with 4·2% in patients without cardiac abnormalities. In the ‘La Sapienza’ study, recurrent cerebral ischaemic events (strokes or TIAs) occurred in 7·2% of 74 patients after a mean follow-up of 3 years, which is equal to 2·4%/year (59). Patients with TEE evidence of RLS at rest (i.e. without Valsalva provocation) or interatrial septal hypermobility were at an increased risk of stroke recurrence. If a composite of stroke and death was considered, the annual risk under ATT in patients with isolated PFO ranged from 1·5 to 3·7% in the cohort studies. The annual risk reported by the only RCT (PICSS) was twofold higher (7·2%), possibly due to age-related effects (mean age, 59 years compared with 44–53 years in the cohort studies).

PICSS was a sub-study of the randomised-controlled Warfarin-Aspirin Recurrent Stroke Study (WARSS). It compared acetylsalicylic acid and anticoagulation for the secondary prevention of stroke (75). A PFO was found in 39% of 265 patients with cryptogenic stroke and in 30% of 365 patients with a stroke of determined aetiology (P<0·02). For the entire group, the 2-year recurrent stroke or death rates did not differ between patients with and without a PFO (14·3% vs. 12·7%). In addition, when the groups with and without a PFO were analysed in relation to the efficacy of warfarin (mean international normalised ratio 2·04) or acetylsalicylic acid (325 mg/day), no significant differences were found. Neither the size of the PFO nor the coincidence of an ASA was associated with an increased risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events. In PICSS, acetylsalicylic acid and warfarin were equal in preventing recurrent stroke or death. In the subgroup of patients after cryptogenic stroke, the 2-year rate of recurrent stroke or death was lower, but not significantly, in patients with anticoagulation compared with antiplatelet therapy (8·8% vs. 16·9%, OR 0·47, 95% CI 0·22–1·04).

The main conclusion of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the AAN was that PFO alone does not portend an increased risk of subsequent stroke or death in patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke and are treated medically (74). There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about isolated ASA. The results regarding patients with the combination of PFO and ASA were somewhat inconsistent: the French PFO/ASA study indicated a significantly increased risk, 15·2% (95% CI 1·8–28·6) after 4 years, while PICSS did not establish any association between the presence of PFO and ASA with stroke or death. The available data failed to demonstrate a difference between warfarin and acetylsalicylic acid effects on the risk of subsequent stroke or death among patients with a cryptogenic stroke and atrial septal abnormalities. However, it is important to note that there is a group of patients who should always be treated with anticoagulants for at least 3 months: those with concomitant deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (78).

Anatomical and functional studies and the French PFO/ASA study indicate that a coexisting ASA is a substantial and probably the most important potentiator of stroke risk in patients with PFO. ASA not only prevents spontaneous closure of the foramen after birth but it also produces frequent openings of the PFO cleft, perhaps even with every heart beat. Patients with PFO and ASA could be defined as ‘high-risk’ patients for recurrent events. There is also evidence that PFO patients with more than one previous event are at an increased risk of recurrent cerebral ischaemia (79). Furthermore, PFO size, degree of functional shunting, EV, and a coexisting hypercoagulable state likely are additional risk factors that could place a patient at high risk and need to be studied further.

Stroke recurrence after PFO closure

In addition to ATT, various procedures are used to close the PFO with the intention of preventing subsequent paradoxical embolism. Open-heart surgery is effective to close the PFO, but entails a broad range of perioperative complications, although mostly minor (80–82). Transcatheter PFO closure using radiofrequency thermal energy is less invasive but performed too poorly so far to be used in clinical routine (83, 84), and suture-based technology will require further refinements before safety and efficacy trials can be initiated (85). At present, percutaneous TDC is the most widely and probably the safest technique used to close PFOs.

TDC

Transcatheter device closure of ASD was first introduced in 1974 (86). The method consists of positioning a double-umbrella device on both sides of the interatrial septum through an approach over a femoral vein (Fig. 3). Several patient series treated with such devices have been reported, with recurrent cerebrovascular ischaemic events ranging from 0% to 3·4% (87–92). In the largest series reported to date, the annual recurrence rate of ischaemic events among 525 patients was 1·1% (six strokes, nine TIA, and two peripheral emboli in 1534 patient years) (93). Transcatheter device implantation is less invasive than open-heart surgery; nevertheless, complications can also occur. They include atrial wall perforation with pericardial effusion, device dislodgement or embolisation, device fractures, early and late free wall erosions, aortic regurgitation, thrombosis on the device and thrombus embolisation, septal fibrosis, arrhythmias, venous access complications, air embolism through the transseptal sheath, and death (94). Growing experience with more careful manipulation of catheters, wires, and devices, however, has increased the success rate of implantation close to 100% and decreased the rate of significant complications to <1%. In the large series of Wahl et al. (93), there were (2·5%) complications without any long-term sequelae. Significant complications reported to a manufacturer are even fewer with free wall erosions of only two among more than 11 000 implanted devices (95). Some authors advocate the use of transoesophageal or intracardiac echocardiography to guide device placement (96), but there is a growing group of cardiologists placing devices with the help of right atrial opacification with contrast medium under fluoroscopy (93). This seems to be more efficient, patient-friendly, and at least as safe compared with using transoesophageal or intracardiac ultrasound guidance.

image

Figure 3.  Transoesophageal echocardiography showing the passage through a patent foramen ovale (PFO) (dashed arrow). The bottom panel shows a double-umbrella PFO occluder before (left) and after (right) release from the pusher cable. The PFO passage (dashed arrows) is delineated by a contrast medium injection.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The PFO occluding devices have different amounts of metal and fabric in their structure. With time, local inflammatory responses with lymphocytic infiltrates, the presence of foreign body giant cells, the cellular organisation of initial fibrin deposits, and a persisting immune response encapsulate the device by fibrous tissue and occlude the PFO permanently (97). Transoesophageal echocardiography at 6 months showed complete closure in 86% of patients, and a minimal, moderate, or large residual shunt in 9%, 3%, and 2%, respectively, with the most commonly used device (93). A residual shunt was a risk factor for recurrent ischaemic events (hazard ratio=3·4; 95% CI 1·3–9·2). Over the past few years, the market has seen numerous PFO occluding devices. Some have disappeared for a variety of reasons (98). A randomised trial has compared procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcome of three devices in 660 patients with a history of paradoxical embolism (99). The devices were the Amplatzer (Amplatzer PFO occluder, Plymouth, MN, USA), Helex (Gore HELEX Septal Occluder, Flagstaff, AZ, USA), and CardioSEAL-STAR-Flex (CardioSEAL Septal Occlusion System, Boston, MA, USA), and there were 220 patients per group. All PFO closures were technically successful. Exchange of devices or device embolisations that were retrieved was most frequently required for the Helex occluder, and thrombus formation on the device and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were more common with the CardioSEAL-STAR-Flex occluder. Complete closure at 30 days was more frequent in the Amplatzer (65%, P=0·0005) and CardioSEAL-STAR-Flex (62%, P=0·0003) groups than in the Helex group (53%).

Even if device technology is advanced today and the delivery of devices is proven safe in skilled hands, the efficacy of the TDC still needs to be documented in randomised trials.

Comparisons of ATT and PFO occluding devices

Comparisons between ATT and TDC in patients with cryptogenic stroke are scarce and currently at the level of case–control studies. Windecker et al. (92) compared the risk of recurrent stroke in 308 patients with PFO who underwent TDC or received ATT alone. At 4 years of follow-up, TDC resulted in a non-significant trend towards risk reduction of recurrent stroke/TIA (8% vs. 22%; P=0·08) compared with ATT. Patients with more than one cerebrovascular event at baseline and those with complete PFO occlusion at follow-up after device implantation were at a lower risk for recurrent stroke or TIA compared with medically treated patients (7% vs. 33%, P=0·01; 7% vs. 22%, P=0·04, respectively). Schuchlenz and colleagues studied 280 patients treated with antiplatelets (n=66), anticoagulation (n=47), or TDC (n=167) and followed them for a mean of 2·6 years. The annual rate of recurrent cerebrovascular events was 0·6% after TDC compared with oral anticoagulation (5·6%, hazard ratio 0·06, 95% CI 0·12–0·29, P<0·001) and antiplatelets (13%) (100).

Patients with PFO and ASA constitute a population with a higher risk of cerebral ischaemia than patients with PFO alone (38, 77). Therefore, the question arises as to whether TDC is as effective to treat PFO and ASA compared with PFO alone. Wahl et al. (101) compared TDC in 141 patients with ASA and PFO and one or more paradoxical embolism and 220 patients with PFO alone. The procedure effectively abolished RLS and decreased septal hypermobility at the same time. Freedom from recurrent TIA, stroke, and peripheral emboli was 95% (ASA+PFO) and 94% (PFO) at 4 years, indicating that long-term prevention of recurrent events was as favourable in PFO+ASA patients as in patients with PFO alone.

Wöhrle and colleagues compiled recurrence rates of several series of PFO patients with medical treatment or after TDC. The annual rate of stroke or TIA after TDC was 1·3% (95% CI 1·0–1·8), which was lower than the annual rate of 5·2% (95% CI 4·4–6·2%) with medical treatment (94). This result is independent of the initial presence of an ASA and contrasts with the recurrence rate in patients with PFO and ASA during antiplatelet therapy (77).

To date, no results of RCT to compare recurrent ischaemic events after TDC closure or with medical treatment are available. There are five ongoing RCTs (PC-Trial in Europe, Canada, Brazil, and Australia, CLOSE in France, CLOSURE1 and RESPECT in USA, and GORE Reduce in USA and Scandinavia). Whenever possible, patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO and their treating physicians should be encouraged to participate in one of these trials in order to clarify the best secondary preventive measure.

Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References

The annual risk of stroke recurrence is unlikely to exceed 1–2% in those aged <55 years. With advancing age, other risk factors and causes of stroke become more prevalent. As a result, the relative risk (RR) posed by a PFO decreases from 3·1 in patients aged <55 years to 1·1 in those older than 55 years (50). Assuming a 10% recurrence rate at 5 years in PFO patients receiving ATT and a 5% recurrence rate after TDC, an RCT has to include 620 patients per treatment arm in order to demonstrate a significant difference (α=0·95; power 90%). Assuming only a 5% recurrence rate in the ATT and a 2·5% rate in the TDC arm, the number of patients needed for the trial increases to 5098. Given the low recurrence rates under ATT and the risk of complications after TDC, it is crucial to identify ‘high-risk’ patients with a higher recurrence rate who may derive more or the most benefit from TDC. However, the effect of TDC in ‘high-risk’ patients has never been systematically tested. There is little doubt that RCT that compare ATT with TDC would provide powerful evidence for the optimal treatment of patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO. Nevertheless, results from the ongoing randomised trials are not to be expected for the near future. Even if these trials are completed successfully, statistical differences may remain undetected with the planned sample sizes of 410 patients in the PC-trial, 900 in CLOSE, 800 in CLOSURE, 1500 patients in RESPECT, and 664 in GORE Reduce. Alternative data-gathering strategies, e.g. with multicentre prospective registries, are urgently needed.

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References

The evidence linking PFO to cryptogenic stroke is strong. The meta-analysis of all case–control studies shows a consistent association, particularly when PFO is combined with ASA. The probability that PFO is an incidental finding is equal to one divided by the odds ratio. In all patients with cryptogenic strokes, this probability is 30% (95% CI 26–35%), 17% in patients younger than 55 years (95% CI 11–27%), and 37% in patients older than 55 years (95% CI 28–50%). An association makes pathophysiological sense and can be explained by paradoxical embolisation, which has been observed in several patients in vivo or autopsy and can be inferred and temporally related from venous thromboembolic studies as well. Moreover, there exists a biological gradient between the amount of shunting and the risk of recurrent stroke. One could even question the attribute ‘cryptogenic’ to a stroke that occurs without another identifiable aetiology but a septal shunt. According to current evidence, PFO could be regarded as an independent risk factor for stroke similar to hypertension, smoking, diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia, and other established stroke risk factors, although with less weight than the traditional risk factors. However, such a statement requires proof of a causal relationship between septal abnormality and stroke. To date, a causal relationship is likely but not proved. The association of PFO and stroke could be a chance finding. We all know that the selection of cases can bias case–control studies and give false answers that are not reproducible in RCT. A recent example is hormone replacement therapy, which was recommended after case–control studies, but is not advisable after the randomised-controlled women's health initiative (102). The results of case–control studies need to be confirmed by RCTs, and until results of such trials are available, we do not know whether there is actually a causal association and whether closure of the PFO has a beneficial effect.

Table 3 summarises the recommendations for the management of patients with septal abnormalities after ischaemic events according to current stroke guidelines. The AAN guidelines question the association of PFO with an increased risk of stroke (74). According to the AAN guidelines, antiplatelet agents are the prevention of first choice. The AHA/ASA and ESO guidelines also recommend antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention, while patients with hypercoagulable states or vein thrombosis should be anticoagulated (103–105). When strokes recur, the AHA/ASA and ESO guidelines recommend considering PFO closure. The ESO guidelines also recommend PFO closure for other high-risk patients, but leave the definition of ‘high risk’ open. ASA is probably the most important potentiator of the risk of PFO, but further research is needed to define such patients.

Table 3.   Recommendations of guidelines for management of patients with septal abnormalities after ischaemic events
GuidelineStatements and recommendations
Quality Standards Subcommittee of the AAN (74)PFO is not associated with an increased risk of subsequent stroke or death among medically treated patients with cryptogenic stroke.
The co-incidence of PFO and ASA possibly increases the risk of subsequent stroke (but not death) in medically treated patients aged <55 years.
In patients with a cryptogenic stroke and an atrial septal abnormality (PFO, ASD, or ASA), the evidence is insufficient to determine whether warfarin or acetylsalicylic acid is superior in preventing recurrent stroke or death, but minor bleeding is more frequent with warfarin.
There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of surgical or endovascular closure.
American Stroke Association/American Heart Association (AHA/ASA) (103)For patients with an ischaemic stroke or TIA and a PFO, antiplatelet therapy is reasonable to prevent a recurrent event (Class IIa, Level B).
Warfarin is reasonable for high-risk patients who have other indications for oral anticoagulation such as those with an underlying hypercoagulable state or evidence of venous thrombosis (Class IIa, Level C).
Insufficient data exist to make a recommendation about PFO closure in patients with a first stroke and a PFO. PFO closure may be considered for patients with recurrent cryptogenic stroke despite medical therapy (Class IIb, Level C).
European Stroke Organisation (ESO) (104)Antiplatelet therapy after TIA or stroke.
In the presence of proven deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or atrial septal aneurysm, anticoagulation is recommended [Class IV, good clinical practice (GCP) (105)].
Consider endovascular closure of PFO in patients with cryptogenic stroke and high-risk PFO (Class IV, GCP) (104) guidelines.

Search strategy and selection criteria. References for this review were selected from the personal data bases of the authors collected for the purpose of clinical research on PFO. In addition, articles on PFO, PubMed, and Google were systematically searched for articles and studies related to PFO until the end of November 2008. Search terms were ‘patent foramen ovale’ and ‘paradoxical embolism’. PFO, patent foramen ovale.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Association of first-ever ischaemic stroke and PFO
  5. Risk of first-ever ischaemic stroke in persons with PFO
  6. Risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with PFO
  7. Unresolved issues in the management of patients with stroke and PFO
  8. Conclusion
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. References
  • 1
    Cohnheim J. Thrombose und Embolie. Vorlesung über allgemeine Pathologie. Berlin, Hirschwald, 1877: 134.
  • 2
    Nedeltchev K, Mattle HP. Contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler ultrasound for diagnosis of patent foramen ovale. Front Neurol Neurosci 2006; 21:20615.
  • 3
    Doufekias E, Segal AZ, Kizer JR. Cardiogenic and aortogenic brain embolism. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:104959.
  • 4
    Meissner I, Khandheria BK, Heit JA et al. Patent foramen ovale: innocent or guilty? Evidence from a prospective population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:4405.
  • 5
    Schwerzmann M, Nedeltchev K, Meier B. Patent foramen ovale closure: a new therapy for migraine. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 69:27784.
  • 6
    Weber F, Goriup A. Prevalence of right-to-left shunts in active fighter pilots. Aviat Space Environ Med 2007; 78:1356.
  • 7
    Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD. Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clin Proc 1984; 59:1720.
  • 8
    Seib G. Incidence of the patent foramen cordis in adult American whites and American Negroes. Am J Anat 1935; 55:51125.
  • 9
    Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Jin Z, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale and the risk of ischemic stroke in a multiethnic population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:797802.
  • 10
    Ward R, Jones D, Haponik EF. Paradoxical embolism: unrecognized problem. Chest 1995; 108:54958.
  • 11
    Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:114852.
  • 12
    Webster MW, Chancellor AM, Smith HJ et al. Patent foramen ovale in young stroke patients. Lancet 1988; 2:112.
  • 13
    Chen WJ, Lin SL, Cheng JJ, Lien WP. The frequency of patent foramen ovale in patients with ischemic stroke: a transesophageal echocardiographic study. J Formos Med Assoc 1991; 90:7448.
  • 14
    De Belder MA, Tourikis L, Leech G, Camm AJ. Risk of patent foramen ovale for thromboembolic events in all age groups. Am J Cardiol 1992; 69:131620.
  • 15
    Cabanes L, Mas JL, Cohen A et al. Atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale as risk factors for cryptogenic stroke in patients less than 55-years of age. A study using transesophageal echocardiography. Stroke 1993; 24:186573.
  • 16
    Job FP, Ringelstein EB, Grafen Y et al. Comparison of transcranial contrast Doppler sonography and transesophageal contrast echocardiography for the detection of patent foramen ovale in young stroke patients. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74:3814.
  • 17
    Jones EF, Calafiore P, Donnan GA, Tonkin AM. Evidence that patent foramen ovale is not a risk factor for cerebral ischemia in the elderly. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74:5969.
  • 18
    Zahn R, Lehmkuhl S, Lotter R, Zander M, Senges J. Cardiac sources of cerebral ischemic events with special regard to a patent foramen ovale. Herz Kreislauf 1995; 27:27984.
  • 19
    Del Sette M, Angeli S, Leandri M et al. Migraine with aura and right-to-left shunt on transcranial Doppler: a case–control study. Cerebrovasc Dis 1998; 8:32730.
  • 20
    Petty GW, Khandheria BK, Meissner I et al. Population-based study of the relationship between patent foramen ovale and cerebrovascular ischemic events. Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81:6028.
  • 21
    Jeanrenaud X, Bogousslavsky J, Payot M, Regli F, Kappenberger L. Patent foramen ovale and cerebral infarct in young patients. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1990; 120:8239.
  • 22
    Hausmann D, Mugge A, Becht I, Daniel WG. Diagnosis of patent foramen ovale by transesophageal echocardiography and association with cerebral and peripheral embolic events. Am J Cardiol 1992; 70:66872.
  • 23
    Di Tullio M, Sacco RL, Gopal A, Mohr JP, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale as a risk factor for cryptogenic stroke. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117:4615.
  • 24
    Di Tullio M, Sacco RL, Venketasubramanian N, Sherman D, Mohr JP, Homma S. Comparison of diagnostic techniques for the detection of a patent foramen ovale in stroke patients. Stroke 1993; 24:10204.
  • 25
    Ranoux D, Cohen A, Cabanes L, Amarenco P, Bousser MG, Mas JL. Patent foramen ovale: is stroke due to paradoxical embolism? Stroke 1993; 24:314.
  • 26
    Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Mihalatos D, Li Mandri G, Mohr JP. Characteristics of patent foramen ovale associated with cryptogenic stroke. A biplane transesophageal echocardiographic study. Stroke 1994; 25:5826.
  • 27
    Albers GW, Comess KA, DeRook FA et al. Transesophageal echocardiographic findings in stroke subtypes. Stroke 1994; 25:238.
  • 28
    Klötzsch C, Janssen G, Berlit P. Transesophageal echocardiography and contrast-TCD in the detection of a patent foramen ovale: experiences with 111 patients. Neurology 1994; 44:16036.
  • 29
    Schminke U, Ries S, Daffertshofer M, Staedt U, Hennerici M. Patent foramen ovale: a potential source of cerebral embolism? Cerebrovasc Dis 1995; 5:1338.
  • 30
    Yeung M, Khan KA, Shuaib A. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography in the detection of venous to arterial shunting in acute stroke and transient ischaemic attacks. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996; 61:4459.
  • 31
    Petty GW, Khandheria BK, Chu CP, Sicks JD, Whisnant JP. Patent foramen ovale in patients with cerebral infarction. A transesophageal echocardiographic study. Arch Neurol 1997; 54:81922.
  • 32
    Roijer A, Lindgren A, Algotsson L, Norrving B, Olsson B, Eskilsson J. Cardiac changes in stroke patients and controls evaluated with transoesophageal echocardiography. Scand Cardiovasc J 1997; 31:32937.
  • 33
    Serena J, Segura T, Perez-Ayuso MJ, Bassaganyas J, Molins A, Davalos A. The need to quantify right-to-left shunt in acute ischemic stroke: a case–control study. Stroke 1998; 29:13228.
  • 34
    Steiner MM, Di Tullio MR, Rundek T et al. Patent foramen ovale size and embolic brain imaging findings among patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke 1998; 29:9448.
  • 35
    Kanda N, Yasaka M, Otsubo R, Nagatsuka K, Minematsu K, Yamaguchi T. Right-to-left shunt and atrial septal aneurysm in stroke patients: a contrast transesophageal echocardiographic study. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 1998; 38:2138.
  • 36
    Handke M, Harloff A, Olschewski M, Hetzel A, Geibel A. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke in older patients. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:22628.
  • 37
    Force M, Massabuau P, Larrue V. Prevalence of atrial septal abnormalities in older patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2008; 110:77983.
  • 38
    Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case–control studies. Neurology 2000; 55:11729.
  • 39
    Chaikof EL, Campbell BE SRB. Paradoxical embolism and acute arterial occlusion: rare or unsuspected? J Vasc Surg 1994; 20:37784.
  • 40
    Inoue T, Tadehara F, Hinoi T et al. Paradoxical peripheral embolism coincident with acute pulmonary thromboembolism. Intern Med 2005; 44:2435.
  • 41
    Dethy S, Manto M, Kentos A et al. PET findings in a brain abscess associated with a silent atrial septal defect. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 1995; 97:34953.
  • 42
    Moon RE, Camporesi EM, Kisslo JA. Patent foramen ovale and decompression sickness in divers. Lancet 1989; 1:5134.
  • 43
    Rigatelli G, Giordan M, Braggion G et al. Incidence of extracerebral paradoxical embolism in patients with intracardiac shunts. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2007; 8:24850.
  • 44
    Silver MT, Lieberman EH, Thibault GE. Refractory hypoxemia in inferior myocardial infarction from right-to-left shunting through a patent foramen ovale: a case report and review of the literature. Clin Cardiol 1994; 17:62730.
  • 45
    Cheng TO. Platypnea–orthodeoxia syndrome: etiology, differential diagnosis, and management. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv 1999; 47:646.
  • 46
    Beelke M, Angeli S, Del Sette M et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in subjects with obstructive sleep apnea: a transcranial Doppler ultrasound study. Sleep Med 2003; 4:21923.
  • 47
    Allemann Y, Hutter D, Lipp E et al. Patent foramen ovale and high-altitude pulmonary edema. JAMA 2006; 296:29548.
  • 48
    Anzola GP, Magoni M, Guindani M, Rozzini L, Dalla Volta G. Potential source of cerebral embolism in migraine with aura: a transcranial Doppler study. Neurology 1999; 52:16225.
  • 49
    Alzamora MT, Sorribes M, Heras A. Ischemic stroke incidence in Santa Coloma de Gramenet (ISISCOG), Spain. A community-based study. BMC Neurol 2008; 8:5.
  • 50
    Kraywinkel K, Jauss M, Diener HC, Weimar C. Patent foramen ovale, atrial septum aneurysm, and stroke. An examination of the status of recent evidence. Nervenarzt 2005; 76:93542.
  • 51
    Hansen A, Kuecherer H. Caught in the act: entrapped embolus through a patent foramen ovale. Eur J Echocardiogr 2008; 9:6923.
  • 52
    Thanigaraj S, Zajarias A, Valika A, Lasala J, Perez JE. Caught in the act: serial, real time images of a thrombus traversing from the right to left atrium across a patent foramen ovale. Eur J Echocardiogr 2006; 7:17981.
  • 53
    Belkin RN, Hurwitz BJ, Kisslo J. Atrial septal aneurysm: association with cerebrovascular and peripheral embolic events. Stroke 1987; 18:85662.
  • 54
    Hausmann D, Mugge A, Daniel WG. Identification of patent foramen ovale permitting paradoxic embolism. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26:10308.
  • 55
    Jones HRJ, Caplan LR, Come PC, Swinton NWJ, Breslin DJ. Cerebral emboli of paradoxical origin. Ann Neurol 1983; 13:3149.
  • 56
    Adams HPJ. Cardiac disease and stroke: will history repeat itself? Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81:597601.
  • 57
    Bonati LH, Kessel-Schaefer A, Linka AZ et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in stroke attributable to patent foramen ovale: significance of concomitant atrial septum aneurysm. Stroke 2006; 37:20304.
  • 58
    Schuchlenz HW, Saurer G, Weihs W, Rehak P. Persisting eustachian valve in adults: relation to patent foramen ovale and cerebrovascular events. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2004; 17:2313.
  • 59
    De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke 2000; 31:240713.
  • 60
    Telman G, Yalonetsky S, Kouperberg E, Sprecher E, Lorber A, Yarnitsky D. Size of PFO and amount of microembolic signals in patients with ischaemic stroke or TIA. Eur J Neurol 2008; 15:96972.
  • 61
    Fox ER, Picard MH, Chow CM, Levine RA, Schwamm L, Kerr AJ. Interatrial septal mobility predicts larger shunts across patent foramen ovales: an analysis with transmitral Doppler scanning. Am Heart J 2003; 145:7306.
  • 62
    Homma S, Sacco RL. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Circulation 2005; 112:106372.
  • 63
    Schuchlenz HW, Saurer G, Weihs W. Patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, and recurrent stroke. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:13312.
  • 64
    Botto N, Spadoni I, Giusti S, Ait-Ali L, Sicari R, Andreassi MG. Prothrombotic mutations as risk factors for cryptogenic ischemic cerebrovascular events in young subjects with patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2007; 38:20703.
  • 65
    Pezzini A, Del Zotto E, Magoni M et al. Inherited thrombophilic disorders in young adults with ischemic stroke and patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2003; 34:2833.
  • 66
    Belvis R, Santamaria A, Marti-Fabregas J et al. Patent foramen ovale and prothrombotic markers in young stroke patients. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2007; 18:53742.
  • 67
    Florez JC, Ay H, Van Cott EM, Buonanno FS. Patent foramen ovale and hypercoagulability as combined risk factors for stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2003; 12:1148.
  • 68
    Cramer SC, Rordorf G, Maki JH et al. Increased pelvic vein thrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the Paradoxical Emboli from Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study. Stroke 2004; 35:4650.
  • 69
    Sorensen HT, Horvath-Puho E, Pedersen L, Baron JA, Prandoni P. Venous thromboembolism and subsequent hospitalisation due to acute arterial cardiovascular events: a 20-year cohort study. Lancet 2007; 370:17739.
  • 70
    Berthet K, Lavergne T, Cohen A et al. Significant association of atrial vulnerability with atrial septal abnormalities in young patients with ischemic stroke of unknown cause. Stroke 2000; 31:398403.
  • 71
    Djaiani G, Phillips-Bute B, Podgoreanu M et al. The association of patent foramen ovale and atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Anesth Analg 2004; 98:5859.
  • 72
    Meier B. Patent foramen ovale, guilty but only as a gang member and for a lesser crime. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:4468.
  • 73
    Schrale RG, Mitchell AR, Ormerod OJ. Patent foramen ovale and the risk of cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48:19134.
  • 74
    Messe SR, Silverman IE, Kizer JR et al. Practice parameter: recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2004; 62:104250.
  • 75
    Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002; 105:262531.
  • 76
    Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, Aebischer N, Van Melle G. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: the Lausanne Study. Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxal Embolism Study Group. Neurology 1996; 46:13015.
  • 77
    Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C et al. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:17406.
  • 78
    Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G et al. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Circulation 2006; 113:e40949.
  • 79
    Nedeltchev K, Arnold M, Wahl A et al. Outcome of patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72:34750.
  • 80
    Dearani JA, Ugurlu BS, Danielson GK et al. Surgical patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of paradoxical embolism-related cerebrovascular ischemic events. Circulation 1999; 100:II1715.
  • 81
    Devuyst G, Bogousslavsky J, Ruchat P et al. Prognosis after stroke followed by surgical closure of patent foramen ovale: a prospective follow-up study with brain MRI and simultaneous transesophageal and transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Neurology 1996; 47:11626.
  • 82
    Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Smith C, Mohr JP. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke 1997; 28:237681.
  • 83
    Sievert H, Fischer E, Heinisch C, Majunke N, Roemer A, Wunderlich N. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale without an implant: initial clinical experience. Circulation 2007; 116:17016.
  • 84
    Walpoth NB, Habermacher K, Moarof I et al. Device-less patent foramen ovale closure by radiofrequency thermal energy. Swiss Med Wkly 2008; 138:10813.
  • 85
    Ruiz CE, Kipshidze N, Chiam PT, Gogorishvili I. Feasibility of patent foramen ovale closure with no-device left behind: first-in-man percutaneous suture closure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 71:9216.
  • 86
    Mills NL, King TD. Nonoperative closure of left-to-right shunts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1976; 72:3718.
  • 87
    Bridges ND, Hellenbrand W, Latson L, Filiano J, Newburger JW, Lock JE. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical embolism. Circulation 1992; 86:19028.
  • 88
    Hung J, Landzberg MJ, Jenkins KJ et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical emboli: intermediate-term risk of recurrent neurological events following transcatheter device placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35:13116.
  • 89
    Kutty S, Brown K, Asnes JD, Rhodes JF, Latson LA. Causes of recurrent focal neurologic events after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale with the CardioSEAL septal occluder. Am J Cardiol 2008; 101:148792.
  • 90
    Wahl A, Meier B, Haxel B et al. Prognosis after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical embolism. Neurology 2001; 57:13302.
  • 91
    Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation 2000; 101:8938.
  • 92
    Windecker S, Wahl A, Nedeltchev K et al. Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:7508.
  • 93
    Wahl A, Kunz M, Moschovitis A et al. Long-term results after fluoroscopy-guided closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism. Heart 2008; 94:33641.
  • 94
    Wohrle J. Closure of patent foramen ovale after cryptogenic stroke. Lancet 2006; 368:3502.
  • 95
    Amin Z, Hijazi ZM, Bass JL, Cheatham JP, Hellenbrand W, Kleinman CS. PFO closure complications from the AGA registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 72:749.
  • 96
    Shishehbor MH, Christofferson RD, Tuzcu EM, Kapadia SR. Long-term results after PFO closure. Heart 2008; 94:100.
  • 97
    Sigler M, Jux C. Biocompatibility of septal defect closure devices. Heart 2007; 93:4449.
  • 98
    Bayard YL, Ostermayer SH, Hein R et al. Percutaneous devices for stroke prevention. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2007; 8:21625.
  • 99
    Taaffe M, Fischer E, Baranowski A et al. Comparison of three patent foramen ovale closure devices in a randomized trial (Amplatzer versus CardioSEAL-STARflex versus Helex occluder). Am J Cardiol 2008; 101:13538.
  • 100
    Schuchlenz HW, Weihs W, Berghold A, Lechner A, Schmidt R. Secondary prevention after cryptogenic cerebrovascular events in patients with patent foramen ovale. Int J Cardiol 2005; 101:7782.
  • 101
    Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:37780.
  • 102
    Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the women's health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 288:32133.
  • 103
    Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G et al. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke 2006; 37:577617.
  • 104
    European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Executive Committee; ESO Writing Committee. Guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008. Cerebrovasc Dis 2008; 25:457507.
  • 105
    Brainin M, Barnes M, Baron JC et al. Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces – revised recommendations 2004. Eur J Neurol 2004; 11:57781.