Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of Occlusive Devices to Prevent Thromboembolism Among Persons With a Patent Foramen Ovale and Prior Stroke

  • Cerebrovascular Disorders (HP Adams, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Neurology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been linked to stroke, presumably through the mechanism of paradoxical embolism; however, data is confusing regarding the causal relationship between PFO and embolic stroke. What has come to light in the past decade of research is that PFO closure with devices that achieve a high rate of closure may reduce the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy, but this benefit has not been shown in the general population with a PFO and cryptogenic stroke. The important question now is which patient will benefit from PFO closure for stroke risk reduction. A validated risk prediction tool is needed to help physicians determine those patients who will derive benefit from closure of PFO to prevent recurrent stroke. It is clear that even in studies with a small number of individuals and a very small number of events, there is some benefit to closure. Furthermore, improvements in closure devices and techniques have made percutaneous device closure both safe and efficacious. As such, it is not necessary to wait for a patient to have two strokes prior to serious consideration of PFO closure. We would advocate that the decision to close a PFO in the setting of a cryptogenic stroke be made at an individual level, on a case-by-case basis. Patients with high-risk features may be more likely to benefit, though who exactly comprises this population is still being elucidated. The most difficult aspect of managing this disease is the substantial number of individuals with incidental PFOs, as well as the prevalence of stroke due to other etiologies. When treating this disease, the physician must be able to weigh the likelihood of benefit versus the risk of the procedure, as well as patient preference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Blaha MJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28–e292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grau AJ, Weimar C, Buggle F, Heinrich A, Goertler M, Neumaier S, et al. Risk factors, outcome, and treatment in subtypes of ischemic stroke: the German stroke data bank. Stroke. 2001;32(11):2559–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schulz UG, Rothwell PM. Differences in vascular risk factors between etiological subtypes of ischemic stroke: importance of population-based studies. Stroke. 2003;34(8):2050–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(1):17–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meissner I, Whisnant JP, Khandheria BK, Spittell PC, O'Fallon WM, Pascoe RD, et al. Prevalence of potential risk factors for stroke assessed by transesophageal echocardiography and carotid ultrasonography: the SPARC study. Stroke Prevention: Assessment of Risk in a Community. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74(9):862–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(6):1902–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, Mauri L, Adams H, Albers GW, et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):991–9. Randomized controlled trial evaluating percutaneous closure versus medical therapy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, Khattab AA, Hildick-Smith D, Dudek D, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(12):1083–91. Randomized controlled trial evaluating percutaneous closure versus medical therapy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, Smalling RW, Berry S, MacDonald LA, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(12):1092–100. Randomized controlled trial evaluating percutaneous closure versus medical therapy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Homma S, Sacco RL. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Circulation. 2005;112(7):1063–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: incidental or pathogenic? Stroke. 2009;40(7):2349–55.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Di Tullio MR, Jin Z, Russo C, Elkind MS, Rundek T, Yoshita M, et al. Patent foramen ovale, subclinical cerebrovascular disease, and ischemic stroke in a population-based cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(1):35–41.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meissner I, Khandheria BK, Heit JA, Petty GW, Sheps SG, Schwartz GL, et al. Patent foramen ovale: innocent or guilty? Evidence from a prospective population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(2):440–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Almekhlafi MA, Wilton SB, Rabi DM, Ghali WA, Lorenzetti DL, Hill MD. Recurrent cerebral ischemia in medically treated patent foramen ovale: a meta-analysis. Neurology. 2009;73(2):89–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, Zuber M, Cabanes L, Derumeaux G, et al. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(24):1740–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP, Investigators PiCSSP. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation. 2002;105(22):2625–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Serena J, Marti-Fàbregas J, Santamarina E, Rodríguez JJ, Perez-Ayuso MJ, Masjuan J, et al. Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study. Stroke. 2008;39(12):3131–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, Bravata DM, Chimowitz MI, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2160–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kitsios GD, Dahabreh IJ, Abu Dabrh AM, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent foramen ovale closure and medical treatments for secondary stroke prevention: a systematic review of observational and randomized evidence. Stroke. 2012;43(2):422–31.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, Mas JL, Serena J, Homma S, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology. 2013;81(7):619–25. The only risk stratification tool to date evaluating high and low risk PFOs.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, Mas JL, Serena J, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Recurrent stroke predictors differ in medically treated patients with pathogenic vs. other PFOs. Neurology. 2014;83(3):221–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Elmariah S, Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Burke D, Vardi M, Wimmer NJ, et al. Predictors of recurrent events in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale within the CLOSURE I (Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(8):913–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim BJ, Sohn H, Sun BJ, Song JK, Kang DW, Kim JS, et al. Imaging characteristics of ischemic strokes related to patent foramen ovale. Stroke. 2013;44(12):3350–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Di Angelantonio E, Di Tullio MR, Donovan JS, Elkind MS, et al. Neuroimaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale. Stroke. 2013;44(3):675–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Agmon Y, Khandheria BK, Meissner I, Gentile F, Whisnant JP, Sicks JD, et al. Frequency of atrial septal aneurysms in patients with cerebral ischemic events. Circulation. 1999;99(15):1942–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, Rasura M, Anzini A, Zanette EM, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke. 2000;31(10):2407–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Mihalatos D, Li Mandri G, Mohr JP. Characteristics of patent foramen ovale as sociated with cryptogenic stroke. A biplane transesophageal echocardiographic study. Stroke. 1994;25(3):582–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hausmann D, Mügge A, Daniel WG. Identification of patent foramen ovale permitting paradoxic embolism. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26(4):1030–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stöllberger C, Slany J, Schuster I, Leitner H, Winkler WB, Karnik R. The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(6):461–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cramer SC, Rordorf G, Maki JH, Kramer LA, Grotta JC, Burgin WS, 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(1):46–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ranoux D, Cohen A, Cabanes L, Amarenco P, Bousser MG, Mas JL. Patent foramen ovale: is stroke due to paradoxical embolism? Stroke. 1993;24(1):31–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hirsh J. Diagnosis of venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol. 1990;65(6):45C–9C.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Whitlock RP, Sun JC, Fremes SE, Rubens FD, Teoh KH, Physicians ACoC. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for valvular disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e576S–600S.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schneider B, Hofmann T, Justen MH, Meinertz T. Chiari's network: normal anatomic variant or risk factor for arterial embolic events? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26(1):203–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lehmann R, Fichtlscherer S, Baldauf H, Schächinger V, Auch-Schwelck W, Zeiher AM, et al. Ten years of experience with closure of persistent foramen ovale: Patient characteristics and outcomes. J Cardiol. 2014;64(2):113–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rengifo-Moreno P, Palacios IF, Junpaparp P, Witzke CF, Morris DL, Romero-Corral A. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs. medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(43):3342–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wolfrum M, Froehlich GM, Knapp G, Casaubon LK, Dinicolantonio JJ, Lansky AJ, et al. Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2013.

  38. Kwong JS, Lam YY, Yu CM. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(4):4132–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ntaios G, Papavasileiou V, Makaritsis K, Michel P. PFO closure vs. medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2013;169(2):101–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, Burgess D, Denniss AR. Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryp togenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart Lung Circ. 2013;22(11):903–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hakeem A, Marmagkiolis K, Hacioglu Y, Uretsky BF, Gundogdu B, Leesar M, et al. Safety and efficacy of device closure for patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of neurological events: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2013;14(6):349–55.

  42. Riaz IB, Dhoble A, Mizyed A, Hsu CH, Husnain M, Lee JZ, et al. Transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2013;13:116.

  43. Pineda AM, Nascimento FO, Yang SC, Kirtane AJ, Sommer RJ, Beohar N. A meta-analysis of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy for prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(6):968–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Khan AR, Bin Abdulhak AA, Sheikh MA, Khan S, Erwin PJ, Tleyjeh I, et al. Device closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(12):1316–23.

  45. Darsaklis K, Freixa X, Asgar A, Ibrahim R, Basmadjian A, DeGuise P, et al. A novel system for transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale: clinical and echocardiographic outcome comparison with other contemporary devices. Can J Cardiol. 2014;30(6):639–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Matsumura K, Gevorgyan R, Mangels D, Masoomi R, Mojadidi MK, Tobis J. Comparison of residual shunt rates in five devices used to treat patent foramen ovale. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84(3):455–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hammerstingl C, Bauriedel B, Stüsser C, Momcilovic D, Tuleta I, Nickenig G, et al. Risk and fate of residual interatrial shunting after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale: a long term follow up study. Eur J Med Res. 2011;16(1):13–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Khairy P, O'Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(9):753–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Taaffe M, Fischer E, Baranowski A, Majunke N, Heinisch C, Leetz M, 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(9):1353–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. von Bardeleben RS, Richter C, Otto J, Himmrich L, Schnabel R, Kampmann C, et al. Long term follow up after percutaneous closure of PFO in 357 patients with paradoxical embolism: Difference in occlusion systems and influence of atrial septum aneurysm. Int J Cardiol. 2009;134(1):33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM, Child JS, Connolly HM, Dearani JA, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 guidelin es for the management of adults with congenital heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease). Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(23):e143–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pickett CA, Villines TC, Ferguson MA, Hulten EA. Cost Effectiveness of Percutaneous Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke in Patients With a Patent Foramen Ovale. Am J Cardiol. 2014.

  53. Hornung M, Bertog SC, Franke J, Id D, Taaffe M, Wunderlich N, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing three different devices for percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(43):3362–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Thaman R, Faganello G, Gimeno JR, Szantho GV, Nelson M, Curtis S, et al. Efficacy of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: comparison among three commonly used occluders. Heart. 2011;97(5):394–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Steinberg DH, Bertog SC, Momberger J, Franke J, Hofmann I, Renkhoff K, et al. Initial experience with the novel patent foramen ovale occlusion device Nit-Occlud® PFO in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014.

  56. Cotter PE, Martin PJ, Ring L, Warburton EA, Belham M, Pugh PJ. Incidence of atrial fibrillation detected by implantable loop recorders in unexplained stroke. Neurology. 2013;80(17):1546–50. Trial describing increased incidence of atrial fibillation in those with cryptogenic stroke, including those with PFO.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sanna T, Diener HC, Passman RS, Committee CAS. Cryptogenic stroke and atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(13):1261. Diagnosis of atrial fibrillation is likely to change further evaluation of patients with cryptogenic stroke.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Christopher Roth and Oluseun Alli each declare no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fellow, Division of Cardiovascular Disease, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, 201 Boshell Diabetes Building 1720 2nd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL, 35294-0012, USA

    Christopher Roth MD

  2. Section of Interventional Cardiology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower, Room 920 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Oluseun Alli MD

  3. 1808 7th Avenue South, BDB 201, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Christopher Roth MD

Authors
  1. Christopher Roth MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oluseun Alli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Roth MD.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cerebrovascular Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roth, C., Alli, O. Role of Occlusive Devices to Prevent Thromboembolism Among Persons With a Patent Foramen Ovale and Prior Stroke. Curr Treat Options Neurol 17, 13 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-014-0337-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-014-0337-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation