Clinical Research in Cardiology

, Volume 97, Issue 12, pp 872–877

Clinical evaluation of a novel occluder device (Occlutech®) for percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO)

  • Florian Krizanic
  • Horst Sievert
  • Dietrich Pfeiffer
  • Thomas Konorza
  • Markus Ferrari
  • Hans-Reiner Figulla



We investigated the safety, feasibility and usefulness for closure of PFO with the new nitinol meshwire PFO-occluder device (Occlutech Figulla®-single layer occluder) with an unique braiding technology which allows a 50% reduction of meshwork material on the left atrial side in combination with a greater flexibility as compared to the Amplatzer® occluder device.


The retention discs of the new PFO Occlutech Figulla® single layer device (23/25 mm) are connected by a 3 mm waist in the centre with only one right atrial side hub. The left atrial disc is a single flat layer covered by an ultrathin polyethylene terephthalate (PET) patch. We investigated the safety, feasibility and usefulness for closure of PFO in a multicenter clinical trial. Indications for closure included cryptogenic stroke with evidence of a patent foramen ovale in transesophageal echocardiography (PFO max. diameter 13 mm according to sizing balloon). The device was implanted in 36 patients (mean age 57, 18–80 years) by means of fluoroscopy and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) using a 9 French delivery sheath and employing a femoral vein approach. Both acetylsalicylacid 100 mg/d (6 months) and clopidogrel 75 mg/d (3 months) were administered post interventional. A transthoracal (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography follow-up examination was performed after 1, 2 and 6 months (TTE day 30 and 180; TEE day 60).


The device was successfully implanted in 36 pts. In one patient PFO implantations was attempted but not crossed with a guide wire. Perioperativly there were no major in-hospital-adverse events or complications thromboembolism, occluder dislodgement, infection or myocardial infarction. One patient had transient atrial fibrillation 2 h after implantation, which terminated medically after 12 h. TEE studies in the remaining 35 pts (one pt was unwilling to further participate) showed a residual shunt in 8.6% (3/35) after 60 days and a left-to-right shunt in 2.6% (1/35) of pts. After 180 days one pt with severe arteriosclerotic heart disease and A.carotic stenosis revealed a stroke without evidence of cardioembolic origin or devices thrombosis.


The novel Occlutech Figulla® PFO N single layer device appears to be safe, feasible and useful for PFO closure despite a 50% reduction of the meshwire, no distal hub and an improved flexibility of the left atrial disc.


PFO paradoxical embolism device 


  1. 1.
    Azarbal B, Tobis J, Suh W, Chan V, Dao C, Gaster R (2005) Association of interatrial shunts and migraine headaches: Impact of transcatheter closure. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:489–492Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beitzke A, Schuchlenz H, Beitzke M et al (2002) Interventioneller Verschluß von Foramen ovale und Vorhofseptumdefekten nach paradox embolischen Ereignissen. Z Kardiol 91:693–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braun MU, Ehrhard K, Strasser RH, Haass M (2002) Katheterinterventioneller Verschluss eines ventiloffenen Foramen ovale über eine zusätzliche transseptale Punktion. Z Kardiol 91(8):659–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braun M, Gliech V, Boscheri A, Schoen S, Gahn G, Reichmann H, Haass M, Schraeder R, Strasser RH (2004) Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism: periprocedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems. Eur Heart J 25:424–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fischer D, Fuchs M, Schaefer A et al (2008) Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Procedural and follow-up results after implantation of the Starflex® occluder device with conjunctive intensified anticoagulation regimen. J Interv Cardiol 21(2):183–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hagen P, Scholz D, Edwards W (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 1984, Jan. i 59:17–20Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Handke M, Harloff A, Olschewski M, Hetzel A, Geibel A (2007) Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke in older patients. N Engl J Med 2007 Nov 29 357:2262–2268Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konstantinides S, Just H (2000) Ventiloffenes Formane ovale: Konservative oder operative Therapie. Z Kardiol 89(2):63–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lock JE (2000) Patent foramen ovale is indicted, but the case hasn’t gone to trial. Circulation 101:838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martín F, Sánchez PL, Doherty E et al (2002) Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation 106:1121–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C et al (2001) Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 345:1740–1746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mas JL, Zuber M (1995) Recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack. French study group on patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm. Am Heart J 130:1083–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morandi E, Anzola GP, Angeli S, Melzi G, Onorato E (2003) Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale: a new migraine treatment? J Interv Cardiol 16:39–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mügge A, Daniel WG, Angermann C et al (1995) Atrial septal aneurysm in adult patients. A multicenter study using transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation 91:2785–2792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reisman M, Christofferson RD, Jesurum J, Olsen JV, Spencer MP, Krabill KA, Diehl L, Aurora S, Gray WA (2005) Migraine headache relief after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. J Am Coll Cardiol 45:493–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Satler LF (2002) Should PFO closure devices be used “Off Lable”. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 56:527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sievert H, Taaffe M (2005) Patent foramen ovale: the jury is still out. Eur Heart J 25:361–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone DA, Godard J, Corretti MC et al (1996) Patent foramen ovale: association between the degree of shunt by contrast transesophageal echocardiography and the risk of future ischemic neurologic events. Am Heart J 131:158–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T et al (2000) Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation 101:893–898PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Krizanic
    • 1
  • Horst Sievert
    • 2
  • Dietrich Pfeiffer
    • 3
  • Thomas Konorza
    • 4
  • Markus Ferrari
    • 5
  • Hans-Reiner Figulla
    • 5
  1. 1.Clinic of Internal Medicine, Department of CardiologyUniversity Hospital JenaJenaGermany
  2. 2.Cardiovascular CenterFrankfurt Germany and Washington Hospital CenterWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Dept. of CardiologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Dept. of Cardiology, Heart Center EssenUniversity of EssenEssenGermany
  5. 5.Clinic of Internal Medicine IUniversity Hospital JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations