PFO Closure for Cryptogenic Stroke: Review of New Data and Results

Cerebrovascular Disease and Stroke (C Helgason and M Alberts, Section Editors)

Opinion statement

Observational studies over 20 years have suggested that a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an important cause of cryptogenic stroke in young individuals; case series and registries suggest that PFO closure confers superior protection from recurrent transient ischemic attack (TIA) and stroke. Recently completed randomized clinical trials did not confirm this hypothesis, but have provided reassurance that the risk of recurrent stroke is low at 1.5 %/yr. A target subset that may benefit are those with ischemic stroke, a large right-to-left shunt, and an atrial septal aneurysm. Further study is needed to determine the optimum strategy to reduce the long-term stroke risk in a lifetime of varying situational risk factors and temporary interruptions of medical therapies.


Patent foramen ovale PFO occlude device Atrial septal aneurysm Cryptogenic stroke Stroke of undetermined cause Atrial fibrillation 


Conflict of Interest

Dr. Shyam Rao reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Dr. Cathy Sila reported receiving grants from NMT and Aga-Medical.

References and Recommended Reading

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

  1. 1.
    Adams Jr HP, Bendixen BH, Kappelle LJ, et al. Classification of subtypes of acute ischemic stroke: definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. Stroke. 1993;23:35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.•
    Gordon DL, Bendixen BH, Adams Jr HP, et al. Interphysician agreement in the diagnosis of subtypes of acute ischemic stroke: implications for clinical trials. Neurology. 1993;42:1021–7. A classic article that illustrates the difficulty with classifying the etiology of stroke based on clinical and diagnostic criteria. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foulkes MA, Wolf PA, Price TR. The stroke data bank: design, methods, and baseline characteristics. Stroke. 1988;19:547–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bal S, Patel SK, Almekhlafi M. High rate of magnetic resonance imaging stroke recurrence in cryptogenic transient ischemic attack and minor stroke patients. Stroke. 2012;43:3387–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferrari J, Knoflach M, Kiechl S, et al. Early clinical worsening in patients with TIA or minor stroke. Neurology. 2010;74:136–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silverman M. Paradoxical embolus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:930.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srivastava TN, Payment MF. Paradoxical embolism. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan FP, Jones TR. Paradoxical embolus. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee JY, Song JK, Song JM, et al. Association between anatomic features of atrial septal abnormalities obtained by omni-plane transesophageal echocardiography and stroke recurrence in cryptogenic stroke patients with patent foramen ovale. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:129–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paciaroni M, Agnelli G, Bertolini A, et al. Risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack and patent foramen ovale: the FORI (Forman Ovale Registro Italiano) study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;31:109–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrer JU, Wessels T, Franke A, et al. Stroke recurrence and its prevention in patients with patent foramen ovale. Can J Neurol Sci. 2006;33:39–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cerrato P, Priano L, Imperiale D. Recurrent cerebrovascular ischemic events in patients with intraatrial septal abnormalities: a followup study. Neurol Sci. 2006;26:411–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faggiano P, Frattini S, Piovesana P, et al. Low cerebrovascular event rate in subjects with patent foramen ovale and different clinical presentations. Int J Cardiol. 2012;156:47–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horner S, Niederkorn K, Gattringer T, et al. Management of right-to-left shunt in cryptogenic cerebrovascular disease: results from the observational Austrian paradoxical cerebral embolism trial (TACET) registry. J Neurol. 2012. doi: 10.007/s00415-012-6629-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuchlenz HW, Weihs W, Berghold A, et al. Secondary prevention after cryptogenic cerebrovascular events in patients with patent foramen ovale. Int J Cardiol. 2005;101:77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thanopoulos BD, Dardas PD, Karanasios E, et al. Transcatheter closure vs medical therapy of patient foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:741–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wyngaert F, Kefer J, Hermans C, et al. Absence of recurrent stroke after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale despite residual right-to-left cardiac shunt assessed by transcranial Doppler. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2008;101:435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wahl A, Juni P, Mono ML, et al. Long-term propensity score-matched comparison of percutaneous closure of patient foramen ovale with medical treatment after paradoxical embolism. Circulation. 2012;125:803–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weimar C, Holle DN, Benemann J, et al. Current management and risk of recurrent stroke in cerebrovascular patients with right-to-left cardiac shunt. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;28:349–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Windecker S, Wahl A, Nedetchev K, et al. Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:750–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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;139:753–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.•
    Slottow TL, Steinberg DH, Waksman R. Overview of the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting on patent foramen ovale closure devices. Circulation. 2007;116:677–82. A glimpse into the FDAs process data review and public comment in considering device approval. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Gara PT, Messe SR, Tuzcu EM, et al. Percutaneous device closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary stroke prevention: a call for completion of randomized clinical trials. A Science Advisory from the American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation Expert Consensus Document. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:2014–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnston SC. Patent foramen ovale closure: closing the door except for trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1048–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.••
    Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:991–9. The first completed randomized clinical trial of PFO closure vs. medical therapy for stroke prevention in young patients with a cryptogenic stroke and a PFO. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al. A prospective multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the STARFlex septal closure system versus best medical therapy in patients with a stroke or transient ischemic attack due to presumed paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale. Stroke. 2010;41:2872–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carroll JD. RESPECT: Late-breaking trial preview. TCT 2012; October 25, 2012; Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saver J. Late-breaking trial presentation. Qualifying and Outcome Strokes in the RESPECT PFO Trial: Additional Evidence of Treatment Effect. ISC 2013; February 7, 2013, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    John DC, Jeffrey LS, David ET, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1092–1100.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mohr JP, Thompson JL, Lazar RM, et al. A comparison of warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1444–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jung R, Kim BS, Masssaro J, et al. Baseline DWMRI characteristics in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: results from the CLOSURE I Trial. Stroke. 2013;44:ATMP13.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Messe SR, Silverman IE, Kizer JR, et al. Practice parameter: recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm. Neurology. 2004;62:1042–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Internal MedicineFairview HospitalClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Comprehensive Stroke CenterUniversity Hospitals - Case Medical CenterClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Department NeurologyCase Western Reserve School of MedicineClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations