Patent Foramen Ovale Closure

  • Jennifer Franke
  • Stefan C. Bertog
  • Horst Sievert
Chapter

Abstract

A patent foramen ovale (PFO) persists in approximately 15–30% of adults, and its frequency decreases with age. In combination with predisposing morphological and hemodynamic conditions, this remnant interatrial communication promotes thromboembolic events—most notably, cerebrovascular events. Feasible treatment strategies include antithrombotic medication (antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation), surgery, or transcatheter defect closure. Data from three large randomized controlled trials have recently provided evidence that PFO closure is associated with a lower rate of recurrent ischemic stroke than antiplatelet therapy alone in patients with a PFO and recent cryptogenic stroke. Current guidelines promote medical therapy over endovascular or surgical PFO closure as a first-line therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and a PFO. This chapter reviews the pathophysiology of presumed paradoxical embolism through a PFO, current guidelines, the history and current status of device technology, and critical aspects to consider when facing a residual shunt after transcatheter PFO closure.

References

  1. 1.
    Hara H, Virmani R, Ladich E, et al. Patent foramen ovale: current pathology, pathophysiology, and clinical status. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(9):1768–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke. 2000;31(10):2407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology. 2000;55(8):1172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rigatelli G, Dell’Avvocata F, Giordan M, et al. Embolic implications of combined risk factors in patients with patent foramen ovale (the CARPE criteria): consideration for primary prevention closure? J Interv Cardiol. 2009;22(4):398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Homma S, DiTullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP, Investigators P. Age as a determinant of adverse events in medically treated cryptogenic stroke patients with patent foramen ovale. Stroke. 2004;35(9):2145–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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(2):440–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(22):2262–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(6):327–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng TO. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale: a definitive treatment for platypnea–orthodeoxia. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;51(1):120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Germonpré P. Patent foramen ovale and diving. Cardiol Clin. 2005;23(1):97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Srivastava TN, Payment MF. Images in clinical medicine. Paradoxical embolism—thrombus in transit through a patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(10):681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raaphorst J, Wouda EJ. Thrombus in transit through a patent foramen ovale: paradoxical embolism. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76(9):1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohnheim J. Thrombose und Embolie. In: Vorlesungen űber Allgemeine Pathologie. Berlin: Hirschwald. p. 18771134.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(24):1740–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(8):893–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP. Atrial anatomy in non-cardioembolic stroke patients: effect of medical therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(6):1066–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arauz A, Murillo L, Márquez JM, et al. Long-term risk of recurrent stroke in young cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale. Int J Stroke. 2012;7(8):631–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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(11):991–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(12):1083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(12):1092–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Søndergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1033–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Guillon B, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1011–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saver JL, Carroll JD, Thaler DE, et al. Long-term outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1022–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lansberg MG, O’Donnell MJ, Khatri P, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e601S–36S.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Messé SR, Gronseth G, Kent DM, et al. Practice advisory: recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale (update of practice parameter): report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2016;87(8):815–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mullen M. NobleStitch multi-center trial. CSI Congress 2016, Congenital, Structural & Valvular Interventions; 2016; Frankfurt.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Franke
    • 1
  • Stefan C. Bertog
    • 1
    • 2
  • Horst Sievert
    • 1
  1. 1.CardioVascular Center FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Department of Invasive CardiologyMinneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical CenterMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations