Patent foramen ovale from the point of view of interventional cardiology

Česká verzia

Authors: Martin Poloczek; Petr Kala; Tomáš Ondrúš
Authors place of work: Interní a kardiologická klinika FN Brno a LF MU, Brno
Published in the journal: Vnitř Lék 2021; 67(1): 22-28
Category: Main Topic

Summary

The link between patent foramen ovale (PFO) and paradoxical embolization, which may be cause of so-called “cryptogenic” ischemic stroke, has been known for more than 100 years. The catheteriziation closure of PFO as a secondary preventive treatment is performed in a greater extent since the end of the last century. The results of the first epidemiological and randomised clinical trials comparing antiagregation or anticoagulant therapy with the PFO closure did not show a clear benefit of any of these approaches. In 2017, major randomized clinical trials were published that demonstrated the benefit of PFO catheter closure compared to drug therapy alone. In this summary article we describe the diagnostic procedure of patients with PFO undergoing paradoxical embolization, indications and selections of a suitable patient for catheter closure of PFO, the procedure itself and subsequent clinical follow-up of these patients.

Keywords:

catheterization closure – cryptogenic stroke – occluder – patent foramen ovale

Zdroje

1. Hart RG, Diener H‑C, Coutts SB et al. Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol. 2014; 13(4): 429–438.

2. Di Tullio M, Sacco RL, Gopal A et al. Patent foramen ovale as a risk factor for cryptogenic stroke. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(6): 461–465.

3. 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): 991–999.

4. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(12): 1083–1091.

5. 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): 1092–1100.

6. 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): 1022–1032.

7. Mas J‑L, Derumeaux G, Guillon B et al. Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulati‑ on vs. Antiplatelets after Stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(11): 1011–1021.

8. 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): 1033–1042.

9. Lee PH, Song J‑K, Kim JS et al. Cryptogenic Stroke and High‑Risk Patent Foramen Ova‑ le. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71(20): 2335–2342.

10. Turc G, Calvet D, Guérin P et al. Closure, Anticoagulation, or Antiplatelet Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke With Patent Foramen Ovale: Systematic Review of Randomized Trials, Sequential Meta‑Analysis, and New Insights From the CLOSE Study. J Am Heart Assoc Cardiovasc Cerebrovasc, DiS. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7: 1–12.

11. Pristipino C, Sievert H, D’Ascenzo F et al. European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. General approach and left circulation thromboembolism. EuroIntervention J Eur Collab Work Group Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2019;14(13): 1389–402.

12. Elgendy AY, Saver JL, Amin Z et al. Proposal for Updated Nomenclature and Classification of Potential Causative Mechanism in Patent Foramen Ovale‑Associated Stroke. JAMA Neurol. 2020; 77(7): 878–886.

13. Silvestry FE, Cohen MS, Armsby LB et al. Guidelines for the Echocardiographic Assessment of Atrial Septal Defect and Patent Foramen Ovale: From the American Society of Echocardiography and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Soc Echocardiogr Off Publ Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015; 28(8): 910–958.

14. Le Moigne E, Timsit S, Ben Salem D et al. Patent Foramen Ovale and Ischemic Stroke in Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: A Prospective Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med. 2019; 170(11): 756–763.

15. Kent DM, Saver JL, Ruthazer R et al. Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE)-Estimated Attributable Fraction Correlates With the Benefit of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: An Analysis of 3 Trials. Stroke. 2020; 51(10): 3119–3123.

16. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C et al. An index to identify stroke‑related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology. 2013; 81(7): 619–625.

17. Safouris A, Kargiotis O, Psychogios K et al. A Narrative and Critical Review of Randomized‑ ‑Controlled Clinical Trials on Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Reducing the Risk of Stro‑ ke Recurrence. Front Neurol. 2020; 11: 434.

18. Thijs VN, Brachmann J, Morillo CA et al. Predictors for atrial fibrillation detection after cryptogenic stroke: Results from CRYSTAL AF. Neurology. 2016; 86(3): 261–269.

19. King TD, Thompson SL, Steiner C et al. Secundum atrial septal defect. Nonoperative closure during cardiac catheterization. JAMA. 1976; 235(23): 2506–2509.

20. Bridges ND, Hellenbrand W, Latson et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical embolism. Circulation. 1992; 86(6): 1902–1908.

21. Meier B. Patent foramen ovale and closure technique with the amplatzer occluder. Scientifica. 2014; 2014: 129196.

22. Wahl A, Tai T, Praz F et al. Late results after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism using the amplatzer PFO occluder without intraprocedural echocardiography: effect of device size. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(2): 116–123.

23. De Rosa S, Sievert H, Sabatino J et al. Percutaneous Closure Versus Medical Treatment in Stroke Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale: A Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 168(5): 343–350.

24. Mechl M, Tintěra J, Žižka J et al. Kontraindikace a rizika vyšetření pomocí magnetické rezonance. Ces Radiol. 2010; 64(1): 69–75.