Prognosis after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical embolism
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments

Abstract
The long-term risk and risk factors for recurrent embolism after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) were investigated in 152 consecutive patients with presumed paradoxical embolism. During follow-up, the actuarial freedom from recurrent embolism was 95.1% at 1 year, and 90.6% at 2 and 6 years. A residual shunt after percutaneous PFO closure was a predictor for recurrence (RR 5.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 21.0; p = 0.02). Randomized trials comparing medical treatment with percutaneous PFO closure in the prevention of recurrent embolism are in progress.
The association between a patent foramen ovale (PFO) with or without atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) and cryptogenic stroke in young adults has been confirmed in a recent meta-analysis.1 Percutaneous PFO closure has been shown feasible in previous reports.2-4⇓⇓ The purpose of the current study was to assess the long-term outcome and risk factors for recurrent paradoxical embolism after percutaneous PFO closure.
Methods.
Percutaneous PFO closure was performed in 152 consecutive patients with PFO who had at least one embolic event, according to a study protocol approved by the local Ethics Committee. An embolic event was considered due to paradoxical embolism when the following conditions were fulfilled: 1) presence of PFO with or without ASA (defined as an abnormally redundant interatrial septum with an excursion of >10 mm into the right or left atrium) with spontaneous or provocable right-to-left shunt during contrast transesophageal echocardiography; 2) clinically and radiologically confirmed ischemic stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism; and 3) exclusion of any other identifiable cardiac, aortic, or cerebrovascular cause. Contrast transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), color Doppler and Duplex examination of the extracranial carotid and vertebral arteries, transcranial Doppler, and an electrocardiogram were performed in all patients.
The procedure was performed under local anesthesia. Venous access was gained via the right femoral vein. The device was implanted under fluoroscopic guidance without echocardiographic monitoring. Patients were treated with 100 mg acetylsalicylic acid once daily for 6 months to provide an antithrombotic protection until full device endothelialization.
A contrast TEE study with aerated colloid solution injected into an antecubital vein was performed prior to device implantation and 6 months after percutaneous PFO closure to assess for a residual shunt following endothelial overgrowth. Spontaneous or provoked right-to-left shunt was semiquantitatively graded according to the amount of bubbles crossing the septum: grade 0 = none; grade 1 = minimal (1 to 5 bubbles); grade 2 = moderate (6 to 20 bubbles); and grade 3 = severe (>20 bubbles).5 Any recurrent embolic event, including TIA, ischemic stroke, or peripheral embolus was considered a primary endpoint. Patients were followed prospectively for up to 6.5 years and follow-up was complete in all but three patients. Patients with suspected embolic recurrence were examined by a neurologist, and an imaging study of the region of interest was obtained. The most recent contact consisted of a telephone interview, addressing recurrence of embolism, device related problems, and health status.
Results.
Patient demographics are summarized in table 1. Six different device types were utilized during the 6-year period (table 2). Device implantation was successful in 150 patients (99%). In one patient, the procedure was aborted prior to device delivery due to laceration of the femoral artery during venous puncture. This required surgical revision, at which time the PFO was closed surgically. In another patient with PFO and a large ASA, the device embolized into the pulmonary artery 12 hours after the procedure. It was retracted percutaneously into the femoral vein and removed from there by local incision. No procedural death was encountered. There were 10 procedural complications (7%) without long-term sequelae, consisting of embolization of the device or parts of it in four patients, cardiac tamponade requiring needle pericardiocentesis in one patient, symptomatic air embolism in three patients, and one additional arteriovenous fistula at the puncture site.
Patient demographics
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) occluder devices, in historical order
Complete PFO closure was achieved in 79% of patients, whereas a minimal, moderate, or large shunt persisted in 11%, 6%, or 4% of patients. During a mean follow-up period of 1.7 ± 1.6 years (median 1.1 years; range 0.1 to 6.5 years), nine recurrent embolic events were encountered in 150 patients with an implanted device. These comprised one minor ischemic stroke, six TIA, and two peripheral emboli. The actuarial freedom from recurrent embolism was 95.1% at 1 year and 90.6% at 2 and 6 years. A residual shunt was present in five of nine patients, with recurrence at follow-up contrast transesophageal echocardiography. The presence of a residual shunt after percutaneous PFO closure (RR 5.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 21.0; p = 0.02) was a predictor for recurrent embolism (table 3). In patients without residual shunt, the actuarial freedom from recurrence was 98.1% at 1 year and 94.2% at 2 and 6 years.
Risk ratios for recurrent embolism
Discussion.
The current study confirms that percutaneous PFO closure can be performed safely with a high success and low morbidity rate using a variety of devices. There was no mortality, and all complications were without long-term sequelae. Most complications occurred in the early experience with older device types, and reflect, in part, a learning curve. Newer devices, specifically designed for PFO (as opposed to atrial septal occlusion) have been developed, with reduced risk of device dislodgement and embolization and improved closure mechanism.3 Similar morbidity has been observed in other studies of percutaneous PFO closure.2 Complications associated with surgical PFO closure have been as high as 21%.6
With respect to clinical efficacy, the long-term risk of recurrent embolic events after percutaneous closure in our patient population compares favorably with published data on medical7,8⇓ and surgical6,9,10⇓⇓ therapy. The actuarial freedom from recurrence was 95.1% at 1 year and 90.6% at 2 and 6 years in our study, compared with 93% at 1 year and 83% at 4 years following surgical PFO closure.6 The freedom from recurrence in our study was particularly high in patients without residual shunt, amounting to 98.1% at 1 year and 94.2% at 2 and 6 years. In contrast, patients with a residual shunt had an event-free survival of 86.7% at 1 year and 80.9% at 2 and 6 years, underscoring the importance of achieving complete PFO closure.
Older age (>55 years), an associated ASA, multiple prior events, or prior ischemic stroke were not associated with a worse prognosis in our study. However, this finding is preliminary due to the low number of recurrent events, and requires validation in future studies.
Randomized trials comparing medical treatment with interventional PFO closure will determine the best therapeutic strategy in this patient population. Until results from such trials become available, the implantation of PFO occlusion devices is feasible, but should be considered investigational.
Note added in proof.
Two randomized clinical trials intend to compare medical treatment with percutaneous PFO closure in patients with paradoxical embolism:
-
PC-trial (Percutaneous Closure of Patent foramen ovale and Cryptogenic embolism). Steering Committee: Bernhard Meier, MD and Heinrich Mattle, MD, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland. This is a multicenter, international, randomized study.
-
PEPSIS-trial (Paradoxical Embolism Prevention Study in Ischemic Stroke). Steering Committee: Felix Berger, MD, German Heart Center, Berlin; Ludger Rosin, MD, University Hospital Regensburg, Germany. This is a multicenter, randomized study in Germany.
- Received October 5, 2000.
- Accepted June 12, 2001.
References
- ↵
Overall JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology. 2000; 55: 1172–1179.
- ↵
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: 1902–1908.
- ↵
- ↵
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: 893–898.
- ↵
- ↵
Dearani JA, Ugurlu BS, Danielson GK, et al. Surgical patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of paradoxical embolism-related cerebrovascular ischemic events. Circulation. 1999; 100: II171–175.
- ↵
- ↵
Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, Aebischer N, Van Melle G. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: the Lausanne Study. Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxal Embolism Study Group. Neurology. 1996; 46: 1301–1305.
- ↵
Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Smith C, Mohr JP. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke. 1997; 28: 2376–2381.
- ↵
Ruchat P, Bogousslavsky J, Hurni M, Fischer AP, Jeanrenaud X, von Segesser LK. Systematic surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in selected patients with cerebrovascular events due to paradoxical embolism. Early results of a preliminary study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997; 11: 824–827.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. Sevil Yaşar and Dr. Behnam Sabayan
► Watch
Related Articles
- No related articles found.
Topics Discussed
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Special Article
Practice advisory update summary: Patent foramen ovale and secondary stroke preventionReport of the Guideline Subcommittee of the American Academy of NeurologySteven R. Messé, Gary S. Gronseth, David M. Kent et al.Neurology, April 29, 2020 -
Article
Percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for secondary stroke preventionNetwork meta-analysisGeorgios Tsivgoulis, Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Dimitris Mavridis et al.Neurology, June 06, 2018 -
Articles
Recurrent cerebral ischemia in medically treated patent foramen ovaleA meta-analysisM. A. Almekhlafi, S. B. Wilton, D. M. Rabi et al.Neurology, May 13, 2009 -
Brief Communications
Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale reduces the frequency of migraine attacksM. Schwerzmann, S. Wiher, K. Nedeltchev et al.Neurology, April 26, 2004