Journal Information
Vol. 34. Issue 3.
Pages 159-161 (March 2015)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 34. Issue 3.
Pages 159-161 (March 2015)
Editorial comment
DOI: 10.1016/j.repce.2015.02.004
Open Access
Patent foramen ovale: Seeing through the mist
Foramen ovale patente: uma visão através da neblina
Visits
...
Lídia de Sousa
Serviço de Cardiologia, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central, Lisboa, Portugal; Centro do Coração, Hospital Cuf, Lisboa, Portugal
Related content
Rev Port Cardiol. 2015;34:151-710.1016/j.repce.2014.08.025
Luís Paiva, Paulo Dinis, Rui Providência, Marco Costa, Susana Margalho, Lino Goncalves
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Full Text

In 1877 Connheim was the first to describe paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale (PFO), a phenomenon that has since been documented in numerous autopsy and echocardiographic studies. Besides migration of thrombi through the septal defect, other mechanisms have been proposed that implicate PFO in cardioembolic phenomena, including increased vulnerability to atrial arrhythmias and local thrombus formation.1

Various studies have demonstrated an association between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, but others have questioned the causal nature of this relationship.2–4 The figures show the importance of this link: around 25% of the general population have PFO, and around 40% of ischemic strokes are cryptogenic (of undetermined cause); PFO is a plausible mechanism that might explain many of them.

But with such a common finding as PFO, how can its guilt or innocence be established, particularly regarding ischemic stroke? Distinguishing association from causality is always a challenge, but in this context is crucial.

The three randomized trials comparing percutaneous PFO closure with medical treatment5–7 showed no benefit for either strategy, but they have significant limitations. The most important are low statistical power due to the small number of patients and events, crossover between study arms, variability in inclusion criteria, medical therapies and types of closure device, and the criteria used to define and assess events. It is striking that in two of these studies it took more than ten years to randomize even these small numbers of patients.

However, subsequent analyses of these trials have helped to clarify certain points, such as the existence of alternative explanations for recurrent stroke in CLOSURE I8 and evidence of long-term benefit in the closure arm of the RESPECT trial.

Meta-analyses have also shown contradictory results, although they generally favor percutaneous closure.9,10

The lack of solid evidence means that international medical societies do not recommend percutaneous PFO closure, although guidelines from national societies in some countries give indications for its use. In the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines for stroke prevention,11 percutaneous closure may be considered in patients with PFO and deep vein thrombosis.

The article by Paiva et al.12 in this issue of the Journal describes the first prospective observational study in Portugal of patients undergoing percutaneous PFO closure following stroke. Some of the results merit particular attention. The population consisted of relatively young adults with few comorbidities, indicating that their referral for the technique was appropriate. The rate of serious device- or intervention-related complications was low, and the follow-up was long, which is essential to assess adverse effects in a condition like PFO. Some of the study limitations are pointed out by the authors, but there are other important points: it is difficult to estimate relative risk reductions in a study group by using historical data from a meta-analysis as a control; transesophageal echocardiography was not used for analysis of events in the study population, but transthoracic echocardiography has known limitations in assessing residual shunt and the presence of intracavitary or device-related thrombi; and concomitant medical therapy may had a significant impact on the results. The authors of observational studies must always seek alternative explanations for their findings, which in the present case was particularly difficult.

Three randomized trials are currently under way in this area: Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulants versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence (CLOSE), Device Closure versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke Patients with High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale (DEFENSE-PFO), and GORE® HELEX® Septal Occluder/GORE® Septal Occluder for Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Closure in Stroke Patients – The Gore REDUCE Clinical Study. However, the relatively small number of patients being randomized and the low rate of predicted events in this population mean that these trials are unlikely to resolve the question of the value of percutaneous PFO closure for secondary prevention of ischemic cerebrovascular events.

While we await for further evidence to guide us, there are certain points to bear in mind when deciding on the appropriate therapeutic option.

Firstly, it is important to remember that a diagnosis of cryptogenic stroke should only be made after a thorough and extensive diagnostic workup to identify the cause, involving a multidisciplinary team in which specialists in neurology, internal medicine and imaging play central roles. Neuroradiological imaging is essential to identify patterns suggestive of a cardioembolic source, which cardiologists are not trained to assess.13 The anatomical characteristics of the PFO are another potential aid to decision-making; some studies have identified markers of increased risk, including the size of the PFO and of the shunt, spontaneous shunt at rest (without Valsalva maneuver), and the presence of atrial septal aneurysm.14 Finally, the RoPE study investigators15 developed a 10-point index to identify patients most likely to benefit from percutaneous closure, assigning 1 point for each of the following: absence of four clinical variables (diabetes, hypertension, smoking, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack); imaging evidence of the presence of cortical stroke; and age, with 1 point assigned for each decade under 70 years (5 points for those aged <30 years). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of an ischemic event being related to the PFO. It is important to validate this index in further studies and analyses.

To summarize, the selection of patients likely to benefit from percutaneous PFO closure for secondary prevention should be on an individual basis, following an extensive multidisciplinary diagnostic workup. Only in this way is it possible to ensure consistency in treatment, safety in outcomes and optimization of resources.

Conflicts of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References
[1]
K. Berthet, T. Lavergne, A. Cohen, et al.
Significant association of atrial vulnerability with atrial septal abnormalities in young patients with ischemic stroke of unknown cause.
Stroke, 31 (2000), pp. 398-403
[2]
J.L. Mas, C. Arquizan, C. Lamy, et al.
Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both.
N Engl J Med, 345 (2001), pp. 1740-1746
[3]
S. Homma, R.L. Sacco, M.R. Di Tullio, et al.
Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study.
Circulation, 105 (2002), pp. 2625-2631
[4]
J. Serena, J. Marti-Fabregas, E. Santamarina, et al.
Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study.
Stroke, 39 (2008), pp. 3131-3136
[5]
A.J. Furlan, M. Reisman, Massaro, for the CLOSURE I investigators, et al.
Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale.
N Engl J Med, 366 (2012), pp. 991-999
[6]
B. Meier, B. Kalesan, H.P. Mattle, for the PC Trial investigators, et al.
Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism.
N Engl J Med, 368 (2013), pp. 1083-1091
[7]
J.D. Carroll, J.L. Saver, D.E. Thaler, for the RESPECT investigators, et al.
Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke.
N Engl J Med, 368 (2013), pp. 1092-1100
[8]
S. Elmariah, A.J. Furlan, M. Reisman, for the CLOSURE I investigators, et al.
Predictors of recurrent events in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale within the CLOSURE I (Evaluation of the STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients With a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack Due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism Through a Patent Foramen Ovale) trial.
J Am Coll Cardiol Interv, 7 (2014), pp. 913-920
[9]
D. Capodanno, G. Milazzo, L. Vitale, et al.
Updating the evidence on patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of 2,303 patients from three randomised trials and 2,231 patients from 11 observational studies.
Eurointervention, 20 (2014), pp. 1342-1349
[10]
M. Wolfrum, G.M. Froehlich, G. Knapp, et al.
Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
[11]
W.N. Kernan, 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, 45 (2014), pp. 2160-2236
[12]
L. Paiva, P. Dinis, R. Providência, et al.
Encerramento percutâneo de foramen ovale patente – registo da prevenção da embolia cerebral paradoxal.
Rev Port Cardiol, 34 (2015), pp. 151-157
[13]
D.E. Thaler, R. Ruthazer, E. Di Angelantonio, et al.
Neuroimaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale.
[14]
J.Y. Lee, J.K. Song, J.M. Song, 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, 106 (2010), pp. 129-134
[15]
D.M. Kent, D.E. Thaler.
The Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) study: developing risk models for application to ongoing randomized trials of percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for cryptogenic stroke.
Trials, 12 (2011), pp. 185-194

Please cite this article as: de Sousa L. Foramen ovale patente: uma visão através da neblina. Rev Port Cardiol. 2015;34:159–161.

Copyright © 2015. Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia
Idiomas
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia (English edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
en pt

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

en pt
Cookies policy Política de cookies
To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.