4.8 Article

Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism - Long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 101, Issue 8, Pages 893-898

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.8.893

Keywords

foramen ovale; stroke; embolism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Patients with a patent foramen ovale (PFO) and paradoxical embolism are at risk for recurrent thromboembolic events. This study investigated the long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with PFO and paradoxical embolism after percutaneous PFO closure. Methods and Results Since 1994, a total of 80 patients with PFO and at least 1 paradoxical embolic event (transient ischemic attack [TIA], cerebrovascular accident [CVA], peripheral embolism) have undergone percutaneous PFO closure with 5 different devices. There were 30 women and 50 men, with a mean age of 52 +/- 12 years. Sixty patients had only a PFO, whereas 20 patients had both a PFO and an atrial septal aneurysm. The implantation procedure was successful in 78 patients (98%). During 5 years of follow-up (mean, 1.6 +/- 1.4 years; range, 0.1 to 5.0 years), the actuarial annual risk to suffer a recurrent thromboembolic event was 2.5% for TIA, 0% for CVA, 0.9% for peripheral emboli, and 3.4% for the combined end point of TIA, CVA, or peripheral embolism. A postprocedural shunt was a predictor of recurrent paradoxical embolism (RR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 17.81 P=0.03). The risk for recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with both atrial septal aneurysm and PFO was not significantly increased compared with patients with only PFO (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.2 to 4.7; P=0.95). Conclusions-Percutaneous PFO closure appears to be a promising technique in the prevention of recurrent systemic thromboembolism in patients with a PFO after a first event. Prospective studies comparing percutaneous PFO closure with antithrombotic medications or surgery must define its therapeutic value.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available