Cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale

Current Opinion in Cardiology

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 537-544

  Thaler, David E ^a   Saver, Jeffrey L ^b  

^a TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Cryptogenic stroke; Paradoxical embolism; Patent foramen ovale; Percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; WARFARIN;

ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; DOPPLER ECHOGRAPHY; DRUG EFFICACY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEART ANEURYSM; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INCIDENCE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MONOTHERAPY; PARADOXICAL EMBOLISM; PATENT FORAMEN OVALE; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHLEBOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; SHUNTING; THORACOTOMY; TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; EMBOLISM, PARADOXICAL; FORAMEN OVALE, PATENT; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; STROKE;

EID: 55149097219     PISSN: 02684705     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32831311bd     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Saver JL. Emerging risk factors for stroke: patent foramen ovale, aortic arch atherosclerosis, antiphospholipid antibodies, and activated protein C resistance. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 1997; 6:167-172.
2. Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD. Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clin Proc 1984; 59:17-20.
3. Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a metaanalysis of case-control studies. Neurology 2000; 55:1172-1179.
4. Handke M, Harloff A, Olschewski M, et al. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke in older patients. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:2262-2268. Demonstrated that PFO is more likely to be found in patients with cryptogenic stroke than in patients with stroke of known cause in patients more than 55 years old.
5. Anderson FA Jr, Wheeler HB, Goldberg RJ, et al. A population-based perspective of the hospital incidence and case-fatality rates of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The Worcester DVT Study. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151:933-938.
6. Meister SG, Grossman W, Dexter L, Dalen JE. Paradoxical embolism. Diagnosis during life. Am J Med 1972; 53:292-298.
7. Ay H, Buonanno FS, Abraham SA, et al. An electrocardiographic criterion for diagnosis of patent foramen ovale associated with ischemic stroke. Stroke 1998; 29:1393-1397.
8. Belvis R, Leta RG, Martinez-Domeno A, et al. Electrocardiographic findings in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke and patent foramen ovale. J Electrocardiol 2007; 40:168-171.
9. Stollberger C, Slany J, Schuster I, et al. The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119:461-465.
10. Kim D, Saver JL Patent foramen ovale and stroke: what we do and don't know. Rev Neural Dis 2005; 2:1-7.
11. Cramer SC, Rordorf G, Maki JH, et al. Increased pelvic vein thrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the Paradoxical Emboli from Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study. Stroke 2004; 35:46-50.
12. Becker K, Skalabrin E, Hallam D, Gill E. Ischemic stroke during sexual intercourse: a report of 4 cases in persons with patent foramen ovale. Arch Neural 2004; 61:1114-1116.
13. Ozdemir O, Beletsky V, Hachinski V, Spence JD. Cerebrovascular events on awakening, patent foramen ovale and obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. J Neural Sci 2008; 268:193-194.
14. Kent DM, Trikalinos TA, Thaler DE. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1519-1520; author reply 1520-1511. Bayes' theorem used to estimate the likelihood of incidental PFOs in patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO.
15. 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; 47:440-445. One of two major population-based, prospective epidemiologic studies finding that PFOs are not a major, but may be a minor, risk for first ischemic stroke.
16. Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, et al. Patent foramen ovale and the risk of ischemic stroke in a multiethnic population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:797-802. One of two major population-based, prospective epidemiologic studies finding that PFOs are not a major, but may be a minor, risk for first ischemic stroke.
17. Homma S, Sacco RL. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Circulation 2005; 112:1063-1072.
18. Cabanes L, Mas JL, Cohen A, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale as risk factors for cryptogenic stroke in patients less than 55 years of age. A study using transesophageal echocardiography. Stroke 1993; 24:1865-1873.
19. De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke 2000; 31:2407-2413.
20. Giardini A, Donti A, Formigari R, et al. Comparison of results of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical embolism in patients with versus without thrombophilia. Am J Cardiol 2004; 94:1012-1016.
21. Karttunen V, Hiltunen L, Rasi V, et al. Factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutation may predispose to paradoxical embolism in subjects with patent foramen ovale. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2003; 14:261-268.
22. 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; 345:1740-1746.
23. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, et al. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002; 105:2625-2631.
24. Gasiavelis N, Grinnemo KH, Lindblom D, Dellgren G. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism: longterm results. Scand Cardiovasc J 2004; 38:375-379.
25. Klotz S, Tjan TD, Berendes E, et al. Surgical closure of combined symptomatic patent foramen ovale and atrial septum aneurysm for prevention of recurrent cerebral emboli. J Card Surg 2005; 20:370-374.
26. Schneider B, Bauer R. Is surgical closure of patent foramen ovale the gold standard for treating interatrial shunts? An echocardiographic follow-up study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005; 18:1385-1391.
27. Tsilimingas NB, Reiter B, Kodolitsch YV, et al. Surgical revision of an uncommonly dislocated self-expanding Amplatzer septal occluder device. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78:686-687.
28. Goldstein JA, Beardslee MA, Xu H, et al. Infective endocarditis resulting from CardioSEAL closure of a patent foramen ovale. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 55:217-220; discussion 221.
29. Wertman B, Azarbal B, Riedl M, Tobis J. Adverse events associated with nickel allergy in patients undergoing percutaneous atrial septal defect or patent foramen ovale closure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:1226-1227.
30. Anzai H, Child J, Natterson B, et al. Incidence of thrombus formation on the CardioSEAL and the Amplatzer interatrial closure devices. Am J Cardiol 2004; 93:426-431.
31. Krumsdorf U, Ostermayer S, Billinger K, et al. Incidence and clinical course of thrombus formation on atrial septal defect and patient foramen ovale closure devices in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:302-309.
32. Dorenbeck U, Simon B, Skowasch D, et al. Cerebral embolism with interventional closure of symptomatic patent foramen ovale: an MRI-based study using diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Neural 2007; 14:451-454. Thirty-five patients undergoing PFO closure had preprocedure and postprocedure MRI scans. Three of them (9%) had new lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging adding stroke to the potential list of complications from the PFO closure procedure itself.
33. Wohrle J. Closure of patent foramen ovale after cryptogenic stroke. Lancet 2006; 368:350-352. Meta-analysis of 11 series encompassing 1663 device-treated patients finding periprocedural complications in 4.6% of patients and that were major in 2.7%.
34. Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:377-380.
35. Taaffe M, Fischer E, Baranowski A, et al. Comparison of Three Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices in a Randomized Trial (Amplatzer Versus CardioSEAL-STARflex Versus Helex Occluder). Am J Cardiol 2008; 101:1353-1358. This trial randomized 660 patients undergoing percutaneous closure among three closure devices (A-Amplatzer. C-Cardioseal-Starflex, H-Helex) and evaluated procedural complications and 30-day clinical outcomes. All PFO closures were technically successful, but complications varied by device, including incomplete closure (35 vs. 37 vs. 47% for A, C, H respectively), atrial fibrillation (1 vs. 5 vs. 1%), and thrombi forming on closure on device (O vs. 4 vs. 0%).
36. Windecker S, Wahl A, Nedeltchev K, et al. Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:750-758.
37. Off-label practices plague circulatory system device randomized trials. The Gray Sheet 2004; 30:18-19.
38. Messe SR, Silverman IE, Kizer JR, et al. Practice parameter: recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2004; 62:1042-1050.
39. Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al. Guidelines for prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: co-sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: the American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke 2006; 37:577-617.