Amplatzer PFO Occluder Device may Prevent Recurrent Stroke in Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Trials

Heart Lung and Circulation

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 303-308

  Pandit, Anil ^a   Aryal, Madan Raj ^b   Pandit, Aashrayata Aryal ^a   Jalota, Leena ^b   Kantharajpur, Sudheer ^c   Hakim, Fayaz A ^a   Lee, Howard R ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b Reading Health System   (United States)

^c HUNTSVILLE HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

And meta analysis; Cryptogenic stroke; Device closure

Indexed keywords

CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; FOLLOW UP; HEART SURGERY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATENT FORAMEN OVALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RECURRENT STROKE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SEPTAL OCCLUDER; HEART FORAMEN OVALE; MEDLINE; STROKE; SURGERY;

FORAMEN OVALE; HUMANS; PUBMED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SEPTAL OCCLUDER DEVICE; STROKE;

EID: 84897105326     PISSN: 14439506     EISSN: 14442892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.12.003     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Handke M., Harloff A., Olschewski M., Hetzel A., Geibel A. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke in older patients. N Engl J Med 2007, 357(22):2262-2268.
2. O'Gara PT, Messe SR, Tuzcu EM, Catha G, Ring JC, American Heart Association, American Stroke Association, American College of Cardiology F. Percutaneous device closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary stroke prevention: a call for completion of randomized clinical trials. A science advisory from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53(21):2014-8.
3. Amin Z., Hijazi Z.M., Bass J.L., Cheatham J.P., Hellenbrand W., Kleinman C.S. PFO closure complications from the AGA registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008, 72(1):74-79.
4. Anzai H., Child J., Natterson B., Krivokapich J., Fishbein M.C., Chan V.K., et al. Incidence of thrombus formation on the CardioSEAL and the Amplatzer interatrial closure devices. Am J Cardiol 2004, 93(4):426-431.
5. Krumsdorf U., Ostermayer S., Billinger K., Trepels T., Zadan E., Horvath 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(2):302-309.
6. Staubach S., Steinberg D.H., Zimmermann W., Wawra N., Wilson N., Wunderlich N., et al. New onset atrial fibrillation after patent foramen ovale closure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009, 74(6):889-895.
7. Agarwal S., Bajaj N.S., Kumbhani D.J., Tuzcu E.M., Kapadia S.R. Meta-analysis of transcatheter closure versus medical therapy for patent foramen ovale in prevention of recurrent neurological events after presumed paradoxical embolism. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012, 5(7):777-789.
8. Hong T.E., Thaler D., Brorson J., Heitschmidt M., Hijazi Z.M., Amplatzer P.F.O.I. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale associated with paradoxical embolism using the amplatzer PFO occluder: initial and intermediate-term results of the U.S. multicenter clinical trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2003, 60(4):524-528.
9. Ford M.A., Reeder G.S., Lennon R.J., Brown R.D., Petty G.W., Cabalka A.K., et al. Percutaneous device closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with presumed cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: the Mayo Clinic experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009, 2(5):404-411.
10. Carroll J.D., Saver J.L., Thaler D.E., Smalling R.W., Berry S., MacDonald L.A., et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013, 368(12):1092-1100.
11. Furlan A.J., Reisman M., Massaro J., Mauri L., Adams H., Albers G.W., et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012, 366(11):991-999.
12. Meier B., Kalesan B., Mattle H.P., Khattab A.A., Hildick-Smith D., Dudek D., et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013, 368(12):1083-1091.
13. Nagaraja V., Raval J., Eslick G.D., Burgess D., Denniss A.R. Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Heart Lung Circ 2013, 22:903-909.
14. Hornung M., Bertog S.C., Franke J., Id D., Taaffe M., Wunderlich N., et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing three different devices for percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale. European Heart Journal 2013, 34(November (43)):3362-3369.
15. Thaler D.E., Wahl A. Critique of closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale: the hole truth. Stroke 2012, 43(11):3147-3149.
16. Wolfrum M., Froehlich G.M., Knapp G., Casaubon L.K., Dinicolantonio J.J., Lansky A.J., et al. Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2014, 100(March (5)):389-395.
17. Rengifo-Moreno P., Palacios I.F., Junpaparp P., Witzke C.F., Morris L.D., Romero-Corral A. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs. medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2013, 34(November (43)):3342-3352.
18. Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gotzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009, 6(7):e1000100.