Percutaneous Treatment of Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Defects

Implanted endocardial lead characteristics and risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack

INTRODUCTION

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been recently implicated as a strong predictor of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with implanted pacemaker or defibrillation leads. Leads in the right heart can form thrombi that embolize to the pulmonary circulation and raise pulmonary pressure. This increases right-to-left shunting through PFO or intrapulmonary shunts and can result in paradoxical embolism. We sought to determine whether certain lead characteristics confer a higher thrombogenic risk resulting in stroke/TIAs in patients either with or without a PFO.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 5,646 patients (mean age 67.3 ± 16.3 years, 64 % male) who had endocardial device leads implanted in 2000-2010. We performed univariate and multivariate-adjusted proportional hazards models to determine association of lead characteristics with stroke/TIA during follow-up.

RESULTS

On univariate analysis, passively fixated tined leads were associated with more stroke/TIAs (HR 1.77, 95 % CI 1.27, 2.47; p<0.001), whereas presence of defibrillation coil was associated with fewer stroke/TIAs (HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.42-0.84; p=0.003). Number of leads per patient, presence of atrial lead, maximum lead size, tip shape, and type of insulating material were not associated with stoke/TIA. On multivariate analyses adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis of PFO, and prior history of stroke/TIA, the presence of tined leads was associated with stroke/TIA (HR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.00-1.97; p=0.049). Defibrillation coils were no longer associated with lower stroke/TIA on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Most physical characteristics of contemporary leads do not impact rate of stroke/TIA among patients receiving implantable devices. The presence of a PFO is a major risk factor for stroke/TIA in patients with endovascular leads.

Review of Data and Discussion - Who Should Undergo Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in 2014?

A patent foramen ovale is a relatively common finding in the general population and is associated with a number of conditions, including cryptogenic stroke. In 2014, percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is a frequently performed procedure; the bulk of these procedures being carried out for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke, along with other indications, such as prevention of decompression illness, platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome and migraine. Of these conditions the largest body of evidence available is for cryptogenic stroke and there is ongoing debate of the benefit of PFO closure over medical therapy. This article will review the available evidence of PFO closure in each of these contexts, with a particular focus on randomised controlled trials, and endeavour to outline in whom the evidence suggests closure should be considered.

PFO and ASD Closure in Adulthood: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT

Ever since the observation was made linking a higher prevalence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) in younger individuals with cryptogenic stroke (CS), there has been a vigorous debate as to the role the PFO plays and a search for the optimal management strategy to prevent recurrent CS. Data from observational studies from the past two decades have demonstrated the superiority of percutaneous device closure over medical therapy. The recent publication of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which failed to demonstrate the superiority of percutaneous closure has reignited the controversy as to how best treat these patients. In this article, we will review the contemporary literature from the past three years including the results from new meta-analyses of medical therapy and device closure. In addition, we will review the three published randomized control trials to date (ie, CLOSURE I, the PC trial, and RESPECT) along with a meta-analysis of their results. While on primary intention-to-treat analysis, the three RCTs failed to demonstrate a superiority of percutaneous PFO closure vs medical therapy, a closer look at the data seems to suggest a trend toward benefit. We come to the conclusion that the issue of optimal treatment of PFO in patients with CS is far from settled and is unlikely to be a "one size fits all" approach due to the heterogeneity of this condition. In our opinion, based on the entirety of available data, both observational and randomized, there is likely a role for percutaneous device closure in select patients with CS in whom a PFO is the likely cause of their first stroke and will remain a significant risk for recurrent neurologic events. The article will go on to review current indications for atrial septal defect (ASD) closure and will highlight safety, efficacy and caveats regarding this technique.

Transcatheter treatment of patent foramen ovale combined with abnormal drainage of left superior vena cava to left upper pulmonary vein

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been known to be the cause of transient ischemic attacks or stroke, and transcatheter device closure has been the treatment of choice for these defects. Combined defect of abnormal drainage of left superior vena cava (LSVC) to left superior pulmonary vein (LSPV) in PFO patients is an uncommon combination, and both can act as a pathway for paradoxical embolism. We report a successful closure of PFO, using Amplatzer® PFO occluder (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) and persistent LSVC connected to LSPV using an Amplatzer® Vascular Plug II (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA). Because this combined anomaly of PFO and persistent LSVC can be treated by a single transcatheter intervention, if clinically suspected, a complete evaluation for this anomaly should be considered.