Results of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale with the GORE®septal occluder

Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke: Integrated Management

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a common cardiac abnormality with a prevalence of 25% in the general population. PFO has been associated with the paradoxical embolism causing cryptogenic stroke and systemic embolization. Results from clinical trials, meta-analyses, and position papers support percutaneous PFO device closure (PPFOC), especially if interatrial septal aneurysms coexist and in the presence of large shunts in young patients. Remarkably, accurately evaluating patients to refer to the closure strategy is extremely important. However, the selection of patients for PFO closure is still not so clear. The aim of this review is to update and clarify which patients should be considered for closure treatment.

Atrial Fibrillation Following Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies and Clinical Trials

[Figure: see text].

Patent Foramen Ovale Treatment Strategies Correspond to an Index Predicting Pathogenicity

Background: Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS) may reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. By performing closure only in those with high risk of recurrent PFO related strokes, patient selection may be improved. The Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score is a point-based index developed to estimate the probability that the index CS was attributable to patent foramen ovale. We aimed to evaluate whether management strategies using conventional clinical judgement for patients with CS and PFO corresponded with RoPE scores.

Methods: We performed a single-centre retrospective chart review of adult patients with CS or transient ischemic attack who were evaluated for PFO closure from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2017. Patients were categorized based on the treatment strategy of percutaneous closure or medical management. RoPE scores were computed and clinical outcomes evaluated.

Results: A total of 154 patients were included: 63 patients underwent percutaneous closure and 91 patients were treated medically. Mean RoPE scores for closure and medical groups were 6.9±1.5 and 4.7±1.9, respectively (p<0.001). For patients who underwent percutaneous closure, successful device delivery was achieved in all patients and there were no immediate complications.

Conclusion: In this single-centre study, patients selected for percutaneous PFO closure based on conventional clinical judgement were more likely to have elevated PFO attributable risk, based on the RoPE score.

Patent foramen ovale and atrial fibrillation as causes of cryptogenic stroke: is treatment with surgery superior to device closure and anticoagulation? A review of the literature

Closure of persistent foramen ovale (PFO) to avoid cryptogenic strokes is performed globally with enthusiasm but lacks prove of efficacy. We present a 79-year-old man who had had a PFO device introduced nine years previously because of cryptogenic strokes presenting as syncopes. The patient was referred from his general practitioner with two new syncopes. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed no cardiac causes of embolism. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) revealed a misplaced device like an umbrella in a storm, but no septum defects. Holter revealed seconds-long episodes of atrial fibrillation (AF). The patient was successfully treated with anticoagulation.

A literature review showed that: (i) the efficacy of PFO closure devices has not been proven in any trial, but was demonstrated in a meta-analysis comparing three different devices; (ii) PFO devices are rarely controlled by TEE during or after insertion; (iii) residual shunts are detected in up to 45% of cases; (iv) there is an increased rate of post-arrhythmic complications; (v) the risk of AF in congenital heart disease increases with increasing age, with a 13% risk of transient ischemic attacks and stroke; and (vi) surgical treatment of PFO was found to have a 4.1% risk of complications including stroke.

The question to be asked is whether device closure of PFO should be avoided, considering that PFO is a congenital heart defect with risks of AF and (cryptogenic) stroke? Heart surgery should be a treatment option for symptomatic PFO.

Transcatheter Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale: Devices and Technique

Transcatheter closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) reduces the risk of recurrent cryptogenic stroke compared with medical therapy. PFO closure is a prophylactic procedure, and will not provide the patient with symptomatic improvement, except in cases of hypoxemia due to right-to-left shunt or possibly migraine headaches. Therefore, appropriate patient selection is critical, and procedural safety is paramount. Herein, we review key characteristics of the devices currently available for transcatheter PFO closure within the United States, and highlight key technical aspects of the PFO closure procedure that will maximize procedural success.

Closure of patent foramen ovale defects using GORE® CARDIOFORM septal occluder: Results from a prospective European multicenter study

AIMS

The GORE® CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder (GSO) is a novel device designed for rapid and effective closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) which has distinctive features making it suitable for a broad spectrum of anatomical variations. We report the procedural and 6 months follow-up results of the first prospective, multicenter study using GSO.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This single-arm study included 150 subjects undergoing closure of PFO in 10 European centers. In 149 out of 150 patients implantation of a GSO device was successful. One patient had a different PFO-closure device implanted. Periprocedural complications were few including one patient with suspected transient ischemic attack, two access site bleedings, and one patient with AV-fistula. No device embolization occurred. During the 6-month follow-up period one patient had a transient asymptomatic thrombus on the device and four patients (2.6%) were diagnosed new onset paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, which were successfully treated. No thrombembolic events occurred. Closure was successful in 94.2% of subjects at discharge evaluation and 96.9% at 6 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This prospective, multicenter study adds to previous published data and suggests that GSO is a versatile device for PFO closure with high procedural and closure success rates and low complication rates through mid-term follow-up. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Echocardiographic findings in simple and complex patent foramen ovale before and after transcatheter closure

AIMS

Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in cryptogenic cerebrovascular events is an alternative to medical therapy. The interpretation of residual shunts after implantation of different devices for PFO with different morphologies is controversial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Transcatheter PFO closure was performed in 123 patients with a history of ≥1 paradoxical embolism using three different devices: Amplatzer (n = 46), Figulla Occlutech (n = 41), and Atriasept Cardia (n = 36). Fifty-six patients presented with simple PFO and 67 patients had complex morphologies. All patients were studied with contrast enhanced transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) before interventional procedure and thereafter at 1 and 6 months and every 6-12 months in case of incomplete closure. Definite closure was confirmed in at least two consecutive TEE studies. Various PFO morphologies were identified by TEE before device implantation. The device size to PFO diameter ratio was significantly increased in patients with complex PFO compared with those patients with a simple PFO morphology (P < 0.05). The difference between the closure rate of S-PFO and C-PFO concerning each device type was significant (Amplatzer P = 0.0027, Figulla P = 0.0043, and Atriasept P < 0.01). The mean follow-up period was 3.4 years (median 2.7 years) with a cerebrovascular re-event rate of 2.4% per year. In three patients, thrombi were detected in the 6-month TEE controls and resolved after medical therapy. In three other patients, the implantation of an adjunctive device was necessary for residual shunt.

CONCLUSION

In our series of patients, the closure rate was dependent on PFO morphology more than occluder size and type. An adjunctive device was implanted in selected cases.