Recent developments in next-generation occlusion devices

Transcatheter closure has been widely accepted as a highly effective way to treat abnormal blood flows and/or embolization of thrombus in the heart. It allows the closure of four types of congenital heart defects (CHDs) and stroke-associated left atrial appendage (LAA). The four types of CHDs include atrial septal defect (ASD), patent foramen ovale (PFO), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), and ventricular septal defect (VSD). Advancements in the materials and configurations of occlusion devices have spurred the transition from open-heart surgery with high complexity and morbidity, or lifelong medication with a high risk of bleeding, to minimally invasive deployment. A variety of occlusion devices have been developed over the past few decades, particularly novel ones represented by biodegradable and 3D-printed occlusion devices, which are considered as next-generation alternatives to conventional Nitinol-based occlusion devices due to biodegradability, customization, and improved biocompatibility. The aim here is to comprehensively review the next-generation occlusion devices in terms of materials, configurations, manufacturing methods, deployment strategies, and (if available) experimental results or clinical data. The current challenges and the direction of future work are also proposed. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Implantation of occlusion devices has become a widely accepted and highly effective treatment for occluding abnormal blood/thrombus flow within the heart. Due to the serious complications such as erosion and displacement of conventional Nitinol-based occluders, next-generation occluders with reduced risk of complications and improved biocompatibility has emerged. Here, we comprehensively review the next-generation occluders developed for atrial septal defect (ASD), patent foramen ovale (PFO), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), ventricular septal defect (VSD), and left atrial appendage (LAA), with special emphasis on biodegradable occluders. Besides, intelligent materials (e.g., automatically deployable shape memory polymers) and rapid customized manufacturing methods (3D/4D printing) for the fabrication of occluders are also introduced. Lastly, the directions of future work are highlighted.

Role of occlusive devices to prevent thromboembolism among persons with a patent foramen ovale and prior stroke

OPINION STATEMENT

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been linked to stroke, presumably through the mechanism of paradoxical embolism; however, data is confusing regarding the causal relationship between PFO and embolic stroke. What has come to light in the past decade of research is that PFO closure with devices that achieve a high rate of closure may reduce the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy, but this benefit has not been shown in the general population with a PFO and cryptogenic stroke. The important question now is which patient will benefit from PFO closure for stroke risk reduction. A validated risk prediction tool is needed to help physicians determine those patients who will derive benefit from closure of PFO to prevent recurrent stroke. It is clear that even in studies with a small number of individuals and a very small number of events, there is some benefit to closure. Furthermore, improvements in closure devices and techniques have made percutaneous device closure both safe and efficacious. As such, it is not necessary to wait for a patient to have two strokes prior to serious consideration of PFO closure. We would advocate that the decision to close a PFO in the setting of a cryptogenic stroke be made at an individual level, on a case-by-case basis. Patients with high-risk features may be more likely to benefit, though who exactly comprises this population is still being elucidated. The most difficult aspect of managing this disease is the substantial number of individuals with incidental PFOs, as well as the prevalence of stroke due to other etiologies. When treating this disease, the physician must be able to weigh the likelihood of benefit versus the risk of the procedure, as well as patient preference.