May migraine post-patent foramen ovale closure sustain the microembolic genesis of cortical spread depression?

Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Treating Migraine: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Observational studies have shown percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to be a safe means of reducing the frequency and duration of migraine.

Objective

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of PFO closure in patients with migraine using evidence-based medicine.

Methods

The Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and retrospective case series from January 1, 2001, to February 30, 2021. The Jadad scale and R 4.1.0 software were used to assess the quality of the literature and meta-analysis, respectively.

Results

In total, three randomized controlled trials, one pooled study, and eight retrospective case series including 1,165 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with control intervention in migraine, PFO closure could significantly reduce headache frequency (OR = 1.5698, 95% CI: 1.0465–2.3548, p=0.0293) and monthly migraine attacks and monthly migraine days (OR = 0.2594, 95% CI: 0.0790–0.4398, p=0.0048). Subgroup analysis of patients who all completed PFO surgery showed resolution of migraine headache for migraines with aura (OR = 1.5856, 95% CI: 1.0665–2.3575, p=0.0227).

Conclusions

Treatment with PFO closure could reduce the frequency of headaches and monthly migraine days and is an efficient treatment for migraine attacks with aura.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials on percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of migraine

BACKGROUND

The role of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure for prevention of migraine is controversial.

METHODS

We performed a computerised search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases through December 2017 for randomised trials evaluating PFO closure versus control in patients with migraine headaches (with or without aura). The main study outcome was the reduction in monthly migraine attacks after PFO closure compared with the control group.

RESULTS

The final analysis included three randomised trials with a total of 484 patients. Reduction in monthly migraine attacks was higher in PFO closure compared with the control group (standardised mean difference-SMD = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.06-0.43; p = .01). There was higher reduction of monthly migraine days in PFO closure group compared with control group (SMD = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.08-0.53; p = .01). There was no statistically significant difference in complete resolution of migraine attacks (OR: 3.67; 95% CI: 0.66-20.41; p = .14) and in responders' rate (OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 0.76-4.85; p = .17) between PFO closure and control groups. In patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura, there was an observed reduction in migraine attacks in PFO closure compared with control groups (SMD = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.07-1.65; p = .03).

CONCLUSION

PFO closure might be beneficial in migraine patients by reducing migraine attacks and migraine days, especially in patients whose majority of migraine attacks are with aura. However, those benefits were not associated with an improvement in responders' rate or complete resolution of migraine; raising concerns on the magnitude of clinical benefit of PFO closure in migraine prevention.

Migraine and stroke: in search of shared mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Migraine, particularly with aura, increases the risk for ischemic stroke, at least in a subset of patients. The underlying mechanisms are poorly understood and probably multifactorial.

METHODS

We carried out an extended literature review of experimental and clinical evidence supporting the association between migraine and ischemic stroke to identify potential mechanisms that can explain the association.

RESULTS

Observational, imaging and genetic evidence support a link between migraine and ischemic stroke. Based on clinical and experimental data, we propose mechanistic hypotheses to explain the link, such as microembolic triggers of migraine and enhanced sensitivity to ischemic injury in migraineurs.

DISCUSSION

We discuss the possible practical implications of clinical and experimental data, such as aggressive risk factor screening and management, stroke prophylaxis and specific acute stroke management in migraineurs. However, evidence from prospective clinical trials is required before modifying the practice in this patient population.

Metabolic syndrome and migraine

Migraine and metabolic syndrome are highly prevalent and costly conditions. The two conditions coexist, but it is unclear what relationship may exist between the two processes. Metabolic syndrome involves a number of findings, including insulin resistance, systemic hypertension, obesity, a proinflammatory state, and a prothrombotic state. Only one study addresses migraine in metabolic syndrome, finding significant differences in the presentation of metabolic syndrome in migraineurs. However, controversy exists regarding the contribution of each individual risk factor to migraine pathogenesis and prevalence. It is unclear what treatment implications, if any, exist as a result of the concomitant diagnosis of migraine and metabolic syndrome. The cornerstone of migraine and metabolic syndrome treatments is prevention, relying heavily on diet modification, sleep hygiene, medication use, and exercise.