Patent foramen ovale and closure technique with the amplatzer occluder

Patent foramen ovale closure: A prospective UK registry linked to hospital episode statistics

Aims

PFO closure is a percutaneous intervention, which aims to reduce risk of recurrent stroke by preventing paradoxical embolism. The objective of this study was to measure procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of PFO closure in a UK setting.

Methods and results

Prospective registry data from patients with cryptogenic stroke eligible for PFO closure were collected for up to 2 years and linked to routine data sources for additional follow-up. Outcomes of interest included procedural success rate, health related quality of life, and longer-term death and neurological event rates.

A total of 973 PFO closure procedures in 971 patients were included in analysis. Successful device implantation was achieved in 99.4 [95% CI 98.6 to 99.8]% of procedures, with one in-hospital death. During median follow-up of 758 (Q1:Q3 527:968) days, 33 patients experienced a subsequent neurological event, 76% of which were ischaemic in origin. Neurological event rate was 2.7 [95%CI 1.6 to 3.9]% at 1-year (n = 751) and 4.1 [95% CI 2.6 to 5.5]% at 2-years (n = 463) using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Improvements in patient quality of life (utility and visual analogue scale) were observed at 6-weeks and 6-months follow-up.

Conclusion

Our observational study demonstrates that PFO closure for prevention of recurrent stroke is a relatively safe procedure but in routine clinical practice is associated with a slightly higher risk of recurrent neurological events than in randomised trials. We hypothesize that our study enrolled unselected patients with higher baseline risk, who were excluded from randomised trials, but who may benefit from a similar relative reduction in risk from the intervention.

Amplatzer Patent Foramen Ovale Occluder Device-Related Complications

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a standard variant that is present in 25% of the whole adult population. In a certain population, PFO can lead to cerebrovascular accidents. Mechanism of cerebrovascular accidents can be by paradoxical embolization from the right circulation or in situ thrombosis. Diagnosis of a PFO-responsible cerebrovascular accident is based on a thorough work-up to exclude other possible etiologies and detect PFO on trans-thoracic or trans-esophageal echocardiography with bubble study and/or Doppler. Over the last few years, multiple studies have supported that percutaneous PFO closure is superior to medical therapy in the secondary prevention of cerebrovascular accidents. However, numerous adverse events have been linked to PFO closure devices in general compared to medical therapy as new-onset atrial fibrillation, residual shunt, device-related thrombus, bleeding, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and inter-atrial septal erosions. Amplatzer device is one of the PFO occluder devices approved by the FDA. Device-related adverse events have been addressed by comparing the Amplatzer device with other PFO occluder devices. Based on the new data, we expect to see more complications related to PFO closure in the coming few years. We reviewed different studies that looked at the PFO closure-related complications and the trials comparing adverse events in the Amplatzer PFO occluder device compared to other devices. Amplatzer PFO occluder device is either superior or non-statistically different from other PFO occluder devices related to new-onset atrial fibrillation and residual shunt. More studies are needed to address the other less common adverse events. Since many of the device-related complications appear many years after device placement, a long-term follow-up is recommended.

[Patent foramen ovale with a license to kill]

A patent foramen ovale (PFO) is present in about one of four, and one of its dangerous forms (large or associated with atrial septal aneurysm, Eustachian valve, or Chiari network) in one of twenty people. About 140 years ago, the PFO was shown to have the potential to result in death due to stroke and also myocardial infarction. The described decrease of the prevalence of a PFO with age may be a consequence of this. Therefore, it comes somewhat as a surprise that the PFO is taken rather lightly by the medical community. Percutaneous PFO closure with implantable devices has been around for over two decades and since then has proven to be the simplest and safest technique in interventional cardiology. Nonetheless, it is rarely applied and not recommended in current guidelines except for a few situations. Countless nonrandomised comparisons have invariably pointed to a clinical benefit of PFO closure in the secondary prevention of paradoxical cerebral events in patients with or without competitive reasons for stroke. Even a survival benefit of PFO closure was shown in a comparison over 10 years. However, the first three publications of randomised trials were not significant in the protocolled sense. PFO closure did reduce recurrent events compared to medical therapy by up to 80% but the statistical significance postulated was only reached in one of the three trials when the results were analyzed as treated or per predefined subgroups, like patients with atrial septal aneurysm, large PFO, or all PFO closure patients compared to treatment with acetylsalicylic acid only. Recently, a preplanned longer-term analysis of this trial and two additional randomised trials including higher risk PFOs reached the hypothesised statistical significance. This may be a turning point in the attitude towards PFO closure. In addition, PFO closure improves migraine and dyspnoea in certain patients. It appears, though, that it will take time until the full potential of PFO closure will be reflected in respective guidelines and reimbursement algorithms and adequately exploited by referring physicians (mostly neurologists) and interventional cardiologists. This reluctance will continue to cost innumerable preventable strokes, myocardial infarctions, and deaths around the world. The low risk of PFO closure must be weighed against even death if a PFO is left open; it is much more likely that one regrets not having closed a PFO than having closed it.

Transcatheter Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale: A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transcatheter closure (PTC) of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in cryptogenic stroke, transitional ischemic attack (TIA) and treatment of a migraine.

AIM

Our goal was to present our experience in the interventional treatment of PFO, as well as to evaluate the short and mid-term results in patients with closed PFO.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Transcatheter closure of PFO was performed in 52 patients (67.3% women, mean age 40.7 ± 11.7 years). Patients were interviewed for subjective grading of the intensity of headaches before and after the PFO closure.

RESULTS

During 2 years of follow-up, there was no incidence of new stroke, TIA and/or syncope. Follow-up TCD performed in 35 patients showed complete PFO closure in 20 patients (57.1%). Out of 35 patients, 22 (62.9%) reported having a migraine before the procedure with an intensity of headaches at 8.1 ± 1.9 on a scale from 1 to 10. During 2 years of follow-up, symptoms of a migraine disappeared in 4 (18.2%) and the remaining 18 patients reported the significant decrease in intensity 4.8 ± 2.04 (p = 0.0001). In addition, following PFO closure the incidence of the headaches decreased significantly (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous transcatheter closure of PFO is a safe and effective procedure showing mid-term relief of neurological symptoms in patients as well as significant reduction of migraine symptoms.