Title: Patent Foramen Ovale and Recurrent Stroke: Closure Is the Best Option: No
Abstract: HomeStrokeVol. 35, No. 3Patent Foramen Ovale and Recurrent Stroke: Closure Is the Best Option: No Free AccessArticle CommentaryPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessArticle CommentaryPDF/EPUBPatent Foramen Ovale and Recurrent Stroke: Closure Is the Best Option: No David C. Tong and Kyra J. Becker David C. TongDavid C. Tong From the Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences (D.C.T.), Stanford Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif; and Harborview Medical Center (K.J.B.), Seattle, Wash. and Kyra J. BeckerKyra J. Becker From the Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences (D.C.T.), Stanford Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif; and Harborview Medical Center (K.J.B.), Seattle, Wash. Originally published12 Feb 2004https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000117964.10781.BAStroke. 2004;35:804–805Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: February 12, 2004: Previous Version 1 Patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) experiencing ischemic cerebrovascular symptoms should not routinely undergo closure. A clear relationship between PFO and stroke has not yet been proven. Even if PFOs are shown to predispose to stroke, medical therapies for stroke prevention in patients with PFOs have not been adequately tested, making comparisons with invasive treatment difficult, and probably premature.Where's the Evidence?Several small, uncontrolled studies have suggested a relationship between PFO and stroke. Recent data, however, indicate that these studies may overestimate the association. In one study, PFOs were found in 20.8% of 519 randomly selected asymptomatic community-based controls compared with 16.5% of 158 patients referred for evaluation of cryptogenic stroke, demonstrating no increase in the prevalence of PFO among patients with stroke compared with a random nonhospitalized reference population.1Only 2 prospective multicenter studies of substantial size have evaluated the stroke recurrence risk in patients with PFO. These studies provide the best data for guiding the management of patients with PFO and ischemic cerebrovascular events.The French PFO-ASA Study Group evaluated 216 young patients (aged 18 to 55, mean age 40) with PFO and cryptogenic stroke and compared them with 304 cryptogenic stroke patients without PFO.2 All patients were extensively screened for alternative stroke etiologies, including coagulation testing and transesophageal echocardiography. Treatment consisted of aspirin (300 mg) in all cases. In this study, patients with PFO alone had a nonsignificantly lower stroke risk than those without a PFO at 4-year follow-up (2.3% PFO[+] versus 4.2% PFO[-]). Only patients with both PFO and an atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) experienced an increased risk of stroke (15.2% at 4 years; odds ratio 4.17, range 1.47 to 11.84)The second major study was the PFO in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS). PICSS was a substudy of the Warfarin Aspirin Recurrent Stroke Study (WARSS) and evaluated 630 older (age range 30 to 85, mean 59) patients with PFO and stroke who underwent transesophageal echocardiography in a blinded fashion.3 The majority of strokes in PICSS were cryptogenic (42%) or lacunar (39%). Patients were randomized to aspirin (325 mg) or warfarin (INR 1.7 to 2.2). In this study, the rate of recurrent stroke or death in patients with PFO was not significantly different, regardless of treatment (Figure). Moreover, the recurrence risk was not significantly different from that observed in patients without PFO. Among patients with cryptogenic stroke (n=265), the stroke or death rate was about 50% lower in warfarin treated patients, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (Figure). The presence of a PFO, however, did not influence this lower rate of stroke recurrence on warfarin, which was 9.5% in patients with PFO and 8.3% in patients without PFO. Of interest, larger PFOs were associated with a lower, not higher, overall rate of recurrent stroke or death (18.5% with small PFOs versus 9.5% with large PFOs), in contradiction to the common belief that larger septal defects should be associated with higher stroke risk. In the PICSS, the coexistence of PFO and ASA did not increase stroke risk as in the French PFO-ASA study. These findings question the causal relationship between PFOs and stroke in most patients. Download figureDownload PowerPointPICSS recurrent stroke or death rate.3Are We Doing the Right Studies?Despite these data, several closure trials have been initiated. Unfortunately, design issues may make the results difficult to interpret. For example, some studies include primarily younger patients who have had only a single neurological event. Since the best information show a very low stroke recurrence rate in this population, these studies may have difficulty demonstrating a difference between treatments. In one study, the end point includes both TIAs and strokes. Given the subjective nature of TIAs, their inclusion as an end point could be particularly problematic in a trial in which adequate blinding cannot be achieved due to the invasive nature of the therapy. This trial also allows enrollment of patients with TIAs, risking the dilution of treatment effects, as well as subjecting individuals to potentially unnecessary therapy. Moreover, it is unclear whether a reduction of transient ischemic events is sufficient justification to perform an invasive procedure, especially if a reduction in the firmer end points of stroke or death is not detected. This latter possibility is of particular concern given that such trials are probably underpowered to detect significant differences in these hard end points alone.Finally, at least one proposed closure trial is an "equivalency study" in which a positive result will be declared if the recurrent event rate for the device is no worse than that of "best medical therapy." Because the "best medical therapy" is unknown and will not be standardized, the results of these trials will be difficult to interpret. Moreover, given the extremely low rate of stroke seen in the French PFO-ASA study and the uncertain effects of medical therapy found in PICSS, equivalency seems an inappropriate criterion by which to judge success.The assumed association between PFO and stroke may be analogous to that between mitral valve prolapse and stroke reported over the last decade. While early studies suggested an association between mitral valve prolapse and stroke, a number of subsequent investigations failed to confirm this relationship.4 One can image the harm that might have occurred if an invasive treatment to "fix" the mitral valve had been available at that time.In summary, it is imperative that before embarking on a trial of PFO closure appropriate studies be designed to better characterize who is at sufficient risk to warrant interventional therapy. While it is likely that such a population exists, the challenge is to identify this group before exposing them to an invasive treatment.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Stroke Association.FootnotesCorrespondence to David C. Tong, MD, 701 Welch Rd, Suite 325B, Palo Alto, CA 94304. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Petty GW, Khanderia BK, Meissner I, Whisnant JP, Rocca WA, Sicks JD, O'Fallon WM, McClelland RL, Christianson JH, Wiebers DO. A population-based study of the relationship between patent foramen ovale and cerebrovascular ischemic events. Neurology. 2003; 60: A256.Abstract.Google Scholar2 Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, Zuber M, Cabanes L, Derumeaux G, Coste J. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1740–1746.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation. 2002; 105: 2625–2631.LinkGoogle Scholar4 Gilon D, Buonanno FS, Joffe MM, Leavitt M, Marshall JE, Kistler JP, Levine RA. Lack of evidence of an association between mitral-valve prolapse and stroke in young patients. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 8–13.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar eLetters(0) eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate. Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page. Sign In to Submit a Response to This Article Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Ning M, Lo E, Ning P, Xu S, McMullin D, Demirjian Z, Inglessis I, Dec G, Palacios I and Buonanno F (2013) The brain's heart — Therapeutic opportunities for patent foramen ovale (PFO) and neurovascular disease, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.03.007, 139:2, (111-123), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013. Ning M, Lopez M, Sarracino D, Cao J, Karchin M, McMullin D, Wang X, Buonanno F and Lo E (2013) Pharmaco-proteomics opportunities for individualizing neurovascular treatment, Neurological Research, 10.1179/1743132813Y.0000000213, 35:5, (448-456), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2013. Lau E, Jaijee S, Melehan K, Wong K, Yee B, Grunstein R and Celermajer D (2013) Prevalence of patent foramen ovale and its impact on oxygen desaturation in obstructive sleep apnea, International Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.07.050, 165:1, (35-40), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013. Lopez M, Sarracino D, Vogelsang M, Sutton J, Athanas M, Krastins B, Garces A, Prakash A, Peterman S, Demirjian Z, Inglessis-Azuaje I, Feeney K, Elia M, McMullin D, William Dec G, Palacios I, Lo E, Buonanno F and Ning M (2023) Heart-Brain Signaling in Patent Foramen Ovale–Related Stroke, Journal of Investigative Medicine, 10.2310/JIM.0b013e318276de0e, 60:8, (1122-1130), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012. Zetola V, Silva M, Lange M, Muzzio J, Novak E, Moraes A and Werneck L (2012) Is the patent foramen ovale closure the best option?, Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 10.1590/S0004-282X2012001200006, 70:12, (934-938), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012. Di Pasquale G, Urbinati S, Perugini E and Gambetti S (2012) Interactions Between Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease, Current Treatment Options in Neurology, 10.1007/s11940-012-0204-7, 14:6, (557-593), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012. Kent D and Thaler D (2010) Is Patent Foramen Ovale a Modifiable Risk Factor for Stroke Recurrence?, Stroke, 41:10_suppl_1, (S26-S30), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2010. Dastur C and Cramer S (2008) PARADOXICAL EMBOLISM AND STROKE Uncommon Causes of Stroke, 10.1017/CBO9780511544897.065, (483-490) (2008) NONINFLAMMATORY DISORDERS OF THE ARTERIAL WALL Uncommon Causes of Stroke, 10.1017/CBO9780511544897.061, (433-496) Di Pasquale G and Urbinati S (2008) Chapter 51 The interactions between cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease Stroke Part III: Investigation and Management, 10.1016/S0072-9752(08)94051-3, (1039-1057), . Clifford L, Sievers R, Salmon A and Newsom R (2005) Central retinal artery occlusion: association with patent foramen ovale, Eye, 10.1038/sj.eye.6701983, 20:6, (736-738), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2006. Belvís R, Leta R, Martí‐Fàbregas J, Cocho D, Carreras F, Pons‐Lladó G and Martí‐Vilalta J (2006) Almost Perfect Concordance Between Simultaneous Transcranial Doppler and Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Quantification of Right‐to‐Left Shunts, Journal of Neuroimaging, 10.1111/j.1552-6569.2006.00021.x, 16:2, (133-138), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2006. Payne J and Coull B (2005) Antithrombotic Therapy for Stroke in Young Adults, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 10.1007/s11239-005-3206-4, 20:2, (127-132), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2005. Cramer S (2005) Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke: Prognosis and Treatment in Young Adults, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 10.1007/s11239-005-3202-8, 20:2, (85-91), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2005. Capdeville M, Yang S, Koch C and Reeves S (2005) Case 4—2005 Utility of Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of a Previously Undetected Atrial Septal Aneurysm With Shunt, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 10.1053/j.jvca.2005.04.009, 19:4, (529-538), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2005. Anzola G (2004) Transcranial Doppler: Cinderella in the Assessment of Patent Foramen Ovale in Stroke Patients, Stroke, 35:6, (e137-e137), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2004.Schuchlenz H (2004) Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke, Stroke, 35:6, (e135-e136), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2004. March 2004Vol 35, Issue 3 Advertisement Article Information Metrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000117964.10781.BAPMID: 14963268 Originally publishedFebruary 12, 2004 Keywordsforamen ovale, patentstrokePDF download Advertisement