Reduced Stroke After Transcatheter Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2Citations
Citations of this article
36Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Recent randomized control trials (RCTs) have suggested benefit with transcatheter patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure plus antiplatelet therapy over medical treatment alone for secondary stroke prevention. Material and Methods: Data sources: we searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE from the inception until November 10, 2017 for RCTs comparing TPFO closure to medical therapy in patients with a PFO and a history of cryptogenic stroke. Results: Five RCTs with 3,627 patients (TPFO closure = 1,829 versus medical therapy =1,798) were included. There was a decreased number of post-TPFO closure strokes compared to the medical therapy arm; 53 versus 80 strokes (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, CI: 0.39-0.94, P = 0.03, I2 = 17%). Transient ischemic attacks occurred in 43 patients after TPFO closure versus 60 patients in the medical therapy group (OR = 0.80, CI: 0.53-1.19, P = 0.26, I2 = 0%). There was a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation in the TPFO closure group, which occurred in 75 patients, compared to 12 patients in the medical therapy group (OR = 5.23, CI: 2.17-12.59, P = 0.0002, I2 = 43%). There was a trend toward a decreased number of neuropsychiatric events in the TPFO closure closure group compared to the medical therapy group; 42 versus 67 neuropsychiatric events (OR = 0.71, CI: 0.48-1.06, P = 0.09, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: TPFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy is superior to medical therapy in patients with a PFO and cryptogenic stroke. PFO closure is associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation and a trend toward reduced neuropsychiatric events.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alvarez, C., Siddiqui, W. J., Aggarwal, S., Hasni, S. F., Hankins, S., & Eisen, H. (2018). Reduced Stroke After Transcatheter Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 356(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2018.04.004

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free