Why the study?
Does percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale reduce the risk of recurrent embolic events or death in patients with cryptogenic embolism compared with medical therapy?
Does percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale reduce the risk of recurrent embolic events or death in patients with cryptogenic embolism compared with medical therapy?
Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale does not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent embolic events or death compared to medical therapy for secondary prevention of cryptogenic embolism.
PFO closure should not yet alter practice for cryptogenic embolism; leaves open efficacy in randomized trials.
Closure of a patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of cryptogenic embolism did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent embolic events or death as compared with medical therapy. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00166257.).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meier et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: