Key result
Transcatheter PFO closure reduces recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke.
Why the study?
The benefit of percutaneous PFO closure for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke has been debated due to early trials showing no significant benefit in intention-to-treat analyses.
Does transcatheter PFO closure reduce recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO?
Does transcatheter PFO closure reduce recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO?
Transcatheter PFO closure significantly reduces the risk of recurrent stroke compared to medical therapy in selected patients with cryptogenic stroke.
Nearly one-half of patients with cryptogenic stroke have a patent foramen ovale (PFO). The dilemma of whether to close these PFOs percutaneously, in an effort to reduce the risk of recurrent paradoxical embolism, has been a matter of ongoing debate for more than a decade. Early randomized clinical trials failed to demonstrate a significant benefit of percutaneous PFO closure for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke in an intention-to-treat analysis. The long-term follow-up data from the RESPECT trial and 2 new randomized trials (CLOSE and REDUCE) have clarified these findings. They showed that with good patient selection, transcatheter PFO closure significantly reduces the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke, with no increased risk of serious adverse events or influence on major bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mojadidi et al. (2018) conducted a review in Cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. Transcatheter PFO closure vs. Medical therapy was evaluated on Recurrent stroke. Transcatheter PFO closure significantly reduces the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy in appropriately selected patients with cryptogenic stroke.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: