Key result
TOE yields a low ~32% sensitivity for detecting clinically significant PFOs.
Why the study?
Although transoesophageal echocardiography is claimed to have nearly 100% diagnostic accuracy for persistent foramen ovale, its real-world sensitivity for clinically significant defects needed evaluation.
Does transoesophageal echocardiography accurately detect clinically significant persistent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism?
Observational (n=27)
Yes
Does transoesophageal echocardiography accurately detect clinically significant persistent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism?
Transoesophageal echocardiography has a surprisingly low sensitivity (32%) for detecting clinically significant persistent foramen ovale in real-world practice, challenging its status as the gold standard investigation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
TOE may miss most PFOs clinically; leaves open need for prospective validation of alternative detection strategies.
Introduction: Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) is claimed to be the investigation of choice for detecting a persistent foramen ovale (PFO) with almost 100% diagnostic accuracy. If true, TOE would detect all large/clinically significant PFOs. Methods: Retrospective analysis to determine the sensitivity of TOE for detection of clinically significant PFOs. Patients were from a consecutive series of 150 patients who had transcatheter closure of a PFO following events attributed to paradoxical embolism (decompression sickness or stroke). In each patient, transthoracic echocardiogram with bubble contrast showed a clinically significant atrial right-to-left shunt. The data reported are from the sub-group of the 150 patients with a clinically significant PFO who also had a TOE performed in other hospitals. Results: Twenty seven of 150 consecutive patients had a total of 31 TOEs performed at 22 United Kingdom regional cardiac centres. TOE failed to detect a PFO in 17 of the 27 patients. Four patients had a TOE on two separate occasions and in each case both of the TOEs failed to show a PFO. TOE gave a false negative test in 21 of 31 investigations (sensitivity 32%). The mean PFO diameter was 9.4 mm (median 9 mm, range 5-16 mm) in the 21 patients in whom balloon sizing was performed and 9.8 mm (median 10 mm, range 5-16 mm) in the 13 patients in whom balloon sizing was performed and a TOE failed to show a PFO. Conclusions: These finding demonstrate that the precision of TOE for detecting a PFO in real world clinical practice is considerably lower than generally believed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wilmshurst et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Clinically significant persistent foramen ovale (n=27). Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) was evaluated on Sensitivity for detection of clinically significant PFOs. Transoesophageal echocardiography demonstrated a low sensitivity of 32% for detecting clinically significant persistent foramen ovale, yielding false negative results in 21 of 31 investigations.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: