Key result
Antiplatelet and antithrombotic management after percutaneous ASD or PFO closure requires balancing thrombotic risk, device sealing, and bleeding risk.
Why the study?
During percutaneous closure of interatrial shunts, managing the balance between thrombotic risk, device sealing, and bleeding risk is crucial, prompting a review of available antiplatelet and antithrombotic strategies.
This review summarizes current data on the optimal antiplatelet and antithrombotic management strategies for patients following percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects or patent foramen ovale.
Supports individualized antithrombotic decisions after ASD/PFO closure; leaves open optimal protocols pending higher-level evidence.
Pathologies of the atrial septum include different interatrial communications varying from patent foramen ovale (PFO) to actual defects. Atrial septal defects (ASDs) may be localized within the fossa ovalis such as the secundum type ASD or outside the region of fossa ovalis, such as the ostium primum defect and sinus venosus defect. Over the last decades, the percutaneous closure of interatrial shunts has become a feasible and safe method. During these procedures, the delicate balance between thrombotic risk, device sealing process and bleeding risk is crucial. In this review, we sought to describe current available data on the antiplatelet and antithrombotic management of patients after percutaneous ASD or PFO closure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Drakopoulou et al. (2020) conducted a review in Patent foramen ovale and atrial septal defect. Antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy was evaluated. Antiplatelet and antithrombotic management after percutaneous ASD or PFO closure requires balancing thrombotic risk, device sealing, and bleeding risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: