Why the study?
Patients with PFO-associated stroke require evaluation by cardiology and neurology specialists, but multidisciplinary Heart Brain Clinic experience with these patients needed reporting.
Does evaluation in a multidisciplinary Heart Brain Clinic improve time to PFO closure and reduce clinic visits in patients with PFO-associated ischemic stroke compared to standard care?
Does evaluation in a multidisciplinary Heart Brain Clinic improve time to PFO closure and reduce clinic visits in patients with PFO-associated ischemic stroke compared to standard care?
A multidisciplinary Heart Brain Clinic approach for PFO-associated ischemic stroke is feasible and may influence clinical decision-making regarding PFO closure.
May influence PFO closure recommendations; leaves open effects on time to closure or visit reduction.
Background and Objectives: Multidisciplinary clinics have been shown to improve care. Patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO)-associated stroke need evaluation by cardiology and neurology specialists. We report our experience creating a multidisciplinary Structural Heart Brain Clinic (HBC) with a focus on patients with PFO-associated stroke. Methods: Demographic and clinical data were retrospectively collected for patients with PFO-associated ischemic stroke. Patients with PFO-associated stroke were divided into a standard care group and Heart Brain Clinic group for analysis. Outcome measures included time from stroke to PFO closure and number of clinic visits before decision regarding closure. Nonparametric analysis evaluated differences in median time to visit and clinical decision, while the chi square analysis compared differences in categorical variables between groups. Results: = 0.021). Discussion: Our data demonstrate that a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach to management of patients with PFO-associated ischemic stroke is feasible and may improve the quality of care in this younger patient population. The difference in recommendation to not pursue PFO closure between groups may reflect selection and referral bias. Additional work is needed to determine whether this approach improves other aspects of care and outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tariq et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: