Key result
Over a median follow-up of 3.6 years, interventional closure of PFO in patients over 60 years of age showed equal rates of recurrent stroke, TIA, and cardiac death compared to those under 60.
Why the study?
Guidelines recommend PFO closure in cryptogenic stroke patients under 60 years of age, but the safety and efficacy in patients over 60 years remained to be determined.
Does percutaneous closure of PFO provide similar safety and efficacy in patients over 60 years of age compared to those under 60 years of age with cryptogenic ischemic stroke?
Cohort (n=293)
Yes
Does percutaneous closure of PFO provide similar safety and efficacy in patients over 60 years of age compared to those under 60 years of age with cryptogenic ischemic stroke?
Interventional closure of PFO appears to be as safe and effective in patients over 60 years of age as in those under 60 years of age with cryptogenic stroke.
PFO closure may be feasible over age 60; leaves open efficacy confirmation versus medical therapy in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend interventional closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke who are under 60 years of age. HYPOTHESIS: The hypothesis of this study was to compare follow-up results of PFO closure in patients over 60 years of age to those of patients under 60 years of age in order to determine whether the procedure is safe and effective for both age groups. METHODS: We included 293 patients who had a cryptogenic ischemic stroke and a PFO confirmed by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and who were scheduled for percutaneous closure of the PFO between 2014 and 2019. The device implantation was completed in all patients using an Amplatzer™, Occlutec™, or Cardia Ultrasept PFO occluder. RESULTS: Follow-up TEE examinations were performed at intervals of 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation. Patients were followed for a median of 3.6 ± 1.2 years. Recurrent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, cardiac death, arrhythmias, and residual shunt were reported equally in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Interventional closure of PFO can be as safe and effective in patients over 60 years of age as it is in patients under 60 years of age regardless of the device used. In this older patient group, rigorous discussion and a case-by-case decision-making process including cardiologists and neurologists is warranted to ensure optimal procedure selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nachoski et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cryptogenic ischemic stroke and patent foramen ovale (n=293). Age >60 years vs. Age <60 years was evaluated on Recurrent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, cardiac death, arrhythmias, and residual shunt. Over a median follow-up of 3.6 years, interventional closure of PFO in patients over 60 years of age showed equal rates of recurrent stroke, TIA, and cardiac death compared to those under 60.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: