Key result
Percutaneous PFO closure did not significantly reduce the recurrence of ischaemic stroke compared to medical therapy (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.07).
Why the study?
Does percutaneous catheter-based closure of PFO reduce the recurrence of ischaemic stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke or TIA and confirmed PFO compared to medical therapy?
Population
1967 participants from 3 RCTs with prior cryptogenic stroke or transient ischaemic attack and…
Comparison
Percutaneous catheter-based closure of PFO vs Medical therapy
Design
Meta-analysis
Authors
Loading...
PFO closure should not supplant medical therapy for secondary prevention; confirms insufficient evidence from three RCTs to establish superiority.
Systematic Review (n=1,967)
Does percutaneous catheter-based closure of PFO reduce the recurrence of ischaemic stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke or TIA and confirmed PFO compared to medical therapy?
Relative Risk: 0.61 (95% CI 0.34–1.07)
Absolute Event Rate: 2.1% vs 3.6%
Pooled data from three RCTs provides insufficient evidence to support that PFO closure is preferable to medical therapy for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke in patients with PFO.
Spencer et al. (2014) conducted a systematic review in Cryptogenic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) with patent foramen ovale (PFO) (n=1,967). Percutaneous catheter-based closure of PFO vs. Medical therapy (anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy) was evaluated on Recurrence of ischaemic stroke (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.07). Percutaneous PFO closure did not significantly reduce the recurrence of ischaemic stroke compared to medical therapy (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.07).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: