Why the study?
When a high-risk stroke mechanism is not identified despite full workup, optimal treatment has remained an active clinical question, particularly regarding low-risk mechanisms such as patent foramen ovale.
Does percutaneous closure of PFO or optimal antithrombotic management improve secondary stroke prevention in patients with cryptogenic stroke?
Does percutaneous closure of PFO or optimal antithrombotic management improve secondary stroke prevention in patients with cryptogenic stroke?
This review highlights the benefit of percutaneous PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention in select patients with cryptogenic stroke.
Supports PFO closure consideration in select cryptogenic stroke; leaves open optimal selection and antithrombotic comparisons.
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a common neurological disorder and may present with visual symptoms. A thorough workup is warranted to determine the underlying cause of stroke to optimize secondary prevention. Despite a full workup, a high-risk mechanism may not be identified. Optimal treatment in this patient population has been the subject of recent research, particularly with regard to low-risk stroke mechanisms such as patent foramen ovale (PFO). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using PubMed and published stroke guidelines, an evidence-based literature review was performed. RESULTS: In this review, we compare cryptogenic stroke with the newer concept of embolic stroke of undetermined source, summarize the most common causes presumed to underlie these strokes, and review the evidence for optimal antithrombotic management. We also review recent clinical trials demonstrating a benefit for percutaneous closure of PFO for secondary stroke prevention in select patients. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke management is based on evaluation of individual patient-risk factors. Evaluation and treatment is ideally directed by a vascular neurologist to ensure optimal secondary prevention, especially in cases where an underlying etiology is not identified on initial workup.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stone et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: