Adding patent foramen ovale closure to antiplatelet therapy reduced stroke after cryptogenic stroke

2018 ◽  
Vol 168 (2) ◽  
pp. JC7
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Foramen Ovale

Closure of patent foramen ovale in “cryptogenic” stroke: Has the story come to an end?

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 240-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Louis Mas ◽  
Gilles Chatellier
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Stroke Recurrence ◽  
Foramen Ovale ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Procedural Complications

Contrasting with three randomized trials that failed to show any superiority of patent foramen ovale closure over antithrombotic therapy, two trials recently reported lower rates of stroke recurrence among patients assigned to patent foramen ovale closure than among those assigned to antiplatelet therapy. In addition, one of the initially negative trials concluded in favor of patent foramen ovale closure after an extended follow-up period. A better selection of patients, the use of reference treatment groups that included patients who received antiplatelet therapy alone (rather than antiplatelet drugs or oral anticoagulants, according to physician preference), and a longer follow-up of patients, may explain the divergent findings across studies. Procedural complications were reported in 1.5% to 5.9% of the patients, none of which led to permanent disability or death. Patent foramen ovale closure was associated with an increased risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation in several studies and of venous thromboembolism in one study.

PP122 A Quick Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure In Korean Patients With Cryptogenic Stroke

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 112-113
Author(s):  
Jeonghoon Ahn ◽  
Eung Ju Kim ◽  
Kyungmi Oh ◽  
Justin Seung-Ho Yoo ◽  
Maria Koullick
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Foramen Ovale ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Pfo Closure

Introduction:Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an open hole between the right and left upper chambers of the heart. It may increase the risk of stroke, so closure of the hole is considered a secondary prevention in patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. Recent evidence has been published on the effectiveness of PFO closure, including a publicly funded prospective study on the effectiveness of PFO closure for preventing recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack in selected Korean patients who have experienced cryptogenic stroke. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure using this recent evidence.Methods:Available clinical data from the aforementioned Korean prospective study and other recent multicenter trials funded by public bodies were used. The cost data were obtained from the current Korean National Health Insurance fee schedule. Utility data were extracted from local research on stroke patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a 20-year Markov model, was conducted using these data to compare PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulants alone.Results:The initial analysis showed that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy costs KRW 7.13 million (USD 6,547) more than oral anticoagulants alone but has a higher utility of 1.3 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, which corresponds to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of KRW 5.6 million (USD 5,142) per QALY. The implicit Korean ICER threshold is KRW 25 million (USD 22,955) for non-cancer drugs, so it seems that PFO plus antiplatelet therapy is cost effective in the Korean setting.Conclusions:Since this study used some transition probabilities from foreign sources, the results may not be completely transferable to the Korean setting. However, this is the best available evidence so far in Korea for the economic evaluation of the PFO closure procedure. Therefore, use of PFO closure in carefully selected patients with a history of cryptogenic stroke may benefit the public payer in Korea.

scholarly journals Anticoagulant vs. antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: an individual participant data meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (35) ◽  
pp. 2381-2389 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Kent ◽  
Issa J. Dahabreh ◽  
Robin Ruthazer ◽  
Anthony J. Furlan ◽  
Christian Weimar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Foramen Ovale ◽  
Individual Participant

scholarly journals Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Antiplatelet Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke

2017 ◽  
Vol 377 (11) ◽  
pp. 1033-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Søndergaard ◽  
Scott E. Kasner ◽  
John F. Rhodes ◽  
Grethe Andersen ◽  
Helle K. Iversen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Foramen Ovale

scholarly journals Patent foramen ovale closure, antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis incorporating complementary external evidence

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e023761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassan Mir ◽  
Reed Alexander C Siemieniuk ◽  
Long Cruz Ge ◽  
Farid Foroutan ◽  
Michael Fralick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Persistent Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Stroke Recurrence ◽  
Foramen Ovale ◽  
External Evidence ◽  
Pfo Closure

ObjectiveTo examine the relative impact of three management options in patients aged <60 years with cryptogenic stroke and a patent foramen ovale (PFO): PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy, antiplatelet therapy alone and anticoagulation alone.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) supported by complementary external evidence.Data sourcesMedline, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing PFO closure and/or medical therapies in patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke.Review methodsWe conducted an NMA complemented with external evidence and rated certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.ResultsTen RCTs in eight studies proved eligible (n=4416). Seven RCTs (n=3913) addressed PFO closure versus medical therapy. Of these, three (n=1257) addressed PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy, three (n=2303) addressed PFO closure versus mixed antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies and one (n=353) addressed PFO closure versus anticoagulation. The remaining three RCTs (n=503) addressed anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy. PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy probably results in substantial reduction in ischaemic stroke recurrence (risk difference per 1000 patients over 5 years (RD): −87, 95% credible interval (CrI) −100 to −33; moderate certainty). Compared with anticoagulation, PFO closure may confer little or no difference in ischaemic stroke recurrence (low certainty) but probably has a lower risk of major bleeding (RD −20, 95% CrI −27 to −2, moderate certainty). Relative to either medical therapy, PFO closure probably increases the risk of persistent atrial fibrillation (RD 18, 95% CI +5 to +56, moderate certainty) and device-related adverse events (RD +36, 95% CI +23 to +50, high certainty). Anticoagulation, compared with antiplatelet therapy, may reduce the risk of ischaemic stroke recurrence (RD −71, 95% CrI −100 to +17, low certainty), but probably increases the risk of major bleeding (RD +12, 95% CrI −5 to +65, moderate certainty).ConclusionsIn patients aged <60 years, PFO closure probably confers an important reduction in ischaemic stroke recurrence compared with antiplatelet therapy alone but may make no difference compared with anticoagulation. PFO closure incurs a risk of persistent atrial fibrillation and device-related adverse events. Compared with alternatives, anticoagulation probably increases major bleeding.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017081567.

Hole in My Heart

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Y. Chong ◽  
Michael P. Lerario
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Foramen Ovale ◽  
Pfo Closure

The presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is associated with cryptogenic stroke, especially in young patients. Medical therapy for patients with stroke and PFO includes antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation. PFO closure is not routinely recommended for stroke prevention.

Patent foramen ovale

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vafa Alakbarzade ◽  
Tracey Keteepe-Arachi ◽  
Nazia Karsan ◽  
Robin Ray ◽  
Anthony C Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Patent Foramen Ovale ◽  
Cryptogenic Stroke ◽  
Paradoxical Embolism ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Atrial Septal Aneurysm ◽  
Foramen Ovale ◽  
Peripheral Ischaemia ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Pfo Closure

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is the most common anatomical cause of an interatrial shunt. It is usually asymptomatic but may cause paradoxical embolism, manifesting as stroke, myocardial infarction or visceral/peripheral ischaemia. PFO is a risk factor for stroke and may be associated with migraine with aura. New evidence suggests PFO closure reduces the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in a highly selected population of stroke survivors: those aged 60 years or younger with a cryptogenic stroke syndrome, a large right-to-left shunt, an atrial septal aneurysm and no evidence of atrial fibrillation. They benefit from percutaneous PFO closure in addition to antiplatelet therapy, rather than antiplatelet therapy alone. Current evidence does not support PFO closure in the treatment of migraine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document