BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) can be diagnosed by contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (cTCD), but no definitive criteria exist to correlate the results obtained from cTCD with diagnoses of PFO obtained by contrast-enhanced transesophageal echocardiography (cTEE). The aim of the present study was to analyze markers in the positive RLS by cTCD that confirm the PFO by cTEE. METHODS: Twenty-six stroke patients who had previously submitted to cTEE, 16 with PFO (PFO group) and 10 without PFO (no-PFO group), were evaluated for three markers based on a positive cTCD test. The number of microembolic signs (MES), the latency time (LT) to the first MES and the duration time (DT) of MES were evaluated to look for a difference between the PFO and no-PFO group. RESULTS: The PFO group had higher MES (80.9+/-124.5 vs. 10.2+/-25.6, p<0.001), shorter LT (12.5+/-6.6 vs. 16.2+/-5.1, p=0.02) and longer DT (21.4+/-17.4 vs. 11.7+/-12.5, p=0.013) compared with the no-PFO group. Considering only MCA tests with more than 9 MES and LT shorter than 9s, 30% of patients from the PFO group had positive tests compared with no patients from the no-PFO group. This cutoff demonstrates a specificity and positive predictive value of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The rule of nine (>9 MES and LT <9s) for cTCD can be considered a marker for PFO diagnosis by cTEE. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) can be diagnosed by contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (cTCD), but no definitive criteria exist to correlate the results obtained from cTCD with diagnoses of PFO obtained by contrast-enhanced transesophageal echocardiography (cTEE). The aim of the present study was to analyze markers in the positive RLS by cTCD that confirm the PFO by cTEE. METHODS: Twenty-six strokepatients who had previously submitted to cTEE, 16 with PFO (PFO group) and 10 without PFO (no-PFO group), were evaluated for three markers based on a positive cTCD test. The number of microembolic signs (MES), the latency time (LT) to the first MES and the duration time (DT) of MES were evaluated to look for a difference between the PFO and no-PFO group. RESULTS: The PFO group had higher MES (80.9+/-124.5 vs. 10.2+/-25.6, p<0.001), shorter LT (12.5+/-6.6 vs. 16.2+/-5.1, p=0.02) and longer DT (21.4+/-17.4 vs. 11.7+/-12.5, p=0.013) compared with the no-PFO group. Considering only MCA tests with more than 9 MES and LT shorter than 9s, 30% of patients from the PFO group had positive tests compared with no patients from the no-PFO group. This cutoff demonstrates a specificity and positive predictive value of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The rule of nine (>9 MES and LT <9s) for cTCD can be considered a marker for PFO diagnosis by cTEE. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier B.V.