BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been shown safe and feasible using several devices. The Occlutech Figulla single layer PFO Occluder (FPO) constitutes an alternative to the Amplatzer PFO Occluder (APFO). OBJECTIVES: We report our experience with both devices in a single-center case-control study. METHODS: Twenty patients undergoing percutaneous PFO closure using an FPO for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism or diving were blindly matched with 20 patients receiving an APFO during the same time period. Contrast transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed 6 months after device implantation to assess for residual shunting and device-associated thrombus. RESULTS: Patient baseline characteristics were well matched by study design. Procedural success was 95% with FPO vs. 100% for APFO (P = 1.0), with 3 (15%) peri-procedural complications with FPO vs. none with APFO (P = 0.24). These comprised one asymptomatic device embolization in the descending aorta with percutaneous retrieval, one transient ischemic attacks, and one suspected device endocarditis. Contrast TEE at 6 months showed significantly more residual shunts in the FPO-group (39% vs. 0%; P = 0.01). Two FPO patients with a moderate residual shunt underwent implantation of a second device (APFO 25 mm) vs. none in the APFO group (P = 0.48). No thrombi were observed in either group. During 1.7 ± 0.7 years of follow-up, no death or recurrent embolic event occurred. CONCLUSIONS: According to this single-center case-control study, PFO closure with the FPO appears less efficacious than with the APFO.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been shown safe and feasible using several devices. The Occlutech Figulla single layer PFO Occluder (FPO) constitutes an alternative to the Amplatzer PFO Occluder (APFO). OBJECTIVES: We report our experience with both devices in a single-center case-control study. METHODS: Twenty patients undergoing percutaneous PFO closure using an FPO for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism or diving were blindly matched with 20 patients receiving an APFO during the same time period. Contrast transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed 6 months after device implantation to assess for residual shunting and device-associated thrombus. RESULTS:Patient baseline characteristics were well matched by study design. Procedural success was 95% with FPO vs. 100% for APFO (P = 1.0), with 3 (15%) peri-procedural complications with FPO vs. none with APFO (P = 0.24). These comprised one asymptomatic device embolization in the descending aorta with percutaneous retrieval, one transient ischemic attacks, and one suspected device endocarditis. Contrast TEE at 6 months showed significantly more residual shunts in the FPO-group (39% vs. 0%; P = 0.01). Two FPO patients with a moderate residual shunt underwent implantation of a second device (APFO 25 mm) vs. none in the APFO group (P = 0.48). No thrombi were observed in either group. During 1.7 ± 0.7 years of follow-up, no death or recurrent embolic event occurred. CONCLUSIONS: According to this single-center case-control study, PFO closure with the FPO appears less efficacious than with the APFO.
Authors: Alvaro Aparisi; Roman J Arnold; Hipólito Gutiérrez; Ana Revilla; Ana Serrador; Benigno Ramos; Tania Rodriguez-Gabella; Alberto Campo; Carlos Baladrón; Itziar Gómez; Manuel Carrasco-Moraleja; José A San Roman; Ignacio J Amat-Santos Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Roel J R Snijder; Laura E Renes; Martin J Swaans; Maarten Jan Suttorp; Jurrien M Ten Berg; Martijn C Post Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 2.279