Literature DB >> 21596333

Explantation of patent foramen ovale closure devices: a multicenter survey.

Swarnendra K Verma1, Jonathan M Tobis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the frequency and causes of surgical explantation of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices.
BACKGROUND: PFO has been linked with cryptogenic strokes, recurrent transient neurologic deficits, sleep apnea, decompression illness, and migraines. Several randomized trials are in progress to determine whether PFO closure is preferable to medical management in the treatment of patients with cryptogenic strokes or migraine. The majority of PFO closures are performed off-label, because there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for use of any device to close a PFO. As data are accumulating on the benefits of implanting PFO closure devices, it is also important to examine complications that might occur.
METHODS: We performed a database review to identify the frequency and causes of PFO device explantation, examining 18 PFO closure centers in Europe and the United States.
RESULTS: Of the 13,736 percutaneous PFO device implantations performed over the past 9 years at these 18 institutions, 38 devices (0.28% [95% confidence interval: 0.20% to 0.37%]) required surgical removal. There were a wide range of causes cited for these removals. The most common cause for explantation was chest pain (n = 14), often determined to be secondary to nickel allergy to the PFO device. Other causes for explantation included persistence of a residual shunt (n = 12), the presence of thrombus on the device (n = 4), pericardial effusion (n = 2), perforation of the atrium or aortic root (n = 2), recurrent strokes (n = 1), the development of endocarditis (n = 1), and undocumented reasons (n = 2).
CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of PFO closure procedures are performed safely with minimal complications. However, there is a small (0.28%) incidence of severe long-term problems associated with PFO closure that might require surgical removal of the device. In addition, the frequency of surgical explantation was found to be device-dependent; some of these devices seem to be safer than others.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21596333     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  12 in total

Review 1.  Atrial septum defect closure device in a beating heart, from the perspective of a researcher in artificial organs.

Authors:  Yasuko Tomizawa
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 1.731

2.  Sleep Apnea in Patients with and without a Right-to-Left Shunt.

Authors:  Mohammad Khalid Mojadidi; Pooya Isaac Bokhoor; Rubine Gevorgyan; Nabil Noureddin; W Cameron MacLellan; Eugenia Wen; Ravi Aysola; Jonathan M Tobis
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2015-11-15       Impact factor: 4.062

Review 3.  The management of patent foramen ovale in divers: where do we stand?

Authors:  Anastasios Apostolos; Maria Drakopoulou; George Trantalis; Αndreas Synetos; George Oikonomou; Theodoros Karapanayiotides; Costas Tsioufis; Konstantinos Toutouzas
Journal:  Ther Adv Neurol Disord       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 6.430

4.  Patent foramen ovale in severe obstructive sleep apnea: clinical features and effects of closure.

Authors:  Zarrin F Shaikh; Jay Jaye; Neil Ward; Atul Malhotra; Manuel de Villa; Michael I Polkey; Michael J Mullen; Mary J Morrell
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Atrial septal defect closure: rethinking device vs surgery.

Authors:  Shamsher Singh Lohchab; Sunil Sharma
Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2021-04-10

6.  Stent thrombosis caused by metal allergy complicated by protein S deficiency and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Takao Konishi; Tadashi Yamamoto; Naohiro Funayama; Beni Yamaguchi; Seiichiro Sakurai; Hiroshi Nishihara; Koko Yamazaki; Yusuke Kashiwagi; Yasuki Sasa; Mitsuru Gima; Hideichi Tanaka; Daisuke Hotta; Kenjiro Kikuchi
Journal:  Thromb J       Date:  2015-07-23

Review 7.  Modern management of a patent foramen ovale.

Authors:  G S Kanaganayagam; I S Malik
Journal:  JRSM Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2012-10-31

8.  Acute Hypoxic and Refractory Respiratory Failure Induced by an Underlying PFO: An Unusual Case of Platypnea Orthodeoxia and Transient Complication after Transcatheter Closure.

Authors:  Carlos Salazar; Romeo A Majano
Journal:  Case Rep Crit Care       Date:  2017-11-28

Review 9.  Nickel Hypersensitivity to Atrial Septal Occluders: Smoke Without Fire?

Authors:  Anastasios Apostolos; Maria Drakopoulou; Stamatios Gregoriou; Andreas Synetos; George Trantalis; Georgios Tsivgoulis; Spyridon Deftereos; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Konstantinos Toutouzas
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 8.667

10.  "Migraine side effect" and stroke recurrence in late follow-up after transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure as secondary prevention of cryptogenic thromboembolism.

Authors:  Magdalena Kumor; Elżbieta K Biernacka; Marcin Demkow; Marek Konka; Anna E Płatek; Michalina Jagodzińska; Piotr Hoffman
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 1.426

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.