M Sunbul1, B Ozben, E Durmus, A Kepez, A Pehlivan, I Midi, B Mutlu. 1. Department of Cardiology, Marmara University Faculty of Medicine, Üstkaynarca, Pendik/İstanbul, Fevzi Çakmak Mahallesi, Mimar Sinan Caddesi No. 41, Pendik/İstanbul, Turkey, drsunbul@yahoo.com.tr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paradoxical embolization through the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is the major cause of most cryptogenic stroke cases. However, the presence of PFO may simply be an incidental finding in these patients, and endothelial dysfunction may be the underlying reason of ischemic stroke. The aim of this study was to compare the endothelial function of cryptogenic stroke patients according to the presence of PFO. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients with cryptogenic stroke referred for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and 39 consecutive nonstroke patients referred for TEE examination because of suspected PFO were included in the study. Endothelial functions were assessed by brachial artery ultrasonography. PFO was diagnosed by the presence of right-to-left passage of contrast bubbles during TEE. Stroke and nonstroke patients were further subdivided into two groups according to the presence of PFO. RESULTS: Stroke patients had significantly lower flow-mediated dilation (FMD) values than nonstroke patients (8.36 ± 4.38 % vs. 12.57 ± 4.90 %, p < 0.001). The stroke patients with PFO had significantly lower FMD measures than nonstroke patients with PFO (6.60 ± 3.98 % vs. 10.84 ± 4.40 %, p = 0.001). Similarly, cryptogenic stroke patients without PFO had significantly lower FMD measures than nonstroke patients without PFO (9.90 ± 4.18 % vs. 14.22 ± 4.88, p = 0.002). Logistic regression analysis showed FMD as an independent predictor of cryptogenic stroke when adjusted by age, sex, and presence of PFO (odds ratio: 0.809, 95 % confidence interval: 0.719-0.911, p < 0.001). An FMD value of 11.30 % or lower predicted cryptogenic stroke with a sensitivity of 78.3 %, a specificity of 66.7 %, and positive and negative predictive values of 78.3 and 66.7 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: Endothelial dysfunction seems to play a more important role than PFO in the underlying mechanism of cryptogenic stroke.
BACKGROUND: Paradoxical embolization through the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is the major cause of most cryptogenic stroke cases. However, the presence of PFO may simply be an incidental finding in these patients, and endothelial dysfunction may be the underlying reason of ischemic stroke. The aim of this study was to compare the endothelial function of cryptogenic strokepatients according to the presence of PFO. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients with cryptogenic stroke referred for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and 39 consecutive nonstroke patients referred for TEE examination because of suspected PFO were included in the study. Endothelial functions were assessed by brachial artery ultrasonography. PFO was diagnosed by the presence of right-to-left passage of contrast bubbles during TEE. Stroke and nonstroke patients were further subdivided into two groups according to the presence of PFO. RESULTS:Strokepatients had significantly lower flow-mediated dilation (FMD) values than nonstroke patients (8.36 ± 4.38 % vs. 12.57 ± 4.90 %, p < 0.001). The strokepatients with PFO had significantly lower FMD measures than nonstroke patients with PFO (6.60 ± 3.98 % vs. 10.84 ± 4.40 %, p = 0.001). Similarly, cryptogenic strokepatients without PFO had significantly lower FMD measures than nonstroke patients without PFO (9.90 ± 4.18 % vs. 14.22 ± 4.88, p = 0.002). Logistic regression analysis showed FMD as an independent predictor of cryptogenic stroke when adjusted by age, sex, and presence of PFO (odds ratio: 0.809, 95 % confidence interval: 0.719-0.911, p < 0.001). An FMD value of 11.30 % or lower predicted cryptogenic stroke with a sensitivity of 78.3 %, a specificity of 66.7 %, and positive and negative predictive values of 78.3 and 66.7 %, respectively. CONCLUSION:Endothelial dysfunction seems to play a more important role than PFO in the underlying mechanism of cryptogenic stroke.
Authors: Irene Meissner; Bijoy K Khandheria; John A Heit; George W Petty; Sheldon G Sheps; Gary L Schwartz; Jack P Whisnant; David O Wiebers; Jody L Covalt; Tanya M Petterson; Teresa J H Christianson; Yoram Agmon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-12-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jukka Putaala; Nilufer Yesilot; Ulrike Waje-Andreassen; Janne Pitkäniemi; Sofia Vassilopoulou; Katiuscia Nardi; Celine Odier; Gergely Hofgart; Stefan Engelter; Annika Burow; Laszlo Mihalka; Manja Kloss; Julia Ferrari; Robin Lemmens; Oguzhan Coban; Elena Haapaniemi; Noortje Maaijwee; Loes Rutten-Jacobs; Anna Bersano; Carlo Cereda; Pierluigi Baron; Linda Borellini; Caterina Valcarenghi; Lars Thomassen; Armin J Grau; Frederick Palm; Christian Urbanek; Rezzan Tuncay; Aysan Durukan-Tolvanen; Ewoud J van Dijk; Frank-Erik de Leeuw; Vincent Thijs; Stefan Greisenegger; Konstantinos Vemmos; Christoph Lichy; Daniel Bereczki; Laszlo Csiba; Patrik Michel; Didier Leys; Konstantinos Spengos; Halvor Naess; Sara Zarko Bahar; Turgut Tatlisumak Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Andre Akhondi; Rubine Gevorgyan; Chi-Hong Tseng; Leo Slavin; Catherine Dao; David S Liebeskind; Jonathan M Tobis Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Katelee Barrett Mueller; Shawn B Bender; Kwangseok Hong; Yan Yang; Mark Aronovitz; Frederic Jaisser; Michael A Hill; Iris Z Jaffe Journal: Hypertension Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Sandra A Billinger; Jason-Flor V Sisante; Anna E Mattlage; Abdulfattah S Alqahtani; Michael G Abraham; Marilyn M Rymer; Paul J Camarata Journal: Int J Neurosci Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 2.292