Literature DB >> 25112661

Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic embolism: a network meta-analysis.

Stefan Stortecky1, Bruno R da Costa2, Heinrich P Mattle3, John Carroll4, Marius Hornung5, Horst Sievert5, Sven Trelle2, Stephan Windecker1, Bernhard Meier1, Peter Jüni6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Up to 40% of ischaemic strokes are cryptogenic. A strong association between cryptogenic stroke and the prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) suggests paradoxical embolism via PFO as a potential cause. Randomized trials failed to demonstrate superiority of PFO closure over medical therapy. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Randomized trials comparing percutaneous PFO closure against medical therapy or devices head-to-head published or presented by March 2013 were identified through a systematic search. We performed a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and safety of PFO closure with different devices when compared with medical therapy. We included four randomized trials (2963 patients with 9309 patient-years). Investigated devices were Amplatzer (AMP), STARFlex (STF), and HELEX (HLX). Patients allocated to PFO closure with AMP were less likely to experience a stroke than patients allocated to medical therapy [rate ratio (RR) 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.84]. No significant differences were found for STF (RR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.44-2.41), and HLX (RR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.17-2.78) when compared with medical therapy. The probability to be best in preventing strokes was 77.1% for AMP, 20.9% for HLX, 1.7% for STF, and 0.4% for medical therapy. No significant differences were found for transient ischaemic attack and death. The risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation was more pronounced for STF (RR 7.67; 95% CI: 3.25-19.63), than AMP (RR 2.14; 95% CI: 1.00-4.62) and HLX (RR 1.33; 95%-CI 0.33-4.50), when compared with medical therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of PFO closure depends on the device used. PFO closure with AMP appears superior to medical therapy in preventing strokes in patients with cryptogenic embolism. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
© The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cryptogenic; Embolism; PFO; Patent foramen ovale; Stroke; Transcatheter closure

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25112661     DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Heart J        ISSN: 0195-668X            Impact factor:   29.983


  29 in total

1.  Systemic and venous thromboembolism: think about paradoxical embolism.

Authors:  Monique Cachia; Michael Pace Bardon; Peter Fsadni; Stephen Montefort
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2015-07-28

Review 2.  Prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale.

Authors:  Benjamin S Wessler; David M Kent
Journal:  Neurol Clin       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 3.806

Review 3.  Current management aspects in adult congenital heart disease: non-surgical closure of patent foramen ovale.

Authors:  Kaivan Vaidya; Chinmay Khandkar; David Celermajer
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-12

Review 4.  Echocardiographic features of PFOs and paradoxical embolism: a complicated puzzle.

Authors:  Constantina Aggeli; Athanasios Verveniotis; Efstathia Andrikopoulou; Emmanouil Vavuranakis; Konstadinos Toutouzas; Dimitrios Tousoulis
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 5.  [Cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale : S2e guidelines].

Authors:  Hans-Christoph Diener; Armin J Grau; Stephan Baldus; Alexander Ghanem; Klaus Gröschel; Christoph Liebetrau; Steffen Massberg; Helge Möllmann; Holger Nef; Dirk Sander; Christian Weimar; Jochen Wöhrle; Heinrich Mattle
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 6.  Patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke: An updated meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Babikir Kheiri; Ahmed Abdalla; Mohammed Osman; Sahar Ahmed; Mustafa Hassan; Ghassan Bachuwa
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 2.737

7.  Patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy in cases with cryptogenic stroke, meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Elsayed Abo-Salem; Bernard Chaitman; Tarek Helmy; Eric Adjei Boakye; Hassan Alkhawam; Michael Lim
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  Patent foramen ovale closure for patients with cryptogenic stroke: A systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials and 14 observational studies.

Authors:  Xi Chen; Shi-Dong Chen; Yi Dong; Qiang Dong
Journal:  CNS Neurosci Ther       Date:  2018-05-27       Impact factor: 5.243

Review 9.  Patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic ischemic stroke: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Volker Schulze; Yingfeng Lin; Athanasios Karathanos; Maximilian Brockmeyer; Tobias Zeus; Amin Polzin; Stefan Perings; Malte Kelm; Georg Wolff
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 10.  Role of PFO Closure in Ischemic Stroke Prevention.

Authors:  Nicholas D Osteraas; Alejandro Vargas; Laurel Cherian; Sarah Song
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2019-11-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.