Franz X Kleber1, Telse Hauschild2, Antonia Schulz1, Anne Winkelmann3, Leonhard Bruch3. 1. Cardio Centrum Berlin Academic Teaching Institution, Charité University Medicine Berlin. 2. Ernst von Bergmann Klinikum Potsdam, Academic Teaching Hospital, Charité University Medicine Berlin. 3. Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Academic Teaching Hospital, Charité University Medicine Berlin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite several negative prospective randomized trials on the efficacy of patent foramen ovale (PFO) occlusion, the discussion on indications is ongoing. Because the incidence of paradoxical coronary embolism through a PFO is unknown, we investigated the risk of paradoxical embolic myocardial infarction over a period of 13 years.Methods and Results: We conducted a retrospective and a prospective study. In the former, we searched the hospital database of a tertiary referral center for cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the past 10 years and screened them for possible paradoxical MIs. On this basis we started a prospective evaluation over 39 months in another tertiary referral center. All patients with AMI and normal coronary arteries were screened for PFO and if no other reason for the AMI could be found, the case was judged as presumed paradoxical embolism. In the retrospective analysis we found 22 cases (0.45%) of presumed paradoxical coronary artery embolism under 4,848 AMI. In the prospective study there were 11 presumed paradoxical coronary artery embolisms among 1,654 patients with AMI, representing an incidence of 0.67%. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that well below 1% of AMIs are caused by paradoxical embolism via an interatrial communication. Although this percentage appears low, it is not a negligible number of patients based on the huge number of MIs occurring in the industrialized world.
BACKGROUND: Despite several negative prospective randomized trials on the efficacy of patent foramen ovale (PFO) occlusion, the discussion on indications is ongoing. Because the incidence of paradoxical coronary embolism through a PFO is unknown, we investigated the risk of paradoxical embolic myocardial infarction over a period of 13 years.Methods and Results: We conducted a retrospective and a prospective study. In the former, we searched the hospital database of a tertiary referral center for cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the past 10 years and screened them for possible paradoxical MIs. On this basis we started a prospective evaluation over 39 months in another tertiary referral center. All patients with AMI and normal coronary arteries were screened for PFO and if no other reason for the AMI could be found, the case was judged as presumed paradoxical embolism. In the retrospective analysis we found 22 cases (0.45%) of presumed paradoxical coronary artery embolism under 4,848 AMI. In the prospective study there were 11 presumed paradoxical coronary artery embolisms among 1,654 patients with AMI, representing an incidence of 0.67%. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that well below 1% of AMIs are caused by paradoxical embolism via an interatrial communication. Although this percentage appears low, it is not a negligible number of patients based on the huge number of MIs occurring in the industrialized world.
Authors: Marianna Vachalcová; Monika Jankajová; Marta Jakubová; Karolina Angela Sieradzka; Tibor Porubän; Gabriel Valočik; Peter Šafár; Daniela Ondušová; Ján Petruš; Ingrid Schusterová Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 4.241