UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Treatment of atrial septal abnormalities (PFO, ASD, and ASA) for prevention of stroke in adults

Authors
Steven R Messé, MD
Naser M Ammash, MD
Section Editors
Scott E Kasner, MD
Heidi M Connolly, MD, FASE
Deputy Editors
John F Dashe, MD, PhD
Susan B Yeon, MD, JD, FACC

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic options for prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with an atrial septal abnormality, including patent foramen ovale (PFO), small ostium secundum atrial septal defect (ASD), and atrial septal aneurysm (ASA), are medical therapy with antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, and surgical or percutaneous closure of the defect. Because of the uncertainty about the causal association between atrial septal abnormalities and stroke, the lack of gold standard treatment option and inconclusive data, some of the therapeutic options discussed below may prove to be overly aggressive. In addition to medical management, this topic will review the surgical and percutaneous options for the prevention of embolic stroke related to an atrial septal abnormality.

STROKE RISK

The true risk of primary or recurrent ischemic stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO) and atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) continues to be difficult to estimate. However, available data can be summarized as follows (see "Atrial septal abnormalities (PFO, ASD, and ASA) and risk of cerebral emboli in adults", section on 'Conclusions'):

A number of case-control studies have reported an increased prevalence of PFO in patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke, suggesting that PFO frequently facilitates the paradoxical embolism that causes cryptogenic stroke.

In contrast, population-based cohort studies, which enrolled predominantly older subjects, have found no statistically significant association between the risk of first ischemic stroke and presence of a PFO.

The RoPE score (table 1) estimates the probability that a PFO is incidental or pathogenic in a patient with cryptogenic stroke [1]. The PFO-attributable fraction of stroke (table 2) varies widely and decreases with age and the presence of vascular risk factors. Differences in the PFO-attributable fraction of stroke probably explain the discrepant findings of the case-control and population-based studies. Subjects with cryptogenic stroke are generally younger and more likely to have a higher PFO-attributable fraction of stroke than the older subjects enrolled in the population-based studies.

                

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Nov 2016. | This topic last updated: Fri Aug 26 00:00:00 GMT+00:00 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013; 81:619.
  2. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:991.
  3. Hart RG, Diener HC, Coutts SB, et al. Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13:429.
  4. Kent DM, Dahabreh IJ, Ruthazer R, et al. Anticoagulant vs. antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2015; 36:2381.
  5. Shariat A, Yaghoubi E, Farazdaghi M, et al. Comparison of medical treatments in cryptogenic stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: A randomized clinical trial. J Res Med Sci 2013; 18:94.
  6. Lamy C, Giannesini C, Zuber M, et al. Clinical and imaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale: the PFO-ASA Study. Atrial Septal Aneurysm. Stroke 2002; 33:706.
  7. Serena J, Marti-Fàbregas J, Santamarina E, et al. Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study. Stroke 2008; 39:3131.
  8. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, et al. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002; 105:2625.
  9. Weimar C, Holle DN, Benemann J, et al. Current management and risk of recurrent stroke in cerebrovascular patients with right-to-left cardiac shunt. Cerebrovasc Dis 2009; 28:349.
  10. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, et al. Atrial anatomy in non-cardioembolic stroke patients: effect of medical therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:1066.
  11. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, et al. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1740.
  12. Mügge A, Daniel WG, Angermann C, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm in adult patients. A multicenter study using transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation 1995; 91:2785.
  13. Messé SR, Silverman IE, Kizer JR, et al. Practice parameter: recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2004; 62:1042.
  14. Burger AJ, Sherman HB, Charlamb MJ. Low incidence of embolic strokes with atrial septal aneurysms: A prospective, long-term study. Am Heart J 2000; 139:149.
  15. Pearson AC, Nagelhout D, Castello R, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm and stroke: a transesophageal echocardiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991; 18:1223.
  16. Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation 2000; 101:893.
  17. Martín F, Sánchez PL, Doherty E, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation 2002; 106:1121.
  18. Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:377.
  19. Anzola GP, Morandi E, Casilli F, Onorato E. Does transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale really "shut the door?" A prospective study with transcranial Doppler. Stroke 2004; 35:2140.
  20. Cabanes L, Mas JL, Cohen A, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale as risk factors for cryptogenic stroke in patients less than 55 years of age. A study using transesophageal echocardiography. Stroke 1993; 24:1865.
  21. Berthet K, Lavergne T, Cohen A, et al. Significant association of atrial vulnerability with atrial septal abnormalities in young patients with ischemic stroke of unknown cause. Stroke 2000; 31:398.
  22. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1083.
  23. Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, et al. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke 1997; 28:2376.
  24. Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:1148.
  25. Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology 2000; 55:1172.
  26. Holmes DR Jr, Cabalka A. Was your mother right--do we always need to close the door? Circulation 2002; 106:1034.
  27. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1092.
  28. Spencer FA, Lopes LC, Kennedy SA, Guyatt G. Systematic review of percutaneous closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. BMJ Open 2014; 4:e004282.
  29. Henderson RA, Bath PM. Is closure of patent foramen ovale to prevent ischaemic stroke ever justified? BMJ 2013; 347:f6193.
  30. Rengifo-Moreno P, Palacios IF, Junpaparp P, et al. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs. medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2013; 34:3342.
  31. Ntaios G, Papavasileiou V, Makaritsis K, Michel P. PFO closure vs. medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 169:101.
  32. Kwong JS, Lam YY, Yu CM. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168:4132.
  33. Hakeem A, Marmagkiolis K, Hacioglu Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of device closure for patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of neurological events: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2013; 14:349.
  34. Kitsios GD, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Potentially large yet uncertain benefits: a meta-analysis of patent foramen ovale closure trials. Stroke 2013; 44:2640.
  35. Li J, Liu J, Liu M, et al. Closure versus medical therapy for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and a history of cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; :CD009938.
  36. Kent DM, Dahabreh IJ, Ruthazer R, et al. Device Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale After Stroke: Pooled Analysis of Completed Randomized Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67:907.
  37. Brett AS. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:88.
  38. Messé SR, Kent DM. Still no closure on the question of PFO closure. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1152.
  39. Wood WC, Switchenko JM. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:88.
  40. Meier B, Jüni P. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:91.
  41. O'Gara PT, Messe SR, Tuzcu EM, et al. Percutaneous device closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary stroke prevention: a call for completion of randomized clinical trials: a science advisory from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation 2009; 119:2743.
  42. Device Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke Patients With High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale (DEFENSE-PFO). http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01550588 (Accessed on July 09, 2013).
  43. GORE® HELEX® Septal Occluder / GORE® Septal Occluder for Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Closure in Stroke Patients - The Gore REDUCE Clinical Study (HLX 06-03) http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00738894 (Accessed on July 09, 2013).
  44. Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulants Versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence (CLOSE) http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00562289 (Accessed on July 09, 2013).
  45. Dearani JA, Ugurlu BS, Danielson GK, et al. Surgical patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of paradoxical embolism-related cerebrovascular ischemic events. Circulation 1999; 100:II171.
  46. Devuyst G, Bogousslavsky J, Ruchat P, et al. Prognosis after stroke followed by surgical closure of patent foramen ovale: a prospective follow-up study with brain MRI and simultaneous transesophageal and transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Neurology 1996; 47:1162.
  47. Ruchat P, Bogousslavsky J, Hurni M, et al. Systematic surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in selected patients with cerebrovascular events due to paradoxical embolism. Early results of a preliminary study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1997; 11:824.
  48. Lansberg MG, O'Donnell MJ, Khatri P, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141:e601S.
  49. Whitlock RP, Sun JC, Fremes SE, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for valvular disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141:e576S.
  50. Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014; 45:2160.
  51. Messé SR, Gronseth G, Kent DM, et al. Practice advisory: Recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale (update of practice parameter): Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2016; 87:815.
  52. Krasuski RA, Hart SA, Allen D, et al. Prevalence and repair of intraoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale and association with perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. JAMA 2009; 302:290.