PFO device closure in cerebrovascular events version 1

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    PFO device closure benefits in prevention of recurrence of cryptogenic TIAs and strokes

  • IRAS ID

    155304

  • Contact name

    Tara Bharucha

  • Contact email

    tara.bharucha@uhs.nhs.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    R & D department-Southampton General Hospital

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, months, days

  • Research summary

    Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an embryonic defect in the inter-atrial septum, which may or may not be associated with an atrial septal aneurysm. PFO is found in 24% of healthy adults, but in 38% of patients with cryptogenic stroke (a stroke which occurs without an identifiable cause), suggesting a link between PFO and cryptogenic stroke (30-40% of all strokes). Analysis of some case-control studies largely confirmed the association of PFO with stroke, especially in patients younger than 55 years of age, but this association, and its implications in the general population still remain disputed. Lack of definitive evidence has led to limited recommendations and guidelines, which exist mostly on a localised basis, and considered on individual circumstances.

    Embolization from a thrombus present in the venous system or part of left atrium is the major mechanism linking PFO and stroke. Treatments include medical therapy such as antiplatelet agents or vitamin K antagonists, percutaneous device closure, or open surgical repair.

    Comparison of five retrospective studies evaluating various options (antiplatelet therapy, warfarin, or surgery) suggested that warfarin was superior to antiplatelet therapy and comparable to surgical PFO closure for the prevention of recurrent cerebral ischemic events. The development of interventional technologies in recent years has shown that PFO device closure is a feasible and relatively safe option, with a high implant success rate and a low incidence of complications. However, controversy persists regarding whether PFO closure should be considered the treatment of choice for presumed paradoxical embolism via a PFO.

  • REC name

    South West - Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    15/SW/0016

  • Date of REC Opinion

    14 Jan 2015

  • REC opinion

    Unfavourable Opinion