Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T07:54:30.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stroke Recurrence and its Prevention in Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

J. U. Harrer ,
T. Wessels ,
A. Franke ,
S. Lucas ,
P. Berlit  and
C. Klötzsch
J. U. Harrer*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany
T. Wessels
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany
A. Franke
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiology, Medical Clinic I, Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany
S. Lucas
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany
P. Berlit
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Alfried Krupp Hospital, Essen, Germany
C. Klötzsch
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany Kliniken Schmieder Allensbach/Hegau Klinikum Singen, Germany
*
Department of Neurology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

It is unclear whether medical or invasive (surgical or catheter interventional) treatment is preferable to prevent recurrence of cerebral ischemia in patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) as the suspected cause of stroke and what the role of concomitant risk factors is in stroke recurrence.

Methods:

Over a period of ten years, 124 patients (mean age 51 ± 15 years) with cryptogenic cerebral ischemia and PFO were included into the study and prospectively followed over a mean of 52 ± 32 months. Of these, 83 were treated medically, 34 underwent transcatheter closure, and seven had surgical closure of the foramen. Of the medically treated patients, 11 stopped medication during follow-up. Recurrent ischemic events and risk factors for recurrence were analyzed.

Results:

Annual stroke recurrence rates were generally low and comparable in catheter and medically treated patients, and in patients who had stopped medication (2.9%/2.1%/2.2%/year). Patients suffering from recurrence after transcatheter closure (n=2) both had residual shunts. No stroke recurrence was observed in the few surgically treated patients. An atrial septal aneurysm was not a predictor of recurrent or multiple strokes (p>0.05, OR=0.31, and OR=0.74). Large shunts and a history of previous ischemic events were considerably more frequent in patients with recurrent strokes (p<0.05, OR=5.0, and OR=4.4). Pulmonary embolism and case fatality rates were significantly higher in patients with stroke recurrence (p<0.001, and p<0.01).

Conclusions:

The absolute risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with PFO receiving medical or catheter interventional therapy is low. The small group of untreated patients had a comparably low rate of stroke recurrences. Previous ischemic events and shunt size were risk factors in this observational study. Given conflicting findings across multiple studies, enrollment into a randomized controlled trial would be the optimal choice.

Résumé

RÉSUMÉContexte:

On ignore si le traitement médical ou le traitement effractif est préférable pour prévenir la récidive de l'ischémie cérébrale chez les patients porteurs d'un foramen ovale perméable (FOP) qu'on soupçonne être la cause d'un accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) et quel rôle jouent les facteurs de risque concomitants dans la récidive de l'AVC.

Méthodes:

Cent vingt-quatre patients porteurs d'un FOP et ayant présenté une ischémie cérébrale cryptogénique ont été recrutés de façon prospective sur une période de 10 ans (âge moyen 51 ± 15 ans) et suivis pendant 52 ± 32 mois. Parmi ces patients, 83 ont été traités médicalement, 34 ont subi une fermeture du FOP par cathéter et 7 par chirurgie. Parmi les patients traités médicalement, 11 ont cessé de prendre la médication au cours du suivi. La récidive d'événements ischémiques et les facteurs de risque de récidive ont été analysés.

Résultats:

Le taux de récidive d'AVC était généralement faible et comparable chez les patients traités par cathéter et médicalement ainsi que chez ceux qui avaient cessé de prendre la médication (2,9% ; 2,1% ; 2,2% par année respectivement). Les patients qui ont présenté une récidive après fermeture du FOP par cathéter (n = 2) avaient tous deux un shunt résiduel. Aucune récidive n'a été observée chez les patients traités chirurgicalement. Un anévrisme du septum auriculaire ne prédisait pas la récidive ou les AVC multiples (p ˃ 0,05 ; rapport de cotes = 0,31 et = 0,74). Un shunt important et une histoire d'événements ischémiques antérieurs étaient beaucoup plus fréquents chez les patients qui présentaient des récidives d'AVC (p ˂ 0,05 ; rapport de cotes = 5,0 et = 4,4). Les taux d'embolie pulmonaire et de décès étaient significativement plus élevés chez les patients qui présentaient une récidive d'AVC (p ˂ 0,001 et p ˂ 0,01).

Conclusions:

Le risque absolu de récidive d'AVC chez les patients porteurs d'un FOP traités médicalement ou par cathéter est faible. Le petit groupe de patients non traités avait également un taux de récidive bas, comparable à celui de ces deux autres groupes de patients. Les événements ischémiques antérieurs et l'importance du shunt étaient des facteurs de risque dans cette étude d'observation. Étant donné les observations discordantes provenant de nombreuses études, une étude randomisée serait la meilleure option.

Type
Original Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 39 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2006

References

1. Lechat, P, Mas, JL, Lascault, G, et al. Prevalence of patent foramenovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med. 1988; 318: 1148–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Webster, MW, Smith, HJ, Sharpe, DN, et al. Patent foramen ovale inyoung stroke patients. Lancet. 1988; 2: 11–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Jeanrenaud, X, Bogousslavsky, J, Payot, M, Regli, F, Kappenberger, L. Patent foramen ovale and cerebral infarction in young patients. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1990; 120: 823–9.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Overell, JR, Bone, I, Lees, KR. Interatrial septal anomalies andstroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology. 2000; 55: 1172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Devuyst, G, Bogousslavsky, J, Ruchat, P, et al. Prognosis after strokefollowed 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: 1162–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Homma, S, Di Tullio, MR, Sacco, RL, Sciacca, RR, Smith, C, Mohr, JP. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke. 1997; 28: 2376–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Bogousslavsky, J, Devuyst, G, Nendaz, M, Yamamoto, H, Sarasin, F. Prevention of stroke recurrence with presumed paradoxical embolism. J Neurol. 1997; 244: 71–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Dearani, JA, Ugurlu, BS, Danielson, GK, et al. Surgical patentforamen ovale closure for prevention of paradoxical embolism-related cerebrovascular ischemic events. Circulation. 1999; 100: 171–5.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Windecker, S, Wahl, A, Chatterjee, T, et al. Percutaneous closure ofpatent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism -long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation. 2000; 101: 893–989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Mas, JL, Arquizan, C, Lamy, C, et al. Recurrent cerebrovascularevents associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1740–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Homma, S, Sacco, RL, Di Tullio, MR, Sciacca, RR, Mohr, JP. Effect ofmedical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale. Circulation. 2002; 105: 2625–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Khairy, P, O'Donnell, CP, Landzberg, M. Transcatheter closure versusmedical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical embolism. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139: 753–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Horton, S, Bunch, TJ. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Mayo ClinProc. 2004; 79: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Ranoux, D, Cohen, A, Cabanes, L, Amarenco, P, Bousser, MG, Mas, JL. Patent foramen ovale: Is stroke due to paradoxical embolism? Stroke. 1993; 24: 31–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Stollberger, C, Slany, J, Schuster, I, Leitner, H, Winkler, WB, Karnik, R. The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119: 461–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Cramer, SC, Rordorf, G, Maki, JH, et al. Increased pelvic veinthrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the paradoxical emboli from large veins in ischemic stroke (PELVIS) study. Stroke. 2004; 35: 46–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Rodriguez, CJ, Homma, S. Hypercoagulable states in patients withpatent foramen ovale. Curr Hematol Rep. 2003; 2: 435–41.Google ScholarPubMed
18. Beitzke, A, Schuchlenz, H, Gamillscheg, A, Stein, JI, Wendelin, G. Catheter closure of the persistent foramen ovale: mid-term resultsin 162 patients. J Interv Cardiol. 2001; 14: 223–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Martin, F, Sanchez, PL, Doherty, E, et al. Percutaneous transcatheterclosure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation. 2002; 106: 1121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Braun, MU, Fassbender, D, Schoen, SP, et al. Transcatheter closure ofpatent foramen ovale in patients with cerebral ischemia. J AmColl Cardiol. 2002; 39: 2019–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Hung, J, Landzberg, MJ, Jenkins, KJ, et al. Closure of patent foramenovale for paradoxical emboli: intermediate-term risk of recurrent neurological events following transcatheter device placement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35: 1311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Guffi, M, Bogousslavsky, J, Jeanrenaud, X, Devuyst, G, Sadeghi, H. Surgical prophylaxis of recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996; 112: 260–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Kuhl, HP, Hoffmann, R, Merx, MW, et al. Transthoracicechocardiography using second harmonic imaging: diagnostic alternative to transesophageal echocardiography for the detection of atrial right to left shunt in patients with cerebral embolic events. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34: 1823–30.Google Scholar
24. Hausmann, D, Mugge, A, Becht, I, Daniel, WG. Diagnosis of patentforamen ovale by transesophageal echocardiography and association with cerebral and peripheral embolic events. Am J Cardiol. 1992; 70: 668–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Klötzsch, C, Janssen, G, Berlit, P. Transesophageal echocardiographyand contrast-TCD in the detection of a patent foramen ovale: experiences with 111 patients. Neurology. 1994; 44: 1603–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Jauss, M, Zanette, E. Detection of right-left shunt with ultrasoundcontrast agent and transcranial Doppler sonography. CerebrovascDis. 2000; 10: 490–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Devuyst, G, Despland, PA, Bogousslavsky, J, Jeanrenaud, X. Complementarity of contrast transcranial Doppler and contrast transesophageal echocardiography for the detection of patent foramen ovale in stroke patients. Eur Neurol. 1997; 38: 21–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Nendaz, MR, Sarasin, FP, Junod, AF, Bogousslavsky, J. Preventingstroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: antithrombotic therapy, foramen closure, or therapeutic abstention? A decision analytic perspective. Am Heart J. 1998; 135: 532–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Landzberg, MJ, Khairy, P. Indications for the closure of patentforamen ovale. Heart. 2004; 90: 219–24. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Bruch, L, Parsi, A, Grad, MO, et al. Transcatheter closure of interatrialcommunications for secondary prevention of paradoxicalembolism. Circulation. 2002; 105: 2845–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Onorato, E, Melzi, G, Casilli, F, et al. Patent foramen ovale withparadoxical embolism: mid-term results of transcatheter closure in 256 patients. J Interv Cardiol. 2003; 16: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Cujec, B, Mainra, R, Johnson, DH. Prevention of recurrent cerebralischemic events in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attacks. Can J Cardiol. 1999; 15: 57–64.Google ScholarPubMed
33. Messe, SR, Silverman, IE, Kizer, JR, et al. Practice parameter:recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septalaneurysm. Neurology. 2004; 62: 1042–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Cabanes, L, Mas, JL, Cohen, A. Atrial septal aneurysm and patentforamen ovale as risk factors for cryptogenic stroke in patients less than 55 years of age. Stroke. 1993; 24: 1865–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. De Castro, S, Cartoni, D, Fiorello, M, et al. Morphological andfunctional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke. 2000; 31: 2407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Mattioli, AV, Bonetti, L, Aquilina, M, Oldani, A, Longhini, C, Mattioli, G. Association between atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale in young patients with recent stroke and normal carotid arteries. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003; 15: 4–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Steiner, MM, Di Tullio, MR, Rundek, T, et al. Patent foramen ovalesize and embolic brain imaging findings among patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke. 1998; 29: 944–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Schuchlenz, HW, Weihs, W, Horner, S, Quehenberger, F. Theassociation between the diameter of the PFO and the risk of embolic cerebrovascular events. Am J Med. 2000; 109: 456–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Wahl, A, Meier, B, Haxel, B, et al. Prognosis after percutaneousclosure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical embolism. Neurology. 2001; 57: 1330–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Schwerzmann, M, Windecker, S, Wahl, A. Percutaneous closure ofpatent foramen ovale: impact of device design on safety and efficacy. Heart. 2004; 90: 186–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Braun, M, Gliech, V, Boscheri, A, et al. Transcatheter closure ofpatent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism. Periprocedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems. Eur Heart J. 2004; 25: 424–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Bogousslavsky, J, Garazi, S, Jeanrenaud, X, Aebischer, N, Van Melle, G. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: the Lausanne study. Neurology. 1996; 46: 1301–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Levine, M, Hirsh, J. Hemorrhagic complications of long-termanticoagulant therapy for ischemic cerebral vascular disease. Stroke. 1986; 17: 111-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Hausmann, D, Mugge, A, Daniel, WG. Identification of patentforamen ovale permitting paradoxical embolism. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995; 26: 1030–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Nedeltchev, K, Arnold, M, Wahl, A, et al. Outcome of patients withcryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002; 72: 347–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46. Anzola, GP, Zavarize, P, Morandi, E, Rozzini, L, Parrinello, G. Transcranial Doppler and risk of recurrence in patients with stroke and patent foramen ovale. Eur J Neurol. 2003; 10: 129–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Stollberger, C, Finsterer, J, Slany, J. Why is venous thrombosis onlyrarely detected in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism? Thromb Res. 2002; 105: 267–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Seligsohn, U, Lubetsky, A. Genetic susceptibility to venousthrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1222–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Pezzini, A, Del Zotto, E, Magoni, M, et al. Inherited thrombophilicdisorders in young adults with ischemic stroke and patentforamen ovale. Stroke. 2003; 34: 28–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Lichy, C, Reuner, KH, Buggle, F, et al. Prothrombin G20210Amutation, but not Factor V Leiden, is a risk factor in patients with persistent foramen ovale and otherwise unexplained cerebral ischemia. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003; 16: 83–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar