To Close or not to Close PFOs in Cryptogenic Stroke, an Evolving Question

Trials of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to prevent recurrent stroke have been inconclusive. We investigated whether patients with cryptogenic stroke and echocardiographic features representing risk of stroke would benefit from PFO closure or anticoagulation, as compared with antiplatelet therapy.

The cause of ischemic stroke in younger adults is undefined in as many as 35 percent of patients. We studied the prevalence of patent foramen ovale as detected by contrast echocardiography in a population of 60 adults under 55 years old with ischemic stroke and a normal cardiac examination. We compared the results with those in a control group of 100 patients. The prevalence of patent foramen ovale was significantly higher in the patients with stroke (40 percent) than in the control group (10 percent, P less than 0.001). Among the patients with stroke, the prevalence of patent foramen ovale was 21 percent in 19 patients with an identifiable cause of their stroke, 40 percent in 15 patients with no identifiable cause but a risk factor for stroke, such as mitral valve prolapse, migraine, or use of contraceptive agents, and 54 percent in 26 patients with no identifiable cause (P less than 0.10). These results suggest that because of the high prevalence of clinically latent venous thrombosis, paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale may be responsible for stroke more often than is usually suspected.

To update the 2016 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice advisory for patients with stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO). The guideline panel followed the AAN 2017 guideline development process to systematically review studies published through December 2017 and formulate recommendations. In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should ensure that an appropriately thorough evaluation has been performed to rule out alternative mechanisms of stroke (level B). In patients with a higher risk alternative mechanism of stroke identified, clinicians should not routinely recommend PFO closure (level B). Clinicians should counsel patients that having a PFO is common; that it occurs in about 1 in 4 adults in the general population; that it is difficult to determine with certainty whether their PFO caused their stroke; and that PFO closure probably reduces recurrent stroke risk in select patients (level B). In patients younger than 60 years with a PFO and embolic-appearing infarct and no other mechanism of stroke identified, clinicians may recommend closure following a discussion of potential benefits (absolute recurrent stroke risk reduction of 3.4% at 5 years) and risks (periprocedural complication rate of 3.9% and increased absolute rate of non-periprocedural atrial fibrillation of 0.33% per year) (level C). In patients who opt to receive medical therapy alone without PFO closure, clinicians may recommend an antiplatelet medication such as aspirin or anticoagulation (level C).