Debate surrounds the best method of treating patent foramen ovale (PFO). Randomized trials suggest that catheter-based closure of PFO is beneficial for secondary stroke prevention; however, with multiple devices available, which performs best in a head-to-head trial? A paper published in the European Heart Journal might have the answer.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Migraine (EASTFORM) Trial
Scientific Reports Open Access 14 December 2016
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
King, T. D. & Mills, N. L. Nonoperative closure of atrial septal defects. Surgery 75, 383–388 (1974).
Bridges, N. D. et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical embolism. Circulation 86, 1902–1908 (1992).
O'Gara, P. T., Messe, S. R., Tuzcu, E. M., Catha, G. & Ring, J. C. 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 119, 2743–2747 (2009).
Wahl, A. et al. Improvement of migraine headaches after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism. Heart 96, 967–973 (2010).
Wahl, A. et al. Long-term propensity score-matched comparison of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale with medical treatment after paradoxical embolism. Circulation 125, 803–812 (2012).
Hornung, M. et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing three different devices for percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale. Eur. Heart J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht283.
Carroll, J. D. et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 1092–1100 (2013).
Meier, B. et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 1083–1091 (2013).
Furlan, A. J. et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 991–999 (2012).
Rengifo-Moreno, P. et al. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs. medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur. Heart J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/eht285.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
B. Meier has received grant funding and honoraria for speaking from St. Jude Medical Inc.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meier, B. Patent foramen ovale closure—not all devices are equal. Nat Rev Cardiol 10, 558–559 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2013.136
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2013.136
This article is cited by
-
Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Migraine (EASTFORM) Trial
Scientific Reports (2016)
