Percutaneous Closure Versus Medical Treatment in Stroke Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: New evidence emerged recently regarding the percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) to prevent recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Purpose: To compare risks for recurrent cerebrovascular events in adults with PFO and cryptogenic stroke who underwent PFO closure versus those who received medical therapy alone. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar from 1 December 2004 through 14 September 2017; references of eligible studies; relevant scientific session abstracts; and cardiology Web sites. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials, published in English, that compared PFO closure using a currently available device with medical treatment alone and that reported, at minimum, the rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) or of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL). Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently extracted study data and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis: 4 of 5 trials comparing PFO closure with medical therapy used commercially available devices. These 4 trials, involving 2531 patients, found that PFO closure reduced the risk for the main outcome of stroke or TIA (risk difference [RD], -0.029 [95% CI, -0.050 to -0.007]) and increased the risk for new-onset AF or AFL (RD, 0.033 [CI, 0.012 to 0.054]). The beneficial effect of PFO closure was associated with larger interatrial shunts (P = 0.034). Limitation: Trials were not double-blind, and inclusion criteria were heterogeneous. Conclusion: Compared with medical treatment, PFO closure prevents recurrent stroke and TIA but increases the incidence of AF or AFL in PFO carriers with cryptogenic stroke.