Patent foramen ovale and migraine: Difference between revisions
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Impact of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale on migraine== | ==Impact of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale on migraine== | ||
The famous and controversial [[MIST]] trial ([[Migraine intervention with STARFlex Technology trial]]), was a large, randomized, prospective, double-blinded trial that intended to compare the impact of percutaneous closure of [[patent foramen ovale]] to a sham procedure, on the episodes of migraine. The primary end point of the study was complete cessation of migraines headache 91 to 180 days after the procedure. (i.e. cure) and the secondary end point was a 50% reduction in [[migraine]] days. The study came out to be negative (primary end-point was not achieved i.e. total cessation of migraine episodes at 91-180 days was not different in the two study arms). Nevertheless, the secondary end-point was achieved and 50% reduction in [[migraine]] days, was seen in 42% of patients in the device arm versus 23% in the sham arm (P=0.038). Despite, the fact that the study was negative, it helped the future studies in deciding the endpoints as reduction in migraine frequency rather than complete cessation. Also, the statistically significant secondary end-point suggested that [[patent foramen ovale]] ([[PFO]]) closure could be beneficial in [[migraine]] patients refractory to medications. | The famous and controversial [[MIST]] trial ([[Migraine intervention with STARFlex Technology trial]]), was a large, randomized, prospective, double-blinded trial that intended to compare the impact of percutaneous closure of [[patent foramen ovale]] to a sham procedure, on the episodes of migraine <ref name="pmid18332260">{{cite journal| author=Carroll JD| title=Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology trial: a controversial trial of migraine and patent foramen ovale closure. | journal=Circulation | year= 2008 | volume= 117 | issue= 11 | pages= 1358-60 | pmid=18332260 | doi=10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.758748 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=18332260 }} </ref>. The primary end point of the study was complete cessation of migraines headache 91 to 180 days after the procedure. (i.e. cure) and the secondary end point was a 50% reduction in [[migraine]] days. The study came out to be negative (primary end-point was not achieved i.e. total cessation of migraine episodes at 91-180 days was not different in the two study arms). Nevertheless, the secondary end-point was achieved and 50% reduction in [[migraine]] days, was seen in 42% of patients in the device arm versus 23% in the sham arm (P=0.038). Despite, the fact that the study was negative, it helped the future studies in deciding the endpoints as reduction in migraine frequency rather than complete cessation. Also, the statistically significant secondary end-point suggested that [[patent foramen ovale]] ([[PFO]]) closure could be beneficial in [[migraine]] patients refractory to medications. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 15:12, 7 September 2011
|
Patent Foramen Ovale Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Case Studies |
|
Patent foramen ovale and migraine On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Patent foramen ovale and migraine |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Patent foramen ovale and migraine |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editors-In-Chief: Priyamvada Singh, M.B.B.S. [2]; Assistant Editor-In-Chief: Kristin Feeney, B.S. [3]
Overview
Migraine headaches, particular those with an aura, have been associated with a patent foramen ovale.
Trial supportive data for patent foramen ovale and migraine
- A recent metanalysis including 18 studies and comprising 2636 patients, found a low-grade positive association between migraines in patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) [1]. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with cautions, as the individual studies included for the metanalysis were quite heterogeneous. There was some positive association seen in patients of migraine with aura {odds ratio of 3.21(95% CI 2.38–4.70)} but no such relation was seen for patients of migraine without aura
- Another large case control study done to evaluate the association between migraine headaches and patent foramen ovale (PFO) found no significant association between the two [2]. The prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) was similar in case and control (26.4% versus 25.7%;P=0.90). Unlike the metanalysis discussed above, no difference in patent foramen ovale (PFO) prevalence was found in those with migraine with aura and those without (P=0.93).
- Similar results were shown in a large (1101 subjects) multiethnic, elderly, population-based cohort as no increased association was seen between patent foramen ovale (PFO) and migraine [3].
Relationship of patent foramen ovale to familial migraines with aura
In a study done by Wilmshurst et al. with 71 relatives of 20 probands, found a dominant inheritance pattern in atrial shunts (patent foramen ovale and atrial septal defects). This was found to be linked to inheritance of migraine with aura in some families [4].
Impact of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale on migraine
The famous and controversial MIST trial (Migraine intervention with STARFlex Technology trial), was a large, randomized, prospective, double-blinded trial that intended to compare the impact of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale to a sham procedure, on the episodes of migraine [5]. The primary end point of the study was complete cessation of migraines headache 91 to 180 days after the procedure. (i.e. cure) and the secondary end point was a 50% reduction in migraine days. The study came out to be negative (primary end-point was not achieved i.e. total cessation of migraine episodes at 91-180 days was not different in the two study arms). Nevertheless, the secondary end-point was achieved and 50% reduction in migraine days, was seen in 42% of patients in the device arm versus 23% in the sham arm (P=0.038). Despite, the fact that the study was negative, it helped the future studies in deciding the endpoints as reduction in migraine frequency rather than complete cessation. Also, the statistically significant secondary end-point suggested that patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure could be beneficial in migraine patients refractory to medications.
References
- ↑ Schwedt TJ, Demaerschalk BM, Dodick DW (2008). "Patent foramen ovale and migraine: a quantitative systematic review". Cephalalgia. 28 (5): 531–40. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01554.x. PMID 18355348.
- ↑ Garg P, Servoss SJ, Wu JC, Bajwa ZH, Selim MH, Dineen A; et al. (2010). "Lack of association between migraine headache and patent foramen ovale: results of a case-control study". Circulation. 121 (12): 1406–12. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.895110. PMID 20231534.
- ↑ Rundek T, Elkind MS, Di Tullio MR, Carrera E, Jin Z, Sacco RL; et al. (2008). "Patent foramen ovale and migraine: a cross-sectional study from the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS)". Circulation. 118 (14): 1419–24. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.771303. PMC 2737546. PMID 18794393.
- ↑ Wilmshurst PT, Pearson MJ, Nightingale S, Walsh KP, Morrison WL (2004). "Inheritance of persistent foramen ovale and atrial septal defects and the relation to familial migraine with aura". Heart. 90 (11): 1315–20. doi:10.1136/hrt.2003.025700. PMC 1768524. PMID 15486131.
- ↑ Carroll JD (2008). "Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology trial: a controversial trial of migraine and patent foramen ovale closure". Circulation. 117 (11): 1358–60. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.758748. PMID 18332260.