Patent foramen ovale surgery

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Patent Foramen Ovale Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Patent Foramen Ovale from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

PFO and Stroke

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Study of Choice

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

X-ray

Echocardiography and Ultrasound

CT

MRI

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Interventions

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Patent foramen ovale surgery On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Patent foramen ovale surgery

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Patent foramen ovale surgery

CDC on Patent foramen ovale surgery

Patent foramen ovale surgery in the news

Blogs on Patent foramen ovale surgery

Directions to Hospitals Treating Patent foramen ovale

Risk calculators and risk factors for Patent foramen ovale surgery

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

There is lack of consensus regarding the effectiveness of either surgical or percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale. Insufficient evidence to recommend device closure for a first stroke exists. PFO closure may be considered for recurrent cryptogenic stroke and high-risk patent foramen ovale (PFO) (atrial septal aneurysm).Some randomized controlled trials to compare the relative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous closure are on way and in future might be helpful in making therapeutic decisions.

American Academy of Neurology Guidelines for prevention of recurrent cerebral embolism in patent foramen ovale (DO NOT EDIT)[1]

Practice Recommendations

(1) There is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of either surgical or percutaneous closure of PFO (Level U).

Rating of Recommendations

U = Data inadequate or conflicting. Given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven.

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines for prevention of recurrent cerebral embolism in patent foramen ovale (DO NOT EDIT)[2]

1 Insufficient evidence to recommend device closure for a first stroke.

2 PFO closure may be considered for recurrent cryptogenic stroke on optimal medical treatment

European Stroke Organisation guidelines for prevention of recurrent cerebral embolism in patent foramen ovale (DO NOT EDIT)[3]

1 Device closure should be considered in patients with cryptogenic stroke and high-risk PFO

Trial supportive data for percutaneous closure in PFO with recurrent stroke

  • Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale is uncommon these days especially after development of percutaneous device closure. Some systematic reviews done to compare medical versus percutaneous closure, found that the rate of recurrent strokes with medical treatment (5.2%) is greater than that with percutaneous closure (1.3%) [4], [5],[6] . However, the results of these systematic reviews should be interpreted carefully, because there was lack of uniformity in the selection criteria, duration of follow up and end points in the individual studies that were used for the systematic review. Some randomized controlled trials to compare the relative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous closure are on way and in future might be helpful in making therapeutic decisions.

Technique

The Ampltazer septal occluder (ASO) is the most commonly used device as it allows closure of large cavities, is easy to implant, and boasts high success rates. As an instrument, the ASO consists of two self-expandable round discs connected to each other with a 4-mm waist, made up of 0.004–0.005´´ nitinol wire mesh filled with Dacron fabric. Implantation of the device is relatively easy. The prevalence of residual defect is low. The disadvantages are a thick profile of the device and concern related to a large amount of nitinol (a nickel-titanium compound) in the device and consequent potential for nickel toxicity.

<youtube v=LfAdmWWKcB0/>

<youtube v=4c3CEgjj2PY/>

See also


Template:WikiDoc Sources

  1. Messé SR, Silverman IE, Kizer JR, Homma S, Zahn C, Gronseth G; et al. (2004). "Practice parameter: recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology". Neurology. 62 (7): 1042–50. PMID 15078999.
  2. Furie KL, Kasner SE, Adams RJ, Albers GW, Bush RL, Fagan SC; et al. (2011). "Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association". Stroke. 42 (1): 227–76. doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e3181f7d043. PMID 20966421.
  3. European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Executive Committee. ESO Writing Committee (2008). "Guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008". Cerebrovasc Dis. 25 (5): 457–507. doi:10.1159/000131083. PMID 18477843.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Khairy P, O'Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ (2003). "Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review". Ann Intern Med. 139 (9): 753–60. PMID 14597460.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Homma S, Sacco RL (2005). "Patent foramen ovale and stroke". Circulation. 112 (7): 1063–72. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.524371. PMID 16103257.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Wöhrle J (2006). "Closure of patent foramen ovale after cryptogenic stroke". Lancet. 368 (9533): 350–2. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69087-9. PMID 16876648.
  7. Schoen SP, Boscheri A, Lange SA, Braun MU, Fuhrmann J, Kappert U; et al. (2008). "Incidence of aortic valve regurgitation and outcome after percutaneous closure of atrial septal defects and patent foramen ovale". Heart. 94 (7): 844–7. doi:10.1136/hrt.2007.132662. PMID 18070946.
  8. Staubach S, Steinberg DH, Zimmermann W, Wawra N, Wilson N, Wunderlich N; et al. (2009). "New onset atrial fibrillation after patent foramen ovale closure". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 74 (6): 889–95. doi:10.1002/ccd.22172. PMID 19626689.
  9. Alaeddini J, Feghali G, Jenkins S, Ramee S, White C, Abi-Samra F (2006). "Frequency of atrial tachyarrhythmias following transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale". J Invasive Cardiol. 18 (8): 365–8. PMID 16877784.