Patent foramen ovale …

Stroke & Vascular Disorders

Updated 09.12.2024
Released 03.26.2007
Expires For CME 09.12.2027

Patent foramen ovale

Authors: Shadi Yaghi MD, Maheen Rana MD

See Contributor Disclosures

Editor: Steven R Levine MD

Patent foramen ovale

In This Article

Quick Link

Introduction

Overview

Patent foramen ovale is a prevalent congenital cardiac defect, occurring in about 25% of the population. Although it is generally asymptomatic, studies have found associations between patent foramen ovale with ischemic stroke and migraine. The best management strategy for minimizing the risk of ischemic stroke in the setting of patent foramen ovale has long been debated; more recent randomized controlled trials have supported patent foramen ovale intervention in specific instances for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke.

Key points

	• Although often asymptomatic in the general population, patent foramen ovale is associated with two major neurologic conditions: stroke and migraine headache.
	• Direct pathologic implications of patent foramen ovale in stroke and migraine occurrence remain unclear.
	• The benefit of transcutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for stroke prevention has been demonstrated in several randomized controlled trials including CLOSE, REDUCE, and DEFENSE-PFO.
	• The decision to refer a case for patent foramen ovale closure requires a thorough work up to evaluate for an alternate stroke mechanism.
	• Interdisciplinary conversations between cardiology and neurology should occur prior to pursuing patent foramen ovale closure.

Historical note and terminology

In a significant proportion of the general population, there are various forms of interatrial communication, such as patent foramen ovale, atrial septal defect, and associated disorders such as atrial septal aneurysm. The foramen ovale is a flap valve structure formed by the septum primum and septum secundum in normal fetal cardiac anatomy; patent foramen ovale is the abnormal persistence of this hole into adulthood.

Atrial septal defect is a congenital defect in which there is an open interatrial communication with no overlying tissue. Patent foramen ovale is different from atrial septal defect as there is no septal tissue missing in patent foramen ovale (119). Atrial septal aneurysm, first described in the literature by Silver and Dorsey in 1978, refers to the redundant tissue in the region of the fossa ovalis (110). It is present if the base of the aneurysmal protrusion measures at least 1.5 cm in diameter and there is either a fixed protrusion of the fossa ovalis at least 1 to 1.5 cm into an atrium or phasic excursion of the fossa ovalis throughout the cardio-respiratory cycle exceeding 1.5 cm from the plane of the atrial septum (40; 90).

These disorders, although sharing some purported associations with disease states such as paradoxical embolic phenomena and cryptogenic strokes, are not synonymous and have different associated clinical features, complications, and controversies regarding their management. This article will focus on patent foramen ovale and its relationship with neurologic disease states, with a brief mention of associated atrial abnormalities, such as atrial septal defect and atrial septal aneurysm, as they pertain to patent foramen ovale. The importance of patent foramen ovale is clinically significant as the scientific literature has repeatedly raised concern of an association between patent foramen ovale and various neurologic disorders. These disorders include strokes caused by paradoxical embolic phenomena, cryptogenic strokes, transient ischemic attacks, migraines with aura, cluster headaches, cerebral autosomal dominant angiopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), cryptogenic and recurrent brain abscesses, obstructive sleep apnea, transient global amnesia, paradoxical air embolisms in neurosurgical patients undergoing surgery in the sitting position, neurologic decompression illness, and the presence of “multiple ischemic brain lesions” in divers, and deep white matter and periventricular white matter hyperintensities (on T2/FLAIR MRI sequences) in patients with Alzheimer dementia (70; 33; 64; 65; 28; 04; 94; 02; 53; 99; 69; 09; 88; 35; 59; 122; 97). However, a significant number of studies and expert opinions also question these associations and emphasize that these interatrial communications are generally innocent bystanders (36; 107; 74; 80; 95). Thus, the relationship of patent foramen ovales to neurologic diseases and the ways to best manage them are controversial issues.

The earliest documentation of paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale is in the 1877 text of Julius Cohnheim followed by the 1880 paper by Moritz Litten (72). In more modern times, a group of investigators based in France postulated an important role for patent foramen ovale evaluation in young patients (less than 55 years of age) with cryptogenic stroke based on a case-control study (70).

Clinical manifestations

Presentation and course

Patent foramen ovale is a common anatomic finding and is estimated to occur in approximately 25% of the population. It is frequently discovered during the work up of ischemic stroke etiology and has been particularly linked to cryptogenic stroke. As an intermittent one-way shunt, patent foramen ovale is not associated with any clinical symptoms that may be found in other septal defects, such as dyspnea or exercise intolerance. There are typically no findings on physical exam to suggest the presence of a patent foramen ovale. Patent foramen ovale incidence declines with increasing age, but size may increase (39).

Other illnesses that have been associated with a patent foramen ovale include platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (a rare condition characterized by dyspnea and desaturation in the upright position-platypnea, with improvement in the supine position-orthodeoxia), decompression sickness, obstructive sleep apnea, fat embolism, and tumor embolism (67).

Prognosis and complications

As there are no natural history studies following patients who have patent foramen ovale, the prognosis is not known. For healthy patients with a patent foramen ovale, annual stroke risk has been estimated as low as 0.1% (73). In general, patients with stroke and patent foramen ovale are not felt to have a higher risk of recurrent cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack, either independently (55) or when compared to those without patent foramen ovale (52). Evidence has additionally suggested an increased risk of perioperative stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale (92). There is likely heterogeneity of risk among patients with patent foramen ovale; the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score is an objective calculation to examine the degree of causality between patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke (55) and is discussed later in this article.

Clinical vignette

A 23-year-old woman with no past medical history presented with a 2-day history of acute onset left facial droop, dysarthria, and lethargy. She was in her usual state of health the night before and woke up with left facial droop and slurred speech. She initially attributed her symptoms to fatigue, but she later presented to the emergency department for further evaluation. She denied any headache, neck pain, or recent injury. Her past medical history, surgical history, family history, social history, and review of systems were unrevealing. Her only medication was an oral contraceptive pill that she started taking in the past year. On examination, her blood pressure was 127/65 mm Hg and heart rate was 86 beats per minute. Her general exam was normal. Neurologic exam was pertinent for impaired short-term memory, left lower facial droop, and mild dysarthria. Labs including metabolic panel, blood counts, and drug screen were within normal limits. She had a computerized tomography scan of the brain showing a right thalamocapsular hypodensity suggestive of a subacute infarct. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain confirmed the area of infarction. Additional vascular imaging with magnetic resonance angiography head and neck with fat suppressed images (dissection protocol) was normal.

Patent foramen ovale (MRI)

The diffusion-weighted image on the right shows hyperintense lesions involving the right anterior and medial thalamus. This hyperintense lesion on diffusion-weighted imaging correlated with decreased diffusion on the apparent diff...

Transthoracic echocardiography showed the presence of bubbles in the left atrium after intravenous agitated saline injection, suggestive of a cardiac shunt. Subsequent transesophageal echocardiogram revealed a patent foramen ovale with an atrial septal aneurysm. Hypercoagulable workup was reassuring. Lower extremity venous Dopplers and pelvic magnetic resonance venography showed no deep or pelvic vein thrombosis. She was started on aspirin and taken off the combined oral contraceptive pills. After 2 years, she has remained stroke-free, and the majority of her symptoms from the stroke have resolved.

Biological basis

Etiology and pathogenesis

Patent foramen ovale. In the developing embryonic heart, a series of events detailed below lead to the development of a foramen ovale starting at the end of the fourth week of gestation (101).

Patent foramen ovale embryology

Atrial septa at various stages of development. (A) 30 days (6mm). (B) Same as stage A, viewed from the right. (C) 33 days (9mm). (D) Same stage as C, viewed from the right. (E) 37 days (14mm). (F) Newborn. (G) The atrial septum fr...

	• A sickle-shaped crest grows from the roof of the common atrium into the lumen, the first portion of the septum primum; the two limbs of this septum extend towards the endocardial cushions in the atrioventricular canal.
	• The opening between the lower rim of the septum primum and the endocardial cushion is the ostium primum.
	• Subsequent extensions of the superior and inferior endocardial cushions attempt to close the ostium primum.
	• A new crescent-shaped fold, the septum secundum, appears on the right atrial side. This never forms a complete partition.
	• With further growth and fusion with adjacent structures, the free concave edge of the septum secundum begins to overlap the ostium secundum.
	• The opening left by the septum secundum is called the oval foramen or foramen ovale.
	• The upper part of the septum primum gradually disappears, and the remaining part becomes the valve of the oval foramen.
	• The foramen ovale allows the passage of blood (mainly the oxygenated blood from the inferior vena cava) from the right atrium to the left atrium.
	• After birth, when lung circulation begins and left atrial pressure increases, the valve of the oval foramen is pressed against the septum secundum, obliterating the oval foramen, thus, achieving complete separation of the right and left atria. This, however, does not occur in about 25% of the normal population producing the patent foramen ovale.
	• The reason for failure to fuse and obliterate the oval foramen in these people is not known, but some studies have implicated genetic factors (06).
	• In some instances, the oval foramen closes prematurely, in prenatal life, and leads to massive hypertrophy of the right atrium and ventricle with underdevelopment of the left side of the heart. In these cases, death usually occurs shortly after birth.

Atrial septal aneurysm. Atrial septal aneurysms are occasionally found in patients with patent foramen ovale; prevalence is estimated between 1% to 3% (110; 111). These are saccular formations of the intraatrial septum primum. Eighty-three percent of patients with an atrial septal aneurysm have a concurrent patent foramen ovale (103). To be considered an atrial septal aneurysm, there must be either protrusion of the septum at least 1.5 cm beyond the plan of the atrial septum or phasic excursion during the cardiorespiratory cycle exceeding 1.5 cm and a base of the aneurysmal protrusion that is at least 1.5 cm in diameter (40). Atrial septal aneurysms may bulge into the right or left atrium. Patients with both an atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale may have a higher risk of stroke than when either occurs in isolation or when neither is present (76).

Patent foramen ovale and stroke. The relationship between patent foramen ovale and stroke, particularly cryptogenic stroke, is an area of continued interest. To review, cryptogenic strokes are those with no clear etiology revealed after standard workup, and account for between 20% to 30% of all stroke etiologies (43). These are frequently felt to be embolic in nature, specifically embolic strokes of undetermined source. Embolic strokes tend to have maximal neurologic deficit at onset with rapid improvement due to disruption or lysis of embolic material with distal embolization into smaller end arteries.

Cerebral embolism may occur due to passage of a venous thrombus from the right atrium to the left atrium through the patent foramen ovale. This requires reversal of the normal pressure gradient to allow right atrial pressure to exceed left atrial pressure, which occurs with pulmonary hypertension and several other normal and disease states. In healthy subjects, right to left shunt may only occur during times of transiently increased intrathoracic pressure, such as with coughing or during Valsalva maneuver. Stroke attributed to passage of a thrombus across a patent foramen ovale is more likely a single cortical infarction or multiple small, scattered lesions, and occurs more frequently in the vertebrobasilar circulation (61). Predilection for the vertebrobasilar circulation may relate to increased blood flow during the Valsalva maneuver (45; 60). Search for a venous source of embolus may be unrevealing (36). This has been attributed to delay in imaging, complete thrombus migration, inability to detect residual thrombi, or undetected thrombus in a calf or pelvic vein. One trial found that cryptogenic stroke had increased prevalence of pelvic deep venous thrombosis (21), suggesting that such evaluations should be pursued as well.

Some suggest that there are features of patent foramen ovale that directly relate to paradoxical emboli. Severe right-to-left-shunt, right-to-left shunt at baseline, a larger opening of the patent foramen ovale, and high membrane mobility may place patients at greater risk for recurrent embolism (46; 27). A second possible mechanism implicates atrial septal aneurysm, if present, as a potential nidus for clot formation (104). Others suggest that propensity to clotting in the setting of hereditary or acquired thrombophilia increases the risk of stroke in the setting of a patent foramen ovale (49).

There is a diagnostic tool to help clinicians determine whether a cryptogenic stroke may be related to an identified patent foramen ovale or whether the patent foramen ovale is more likely an incidental finding. The Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score derives from a master database constructed using 12 component databases from large observational studies. This RoPE database contains information on over 3600 patients with cryptogenic stroke who underwent investigation into the presence of a patent foramen ovale. Points are assigned for absence of traditional risk factors and for age, with higher points for younger patients. The higher the point score, the more likely the stroke is related to patent foramen ovale (55).

Patent foramen ovale and silent brain infarcts. Silent brain infarcts are generally defined as hyperintensities on T2-weighted MRI of 3 mm or greater. Although by definition they lack clinically overt symptoms, silent brain infarcts have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of subsequent stroke, as well as mild cognitive impairment and dementia (118; 26). Silent brain infarcts are traditionally thought to be caused by microangiopathy but can also be caused by microembolism, especially when located outside deep brain structures. However, the relationship between patent foramen ovale and silent brain infarcts remains unclear, with conflicting data from several observational studies.

In one prospective cohort study assessing the rate of both clinically apparent and clinically silent brain infarcts in patients with pulmonary embolism both with and without patent foramen ovale, the frequency of silent brain infarcts was found to be significantly higher in patients with patent foramen ovale (19). A larger study that analyzed the relationship of silent brain infarcts and paradoxical embolism through patent foramen ovale found that over 50% of healthy adult patients with silent brain infarcts specifically located outside of perforating artery territory had right-to-left cardiac shunts, suggesting an association (60). However, another prospective study that followed over 1000 asymptomatic individuals both with and without patent foramen ovale for a median of 11 years found no association between the presence of patent foramen ovale and the accumulation of silent brain infarcts (32).

Thus far, patent foramen ovale closure has not been shown to prevent silent brain infarcts. The GORE-REDUCE Trial, discussed in detail later, randomized patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke to patent foramen ovale closure with antiplatelet therapy or to antiplatelet therapy alone (112). Although the incidence of new brain infarcts was found to be significantly lower in the closure group than the medical therapy group, the incidence of silent brain infarcts did not differ between the two. In an analysis of REDUCE trial (82), after 2 years of follow up, patients who underwent closure of patent foramen ovale experienced lesser clinical stroke or silent infarcts on MRI (4.7%), as compared to patients who only had medical therapy (10.7%) (RR 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24 – 0.81], p = 0.02). Clinical strokes were less common in closure patients compared with medically treated patients (1.3% vs. 5.8%, p=0.001), whereas silent MRI infarcts were similar (3.4% vs. 4%, p= 0.81).

It remains unclear if patent foramen ovale closure reduces the risk of subsequent stroke in patients with silent brain infarcts. At the time of this writing, there is no evidence to suggest that patent foramen ovale closure is beneficial in such patients.

Patent foramen ovale and migraine. The second most commonly studied neurologic disease associated with patent foramen ovale is migraine with aura. Although patent foramen ovale has been thought to be more common in patients who suffer migraine or migraine with aura (96; 111), several studies including a cross-sectional population-based cohort have not found this to be the case (100; 38; 17).

Migraine has also been associated with silent brain infarcts, but several studies have found no clear mediating effect of patent foramen ovale on this association (13; 50).

Management

Given the wide prevalence of patent foramen ovale, the vast majority of patent foramen ovale are thought to be incidental and do not require medical treatment. There are more nuanced conversations about treatment options when a patent foramen ovale is detected in the setting of cryptogenic ischemic stroke or migraine with aura.

Primary stroke prevention in the setting of a patent foramen ovale

Recommendations from neurologic and cardiovascular societies such as the American Academy of Neurology and the American College of Cardiology suggest withholding antithrombotic agents with isolated patent foramen ovale in the absence of other indications for antithrombotic therapy (83). This is because given the extremely low stroke risk in patients with patent foramen ovale (0.1% per year) (73), it is unlikely that the benefit of these agents would outweigh the potential bleeding risk. In addition, there are no studies demonstrating the efficacy of patent foramen ovale closure in asymptomatic patients. On the contrary, a large retrospective study showed that routine closure of septal defects such as patent foramen ovale and atrial septal defect in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery was associated with a higher risk of perioperative stroke (adjusted odds ratio 2.47 95%, CI 1.02-6.0) when compared to patients with septal defects not intervened upon (68). Due to the lack of supporting evidence and potential for complications, as with thrombotic therapy, routine closure of asymptomatic patent foramen ovale is not recommended.

Secondary stroke prevention in the setting of a patent foramen ovale

The management of patients with patent foramen ovale in the setting of an ischemic stroke remains controversial. The treatment options include medical treatment with antiplatelet agents or anticoagulation therapy versus patent foramen ovale occlusion. Given the high prevalence of patent foramen ovale in the general population, it is of paramount importance to determine whether the patent foramen ovale is likely to be causative of the event versus incidental.

General measures. It is standard care to provide all available risk reduction strategies to patients with an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. These include blood pressure reduction as well as the use of statins and antiplatelet therapy (84). In addition, certain general measures may be beneficial for patients at risk for paradoxical embolism. They include avoidance of Valsalva maneuver-mimicking activities, thus preventing right-to-left shunting of blood across the atrial septal communication; avoidance of prolonged sitting (in long airplane or other journeys); sitting with knees flexed and legs dependent; and crossing the legs when sitting and passive standing (84).

Medical options.

Antiplatelet vs. anticoagulation treatment. There are several studies with mixed results with regards to the best antithrombotic agent for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ischemic stroke in the setting of a patent foramen ovale. A retrospective study of 90 patients and a meta-analysis found warfarin therapy to be superior to aspirin (22; 93). These results have been deemed inconclusive as these studies were not blinded, had multiple end points, had treatment assignments at the discretion of the consulting neurologist, and had frequent crossovers (63). This was followed by the PICSS study, which did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between aspirin and warfarin on the risk of subsequent stroke or death among patients with cryptogenic stroke and a patent foramen ovale (48; 69; 84). Because the PICCS study was not limited to patients with cryptogenic stroke, it does not adequately answer the question of whether anticoagulation therapy is superior to antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. More importantly, because patent foramen ovale is fairly common in the general population, it is important to determine whether the patent foramen ovale is truly the mechanism of the index event rather than an incidental finding. Investigators designed the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score based on a cohort of patients from multiple prospective population-based studies to address this question. Results from this cohort demonstrated that in patients with a cryptogenic stroke and a patent foramen ovale, a RoPE score of six or more implies the high likelihood of the patent foramen ovale being causative versus incidental whereas in patients with RoPE scores of less than 6, the patent foramen ovale is likely to be incidental (55). Interestingly, additional analysis from the same patient cohort showed that the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with the highest RoPE score (9 or 10) was up to 2% over 2 years, supporting previous evidence that the overall risk of recurrent stroke attributed to the patent foramen ovale is low regardless of the treatment modality (55). In patients whose patent foramen ovale was thought to be incidental based on the RoPE score, anticoagulation treatment was associated with a lower risk of stroke recurrence at 2 years whereas in patients whose patent foramen ovale was thought to be causative of the index event, there was no difference between the two treatment modalities (115). Moreover, an individual patient meta-analysis that included 2385 patients with 227 composite endpoints (stroke/transient ischemic attack/death) showed no significant benefit of anticoagulation when compared to antiplatelet therapy (adjusted HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44-1.27) (54).

In patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke, it is critically important to complete a thorough stroke work up for alternative mechanism rather than assuming that the patent foramen ovale is the culprit. This is especially relevant in older patients with lower RoPE scores where other mechanisms such as paroxysmal occult atrial fibrillation or atrial mechanisms might be at play.

The NAVIGATE-ESUS trial studied rivaroxaban versus antiplatelet therapy alone for patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) and was negative for the primary outcome (44). In patients with a patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source, anticoagulation was associated with lower risk of recurrence (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22-1.36) but with increased risk of major hemorrhage (HR 2.05, 95% CI 0.51-8.18), and when these data were pooled with the PICCS and CLOSE trials, the benefit of anticoagulation in secondary stroke prevention achieved statistical significance (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.96, p=0.04) (51). Data from the RESPECT-ESUS trial, however, showed no significant benefit of dabigatran over aspirin in patients with patent foramen ovale in secondary stroke prevention (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45-1.71) (31). Moreover, updating the meta-analysis mentioned above with these data from RESPECT-ESUS resulted in no statistically significant benefit of anticoagulation as compared to antiplatelet therapy for recurrent stroke (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43-1.14) (30).

Therefore, in the absence of an indication for anticoagulation therapy, antiplatelet therapy appears to be the antithrombotic of choice in patients with patent foramen ovale.

Surgical options. Surgical options to close a patent foramen ovale have been offered to patients with patent foramen ovale and a history of stroke, especially when high-risk features are present. These include the Valsalva maneuver preceding the event; hypercoagulable states; multiple strokes or events; and patent foramen ovale characteristics such as large opening (3.4 to 5.8 mm), large right-to-left shunting, right-to-left shunting at rest, presence of an atrial septal aneurysm, high mobility of the valve of the patent foramen ovale, and a well-formed eustachian valve (127; 84). In addition, patients younger than 50 years of age, those with recurrent neurologic events, those with failure of anticoagulation to prevent events, and those with high risk of clots but inability to tolerate anticoagulation are considered closure candidates (127).

Three surgical options for closure are available: (1) the traditional open thoracotomy foraminal closure, (2) minimally invasive surgery, and (3) percutaneous closure techniques (63). For open thoracotomy, the rates of postoperative stroke were found to range from 0% to 3.5% in different studies (29; 47; 25). Mortality associated with the procedure was less than 1.5%, and perioperative risks included atrial fibrillation, pericardial sequelae, and the need for re-exploration due to bleeding (29; 47; 91; 25).

Percutaneous device closure is performed by accessing a large systemic vein (usually femoral) and deploying a closure device at the atrial septal communication (patent foramen ovale or secundum atrial septal defect) by means of a catheter.

Patent foramen ovale: percutaneous closure

With use of a femoral approach, a transvenous sheath is advanced across the foramen into the left atrium, where a folded disc is expanded and pulled back, opposing the primum and secundum septa closed. This step is followed by ...

It is described as an effective, safe, and commonly employed alternative to surgical closure in patients with patent foramen ovale (123). An alternative to percutaneous closure with devices is the transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale using radiofrequency energy. The safety and feasibility of this technique was reported (109).

The United States Food and Drug Administration approved two patent foramen ovale occluder devices (the Amplatzer(r) Septal Occluder and the CardioSEAL(r) Septal Occlusion System) under a humanitarian device exemption for the treatment of patients with recurrent cryptogenic stroke due to presumed paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale and who had failed drug therapy (84).

Patent foramen ovale occluder devices

(A) The Amplatzer(r) PFO Device (copyright AGA Medical Corporation, 2004). (B) The STARFlex(r) Device (copyright NMT Medical, Boston). (Contributed by Dr. Catalina Ionita.)

The CardioSEAL(r) device has undergone two subsequent modifications and was made available as the STARFlex(r) device and, subsequently, as the BioSTAR(r) device. However, soon after the FDA withdrew the humanitarian device exemption approval after finding that the eligible population in the United States described by the approval indication was significantly greater than the 4000 patient per year limit permitted by the humanitarian device exemption (117). The Gore Cardioform Septal Occluder is also FDA-approved for percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure.

Initial studies on patent foramen ovale closure

Several retrospective studies also suggested that patent foramen ovale closure reduces embolic events (11; 126; 113). A series of prospective case-control studies looking into outcomes during long-term follow-up after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovales also demonstrated a lower incidence of recurrent strokes and transient ischemic attacks (16; 42; 121). In one study, the cumulative rate of thromboembolic-free survival rate was estimated at 99% in patients younger than 55 and 84% in patients older than 55 years of age (18). However, they constitute relatively weak evidence and are insufficient to establish if device closure of patent foramen ovale is beneficial. Experts, therefore, recommend that all eligible patients be strongly encouraged to enroll in ongoing randomized trials in order to determine the efficacy of this therapy (84; 116). For those patients with atrial septal defect and large left-to-right shunt, there is less controversy regarding need for closure to prevent the development of right heart failure (84). Percutaneous device closure can result in major complications (death, hemorrhage requiring transfusion, cardiac tamponade, need for surgical intervention, or fatal pulmonary emboli) with 1.5% incidence; minor complications in 7.9% of cases are also possible (bleeding not requiring transfusion, atrial arrhythmias, device embolization, device thrombosis, air embolism, and allergy to device components) (58).

And yet, strokes occur after the closure of a patent foramen ovale. Persistent residual shunt (especially in those patients with a redundant atrial septum or an atrial septal aneurysm) (129) or a right-to-left shunt in an anatomically distinct site may allow continued paradoxical embolism. An Italian patent foramen ovale closure study reported a high rate of residual shunt at 6 and 12 months’ follow-up (19.5% and 18%, respectively); however, the associated rate of recurrent neurologic event was low (2.25% at 6 months and 0.8% at 12 months), suggesting that closure was a safe procedure (14). Thrombus may spontaneously form on the left atrial wall of the patent foramen ovale; there is an increased risk for atrial arrhythmias in these patients; and finally, patent foramen ovale may not be etiologically linked to recurrent strokes (12; 10; 125; 75; 05; 120; 84).

Patent foramen ovale closure trials

The RESPECT study randomized patients between 18 and 60 years of age with cryptogenic strokes within 270 days of stroke onset to medical treatment (n=481) versus closure with AMPLATZER (tm) (n=499), and these were followed for a median of 2.1 years from randomization. In the intention to treat analysis, the event rate was lower in the closure arm than in the medical arm (0.61% vs. 1.25% per patient-year) but this did not achieve statistical significance (15). An updated follow-up of patients enrolled in RESPECT was published in September 2017 (102). Nine hundred eighty patients were followed up for a median of 5.9 years. There was a higher dropout rate in the trial in the medical group versus the patent foramen ovale closure group. In this extended follow-up period, there was a hazard ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.31-0.999, p=0.046) in the patent foramen ovale closure group (for the primary end point representing a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke or death). For the isolated end point of recurrent ischemic stroke of undetermined cause, the hazard ratio for the patent foramen ovale-closure group was 0.38 (95% CI 0.18-0.79, p=0.007).

The PC Trial randomized 414 patients to medical treatment versus closure with AMPLATZER and followed them for a median of 4.1 years. This trial also did not show a significant benefit of closure when compared to medical treatment (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.24-1.62; P=.34) (79).

The CLOSURE trial, on the other hand, randomized 909 patients to closure with the STARFlex (CardioSEAL, NMT Medical, Boston, MA) device versus medical therapy and followed them for 2 years. The cumulative incidence of the composite of stroke or transient ischemic attack was 5.5% in the device-closure group and 6.8% in the medically treated arm (adjusted HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.35; P=.37) (37). An observation that many of the recurrent events were not caused by paradoxical embolism but instead by alternative causes further clouds the results of this trial.

The GORE-REDUCE trial (GORE® HELEX® Septal Occluder/GORE® CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder and Antiplatelet Medical Management for Reduction of Recurrent Stroke or Imaging-confirmed TIA in Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale [PFO] - The Gore REDUCE clinical study) investigated patent foramen ovale closure with a septal occlusion device in parallel with antiplatelet therapy compared with antiplatelet therapy alone (112). Six hundred and sixty-four patients were enrolled and assigned to patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy alone in a 2 to 1 ratio. There was a median follow-up of 3.2 years, with recurrent stroke in 1.4% of those in the patent foramen ovale closure group versus 5.4% of patients in the medial therapy group (HR of 0.23, CI 0.29-0.91). Serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups (23.1% in the patent foramen ovale-closure group vs. 27.8% of patients in the medical therapy group), though device-related complications occurred in 1.4% of patients in the patent foramen ovale-closure group. Additionally, approximately 6% of patients in the patent foramen ovale-closure group developed atrial fibrillation.

The CLOSE trial (Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale or Anticoagulants Versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence) examined patients with cryptogenic stroke and high-risk features of their patent foramen ovale (large interatrial shunt or associated interatrial septal aneurysm) (77). Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure with antiplatelet therapy, (2) antiplatelet therapy alone, or (3) anticoagulation alone. The primary end point in this trial was recurrent stroke. Six hundred and sixty-three patients were randomized in this trial with a mean follow up of 5.3 years. In this trial, no patients in the group randomized to patent foramen ovale closure had a stroke (0 out of 238 patients). By contrast, 14 out of 235 patients in the antiplatelet therapy alone group had a stroke with a HR of 0.03 (95% CI of 0.0-0.26, p< 0.001). Also, 1.6% of patients in the anticoagulation group suffered a stroke during the study follow-up period. Like in the GORE-REDUCE trial, the rate of atrial fibrillation was increased in the device-closure group (4.6% vs. 0.9%).

The DEFENSE-PFO trial randomized patients with cryptogenic stroke to percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure with medical therapy compared with medical therapy alone (71). Like in the CLOSE trial, they selected patients on the basis of high-risk features of the patent foramen ovale, including the presence of an interatrial septal aneurysm and large patent foramen ovale. The primary endpoint of DEFENSE-PFO was stroke, death attributed to vascular causes, and major bleeding. Additionally, they used the hypermobility observed on transesophageal echocardiography as an additional indicator of a “high-risk” patent foramen ovale. One hundred twenty patients were enrolled in the trial with 60 patients included in each group. Of the 60 patients, 12.9% of patients in the medical therapy alone group suffered the primary endpoint compared with 0 patients in the patent foramen ovale closure group. Two patients (3%) developed atrial fibrillation.

The early trials of patent foramen ovale closure suggested a benefit to device closure of patent foramen ovale in the setting of cryptogenic stroke, but the benefit did not attain statistical significance, leading to uncertainty for patients and clinicians. The six major trials of patent foramen ovale closure studied 3560 patients and confirmed the initially observed signal of benefit to device closure. The three most recent trials (GORE-REDUCE, CLOSE, and DEFENSE-PFO) also mandated antiplatelet therapy in addition to device closure. There was evidence of superiority with double disc devices (eg, AMPLATZER or ASOC) compared with alternative designs (103). Ninety-three percent to 96% of patients with double-disc devices had successful technical outcomes versus 87% of patients undergoing closure with umbrella-clamshell devices (103).

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was reported by Mir and colleagues and incorporated 10 randomized controlled trials in total addressing patent foramen ovale closure and medical therapy (including antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation) (85). This meta-analysis confirmed a risk reduction in recurrent stroke for patients with patent foramen ovale closure versus anticoagulation (risk difference of -87 per 1000 patients per 5-year period). There was a smaller magnitude of difference in the risk of recurrent stroke in patients who underwent device closure of patent foramen ovale when compared with anticoagulation; however, those patients undergoing anticoagulation had a higher risk of bleeding. The authors of this meta-analysis concluded that in patients below the age of 60, patent foramen ovale closure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke when compared with antiplatelet therapy but not when compared with anticoagulation (low certainty conclusion), though anticoagulation increases the risk of major bleeding.

Special considerations

In patients older than 60 years of age with a cryptogenic ischemic stroke and a patent foramen ovale, the patent foramen ovale may be incidental as the ischemic stroke is more likely to be due to another mechanism, such as atrial fibrillation or atherosclerosis of the cerebrovasculature of aortic arch. That said, paradoxical embolism phenomenon may also be more common in the elderly population due to increasing risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism with older age. In older patients, observational data suggest a link between patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source and an association between patent foramen ovale and increased stroke risk (20; 78). At this time, the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in patients above 60 years old remains uncertain, and the long-term risks of closure are unknown. More studies are needed to evaluate benefits of patent foramen ovale closure in this sub-population that was excluded from prior patent foramen ovale trials showing a benefit from patent foramen ovale closure.

Because the RoPE score helps predict the probability of the patent foramen ovale being the etiology of an otherwise cryptogenic ischemic stroke, rather than being an incidental finding, the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure was stratified by the ROPE score. In an individual patient level data meta-analysis of the trials PC, CLOSURE-I, and RESPECT, the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure was demonstrated in patients whose ROPE score was 7 or greater (HR 0.31 95% 0.11-0.85, p = 0.02) as opposed to those with RoPE score less than 7 (HR 0.82 95% CI 0.41-1.59, p = 0.56) (P for interaction = 0.12) (57). Furthermore, a meta-analysis combining all six patent foramen ovale closure trials showed that the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure was more pronounced in patients with high RoPE scores (adjusted HR 0.21 95% CI 0.11-0.42) as opposed to low RoPE score (adjusted HR 0.61 95% CI 0.37-1.00) (P for interaction = 0.02) (56). Therefore, when considering patent foramen ovale closure in a patient with a cryptogenic ischemic stroke, it is crucial to factor whether the patent foramen ovale is incidental or pathogenic.

The benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in patients with small or no right to left shunting remains uncertain. Exploratory analyses of existing trial data suggest that patent foramen ovale closure may not be efficacious in patients with very small shunts (01). Furthermore, patent foramen ovale trials showing a benefit from patent foramen ovale closure excluded patients with small or no right to left shunt. A meta-analysis of all six patent foramen ovale closure trials showed that the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure was more pronounced in patients with substantial shunt size (HR 0.15 95% CI 0.07-0.33) as opposed to those without a substantial shunt size (HR 0.68 95% CI 0.42-1.09) (P for interaction 0.002) (56). Thus, the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke and a patent foramen ovale with small shunt remains uncertain, and more studies are needed to test the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in this patient population.

A meta-analysis of all six patent foramen ovale closure randomized controlled trials examined the association between the RoPE score when added to patent foramen ovale biomarkers (shunt size, presence of atrial septal aneurysm) with benefits of patent foramen ovale closure (56). This meta-analysis introduced the new scoring system, PASCAL (PFO-associated Stroke Causal Likelihood), which combined the RoPE score with patent foramen ovale functional and structural features, namely shunt size and presence of atrial septal aneurysm, in order to further classify the causal relationship as unlikely, possible and probable (56). Furthermore, patients classified as unlikely using the PASCAL Classification System had no benefit from patent foramen ovale closure (HR 1.14 95% CI, 0.53-2.46), but patients classified as possible and probable had a benefit from patent foramen ovale closure (HR 0.38 95% CI, 0.22-0.65) and (HR 0.10 95% CI, 0.03-0.35), respectively (P for interaction = 0.003). Furthermore, adverse events such as atrial fibrillation beyond day 45 after randomization were higher in the unlikely PASCAL category (4.41%) as opposed to the possible PASCAL category (1.53%) and probable PASCAL category (0.65%). Thus, the PASCAL classification system may help identify patients who are likely to benefit from patent foramen ovale closure and less likely to have device-associated complications (56).

Current recommendations

	• Due to the high prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke clinicians should consider looking for an alternate stroke mechanism.
	• After a thorough diagnostic evaluation excluding other causes such as paroxysmal occult atrial fibrillation (with at least 30 days of continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring), in patients without an indication for anticoagulation therapy, we suggest treatment with antiplatelet agents for most patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke.
	• In general, secondary stroke prevention strategies including statin therapy as indicated, antithrombotic agents, and stroke risk factor modification should be initiated in all patients with patent foramen ovale and ischemic stroke.
	• Anticoagulation remains a treatment option for patients with patent foramen ovale and documented deep venous thrombosis.
	• Closure of a patent foramen ovale should be considered for patients meeting eligibility criteria for the positive trials and in whom a competing mechanism is excluded. The risks and benefits should be discussed thoroughly with the patient before referring them for patent foramen ovale closure.
	• Interdisciplinary conversations between neurology and cardiology can best select patients who are appropriate for patent foramen ovale closure.

Patent foramen ovale and migraine

In addition to the usual treatment of migraine with abortive and preventive therapies, based on a series of retrospective, nonrandomized studies, and case-control studies, some authors propose that percutaneous closure of a right-to-left shunt (patent foramen ovale, atrial septal defect, and pulmonary arteriovenous malformation) results in a significant reduction in the prevalence of migraine and migraine with aura (04; 03; 124; 87; 108; 07; 89; 98; Post and Budts 2006; 62). However, these studies have limitations in their design and lack long-term follow-up. Paradoxically, some case reports document an aggravation of migraine headache after percutaneous closure (128; 89).

The MIST trial was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial to evaluate patent foramen ovale closure with the STARFlex(r) device in patients with frequent migraine with aura refractory to two types of preventive medication and without a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (34). Published data from this trial showed no difference at 6 months between patent foramen ovale closure and control treatment for the primary endpoint of headache cure, which was achieved in each group by three patients. In light of the observations from the MIST trial and the PREMIUM trial, percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale is not recommended at this time to treat migraine.

Media

References

01: Alkhouli M, Sievert H, Holmes DR. Patent foramen ovale closure for secondary stroke prevention. Eur Heart J 2019;40(28):2339-50. PMID 30957864
02: Angeli S, Carrera P, Del Sette M, et al. Very high prevalence of right-to-left shunt on transcranial Doppler in an Italian family with cerebral autosomal dominant angiopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy. Eur Neurol 2001;46(4):198-201. PMID 11721126
03: Anzola GP, Frisoni GB, Morandi E, Casilli F, Onorato E. Shunt-associated migraine responds favorably to atrial septal repair: a case-control study. Stroke 2006;37(2):430-4. PMID 16373630
04: Anzola GP, Magoni M, Guindani M, Rozzini L, Dalla Volta G. Potential source of cerebral embolism in migraine with aura: a transcranial Doppler study. Neurology 1999;52(8):1622-5. PMID 10331688
05: Anzola GP, Morandi E, Casilli F, Onorato E. Does transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale really "shut the door." A prospective study with transcranial Doppler. Stroke 2004;35(9):2140-4. PMID 15284445
06: Arquizan C, Coste J, Touboul PJ, Mas JL. Is patent foramen ovale a family trait. A transcranial Doppler sonographic study. Stroke 2001;32(7):1563-6. PMID 11441202
07: Azarbal B, Tobis J, Suh W, Chan V, Dao C, Gaster R. Association of interatrial shunts and migraine headaches: impact of transcatheter closure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45(4):489-92. PMID 15708691
08: Bedard E, Rodes-Cabau J, Houde C, et al. Enhanced thrombogenesis but not platelet activation is associated with transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Stroke 2007;38(1):100-4. PMID 17122434
09: Beelke M, Angeli S, Del Sette M, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in subjects with obstructive sleep apnea: a transcranial Doppler ultrasound study. Sleep Med 2003;4(3):219-23. PMID 14592325
10: Berthet K, Lavergne T, Cohen A, et al. Significant association of atrial vulnerability with atrial septal abnormalities in young patients with ischemic stroke of unknown cause. Stroke 2000;31(2):398-403. PMID 10657412
11: Braun M, Gliech V, Boscheri A, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism. Periprocedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems. Eur Heart J 2004;25(5):424-30. PMID 15033255
12: Cabanes L, Mas JL, Cohen A, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale as risk factors for cryptogenic stroke in patients less than 55 years of age. A study using transesophageal echocardiography. Stroke 1993;24(12):1865-73. PMID 8248969
13: Calviere L, Tall P, Massabuau P, Bonneville F, Larrue V. Migraine with aura and silent brain infarcts lack of mediation of patent foramen ovale. Eur J Neurol 2013;20(12):1560-5. PMID 23869686
14: Caputi L, Butera G, Anzola GP, et al. Residual shunt after patent foramen ovale closure: preliminary results from Italian patent foramen ovale survey. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;22(7):e219-26. PMID 23352683
15: Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013;368(12):1092-100. PMID 23514286
16: Casaubon L, McLaughlin P, Webb G, et al. Recurrent stroke/TIA in cryptogenic stroke patients with patent foramen ovale. Can J Neurol Sci 2007;34(1):74-80. PMID 17352351
17: Chambers J, Seed PT, Ridsdale L. Association of migraine aura with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysms. Int J Cardiol 2013;168(4):3949-53. PMID 23890906
18: Cifarelli A, Musto C, Parma A, et al. Long-term outcome of transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure in patients with paradoxical embolism. Int J Cardiol 2010;141(3):304-10. PMID 19178959
19: Clergeau M, Hamon R, Morello M, et al. Silent cerebral infarcts in patients with pulmonary embolism and a patent foramen ovale: a prospective diffusion-weighted MRI study. Stroke 2009;40(12):3758-62. PMID 19797184
20: Consoli D, Paciaroni M, Galati F, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in ischaemic stroke in Italy: results of SISIFO study. Cerebrovasc Dis 2015;39(3-4):162-9. PMID 25720306
21: Cramer SC, Rordorf G, Maki JH, et al. Increased pelvic vein thrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the Paradoxical Emboli from Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study. Stroke 2004;35(1):46-50. PMID 14657451
22: Cujec B, Mainra R, Johnson DH. Prevention of recurrent cerebral ischemic events in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic strokes or transient ischemic attacks. Can J Cardiol 1999;15(1):57-64. PMID 10024860
23: Daehnert I, Ewert P, Berger F, Lange PE. Echocardiographically guided closure of a patent foramen ovale during pregnancy after recurrent strokes. J Interv Cardiol 2001;14(2):191-2. PMID 12053303
24: Daniel WG, Erbel R, Kasper W, et al. Safety of transesophageal echocardiography. A multicenter survey of 10,419 examinations. Circulation 1991;83(3):817-21. PMID 1999032
25: Dearani JA, Ugurlu BS, Danielson GK, et al. Surgical patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of paradoxical embolism-related cerebrovascular ischemic events. Circulation 1999;100(19 Suppl):II171-5. PMID 10567299
26: Debette S, Beiser A, DeCarli C, et al. Association of MRI markers of vascular brain injury with incident stroke, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and mortality: the Framingham Offspring Study. Stroke 2010;41(4):600-6. PMID 20167919
27: De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke 2000;31(10):2407-13. PMID 11022072
28: Del Sette M, Angeli S, Leandri M, et al. Migraine with aura and right-to-left shunt on transcranial Doppler: a case-control study. Cerebrovasc Dis 1998;8(6):327-30. PMID 9774749
29: Devuyst G, Bogousslavsky J, Ruchat P, et al. Prognosis after stroke followed by surgical closure of patent foramen ovale: a prospective follow-up study with brain MRI and simultaneous transesophageal and transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Neurology 1996;47(5):1162-6. PMID 8909423
30: Diener HC, Chutinet A, Easton JD, et al. Dabigatran or aspirin after embolic stroke of undetermined source in patients with patent foramen ovale: results from RE-SPECT ESUS. Stroke 2021;52(3):1065-8. PMID 33504190
31: Diener HC, Sacco RL, Easton JD, et al. Dabigatran for prevention of stroke after embolic stroke of undetermined source. N Engl J Med 2019;380(20):1906-17. PMID 31091372
32: Di Tullio M, Jin Z, Russo C, et al. Patent foramen ovale, subclinical cerebrovascular disease, and ischemic stroke in a population-based cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;2(1):35-41. PMID 23644084
33: Di Tullio M, Sacco RL, Gopal A, Mohr JP, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale as a risk factor for cryptogenic stroke. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:461-5. PMID 1503349
34: Dowson A, Mullen MJ, Peatfield R, et al. Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology (MIST) trial: a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure with STARFlex septal repair implant to resolve refractory migraine headache. Circulation 2008;117(11):1397-404. PMID 18316488
35: Engelhardt M, Folkers W, Brenke C, et al. Neurosurgical operations with the patient in sitting position: analysis of risk factors using transcranial Doppler sonography. Br J Anaesth 2006;96(4):467-72. PMID 16464980
36: Falk RH. PFO or UFO. The role of a patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Am Heart J 1991;121(4 Pt 1):1264-6. PMID 2008854
37: Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012;366(11):991-9. PMID 22417252
38: Garg P, Servoss SJ, Wu JC, et al. Lack of association between migraine headache and patent foramen ovale: results of a case-control study. Circulation 2010;121(12):1406-12. PMID 20231534
39: Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD. Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clin Proc 1984;59(1):17-20. PMID 6694427
40: Hanley PC, Tajik AJ, Hynes JK, et al. Diagnosis and classification of atrial septal aneurysm by two dimensional echocardiography: report of 80 consecutive cases. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;6:1370-82. PMID 4067118
41: Hara H, Schwartz RS. Patent foramen ovale. In: UpToDate, Rose, BD (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2006.
42: Harms V, Reisman M, Fuller CJ, et al. Outcomes after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Am J Cardiol 2007;99(9):1312-5. PMID 17478164
43: Hart RG, Diener HC, Coutts SB, et al. Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol 2014;13(4):429-38. PMID 24646875
44: Hart RG, Sharma M, Mundl H, et al. Rivaroxaban for stroke prevention after embolic stroke of undetermined source. N Engl J Med 2018;378(23):2191-201. PMID 29766772
45: Hayashida K, Fukuchi K, Inubushi M, Fukushima K, Imakita S, Kimura K. Embolic distribution through patent foramen ovale demonstrated by (99m)Tc-MAA brain SPECT after Valsalva radionuclide venography. J Nucl Med 2001;42(6):859-63. PMID 11390548
46: Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Mihalatos D, Li Mandri G, Mohr JP. Characteristics of patent foramen ovale associated with cryptogenic stroke. A biplane transesophageal echocardiographic study. Stroke 1994;25(3):582-6. PMID 8128511
47: Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, Smith C, Mohr JP. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke 1997;28(12):2376-81. PMID 9412617
48: Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, et al. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002;105(22):2625-31. PMID 12045168
49: Hviid CVB, Simonsen CZ, Hvas AM. Recurrence risk in patients with cryptogenic stroke, patent foramen ovale, and thrombophilia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 2019;119(11):1839-48. PMID 31378004
50: Jiang XH, Wang SB, Tian Q, et al. Right-to-left shunt and subclinical ischemic brain lesions in Chinese migraineurs: a multicentre MRI study. BMC Neurol 2018;18(1):18. PMID 29444659
51: Kasner SE, Swaminathan B, Lavados P, et al. Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Lancet Neurol 2018;17(12):1053-60. PMID 30274772
52: Katsanos AH, Spence JD, Bogiatzi C, et al. Recurrent stroke and patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2014;45(11):3352-9. PMID 25293664
53: Kawamata T, Takeshita M, Ishizuka N, Hori T. Patent foramen ovale as a possible risk factor for cryptogenic brain abscess: report of two cases. Neurosurgery 2001;49(1):204-6; discussion 206-7. PMID 11440444
54: Kent DM, Dahabreh IJ, Ruthazer R, et al. Anticoagulant vs. antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2015;36(35):2381-9. PMID 26141397
55: Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013;81(7):619-25. PMID 23864310
56: Kent DM, Saver JL, Kasner SE, et al. Heterogeneity of treatment effects in an analysis of pooled individual patient data from randomized trials of device closure of patent foramen ovale after stroke. JAMA 2021;326(22):2277-86. Erratum in: JAMA 2022;327(4):394. PMID 34905030
57: Kent DM, Saver JL, Ruthazer R, et al. Risk of paradoxical embolism (rope)-estimated attributable fraction correlates with the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure: An analysis of 3 trials. Stroke 2020;51(10):3119-23. PMID 32921262
58: Khairy P, O'Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003;139(9):753-60. PMID 14597460
59: Khouzam RN, El-Dokla AM, Menkes DL. Undiagnosed patent foramen ovale presenting as a cryptogenic brain abscess: case report and review of the literature. Heart Lung 2006;35(2):108-11. PMID 16543039
60: Kim BJ, Kim NY, Kang DW, Kim JS, Kwon SU. Provoked right-to-left shunt in patent foramen ovale associates with ischemic stroke in posterior circulation. Stroke 2014;45(12):3707-10. PMID 25358696
61: Kim BJ, Sohn H, Sun BJ, et al. Imaging characteristics of ischemic strokes related to patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013;44(12):3350-6. PMID 24072002
62: Kimmelstiel C, Gange C, Thaler D. Is patent foramen ovale closure effective in reducing migraine symptoms. A controlled study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69(5):740-6. PMID 17295330
63: Kizer JR, Devereux RB. Clinical practice. Patent foramen ovale in young adults with unexplained stroke. N Engl J Med 2005;353(22):2361-72. PMID 16319385
64: Klotzsch C, Sliwka U, Berlit P, Noth J. An increased frequency of patent foramen ovale in patients with transient global amnesia. Analysis of 53 consecutive patients. Arch Neurol 1996;53(6):504-8. PMID 8660151
65: Knauth M, Ries S, Pohimann S, et al. Cohort study of multiple brain lesions in sport divers: role of a patent foramen ovale. BMJ 1997;314(7082):701-5. PMID 9116544
66: Kozelj M, Novak-Antolic Z, Grad A, Peternel P. Patent foramen ovale as a potential cause of paradoxical embolism in the postpartum period. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999;84(1):55-7. PMID 10413227
67: Knapper JT, Schultz J, Das G, Sperling LS. Cardiac platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome: an often unrecognized malady. Clin Cardiol 2014;37(10):645-9. PMID 24912004
68: Krasuski RA, Hart SA, Allen D, et al. Prevalence and repair of intraoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale and association with perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. JAMA 2009;302(3):290-7. PMID 19602688
69: Lamy C, Giannesini C, Zuber M, et al. Clinical and imaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale: the PFO-ASA Study. Atrial Septal Aneurysm. Stroke 2002;33(3):706-11. PMID 11872892
70: Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988;318(18):1148-52. PMID 3362165
71: Lee PH, Song JK, Kim JS, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and high-risk patent foramen ovale: the DEFENSE-PFO trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71(20):2335-42. PMID 29544871
72: Lippmann H, Rafferty T. Patent foramen ovale and paradoxical embolization: a historical perspective. Yale J Biol Med 1993;66(1):11-7. PMID 8256459
73: Lock JE. Patent foramen ovale is indicted, but the case hasn’t gone to trial. Circulation 2000;101:838. PMID 10694518
74: Maalikjy Akkawi N, Agosti C, et al. Transient global amnesia: a clinical and sonographic study. Eur Neurol 2003;49(2):67-71. PMID 12584412
75: Martin F, Sanchez PL, Doherty E, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation 2002;106(9):1121-6. PMID 12196339
76: Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, et al. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001;345(24):1740-6. PMID 11742048
77: Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Guillon B, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377(11):1011-21. PMID 28902593
78: Mattle HP, Saver JL. Patent foramen ovale increases stroke risk in older people. Nat Rev Neurol 2018;14(10):573-4. PMID 30054555
79: Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013;368(12):1083-91. PMID 23514285
80: Meissner I, Khandheria BK, Heit JA, et al. Patent foramen ovale: innocent or guilty. Evidence from a prospective population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47(2):440-5. PMID 16412874
81: Meissner I, Whisnant JP, Khandheria BK, et al. Prevalence of potential risk factors for stroke assessed by transesophageal echocardiography and carotid ultrasonography: the SPARC study. Stroke Prevention: Assessment of Risk in a Community. Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74(9):862-9. PMID 10488786
82: Messe SR, Erus G, Bilello M, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure decreases the incidence but not the size of new brain infarction on magnetic resonance imaging: an analysis of the REDUCE trial. Stroke 2021;52(11):3419-26. PMID 34455822
83: Messe SR, Gronseth G, Kent DM, et al. Practice advisory: Recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale (update of practice parameter): Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2016;87(8):815-21. PMID 27466464
84: Messe SR, Schwartz RS, Perloff JK. Treatment of atrial septal abnormalities (PFO, ASD, and ASA) for prevention of recurrent stroke in adults. In: UpToDate, Rose, BD (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2006b.
85: Mir H, Siemieniuk RAC, Ge LC, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure, antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis incorporating complementary external evidence. BMJ Open 2018;8(7):e023761. PMID 30049703
86: Mojadidi MK, Roberts SC2, Winoker JS, et al. Accuracy of transcranial Doppler for the diagnosis of intracardiac right-to-left shunt: a bivariate meta-analysis of prospective studies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7(3):236-50. PMID 24560213
87: Morandi E, Anzola GP, Angeli S, Melzi G, Onorato E. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale: a new migraine treatment. J Interv Cardiol 2003;16(1):39-42. PMID 12664816
88: Morelli N, Gori S, Cafforio G, et al. Prevalence of right-to-left shunt in patients with cluster headache. J Headache Pain 2005;6(4):244-6. PMID 16362676
89: Mortelmans K, Post M, Thijs V, Herroelen L, Budts W. The influence of percutaneous atrial septal defect closure on the occurrence of migraine. Eur Heart J 2005;26(15):1533-7. PMID 15746154
90: Mugge A, Daniel WG, Angermann C, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm in adult patients: a multicenter study using transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation 1995;91:2785-92. PMID 7758185
91: Nendaz MR, Sarasin FP, Junod AF, Bogousslavsky J. Preventing stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: antithrombotic therapy, foramen closure, or therapeutic abstention. A decision analytic perspective. Am Heart J 1998;135(3):532-41. PMID 9506341
92: Ng PY, Ng AKY, Subramaniam B, et al. Association of preoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale with perioperative ischemic stroke. JAMA 2018;319(5):452-62. PMID 29411032
93: Orgera MA, O'Malley PG, Taylor AJ. Secondary prevention of cerebral ischemia in patent foramen ovale: systematic review and meta-analysis. South Med J 2001;94(7):699-703. PMID 11531177
94: Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology 2000;55(8):1172-9. PMID 11071496
95: Petty GW, Khandheria BK, Meissner I, et al. Population-based study of the relationship between patent foramen ovale and cerebrovascular ischemic events. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81(5):602-8. PMID 16706256
96: Post MC, Luermans JG, Plokker HW, Budts W. Patent foramen ovale and migraine. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69(1):9-14. PMID 17143907
97: Purandare N, Oude Voshaar RC, McCollum C, Jackson A, Burns A. Paradoxical embolisation and cerebral white matter lesions in dementia. Br J Radiol 2008;81(961):30-4. PMID 17998278
98: Reisman M, Christofferson RD, Jesurum J, et al. Migraine headache relief after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45(4):493-5. PMID 15708692
99: Roxas-Timonera M, Larracas C, Gersony D, Di Tullio M, Keller A, Homma S. Patent foramen ovale presenting as platypnea-orthodeoxia: diagnosis by transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2001;14(10):1039-41. PMID 11593212
100: Rundek T, Elkind MS, Di Tullio MR, et al. Patent foramen ovale and migraine: a cross-sectional study from the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS). Circulation 2008;118(14):1419-24. PMID 18794393
101: Sadler TW. Cardiovascular system. In: Sadler TW, editor. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 8th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2000:221-3.
102: Saver JL, Carroll JD, Thaler DE, et al. Long-term outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy after stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377(11):1022-32. PMID 28902590
103: Saver JL, Mattle HP, Thaler D. Patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy for cryptogenic ischemic stroke: a topical review. Stroke 2018;49(6):1541-8. PMID 29760277
104: Schneider B, Hanrath P, Vogel P, Meinertz T. Improved morphologic characterization of atrial septal aneurysm by transesophageal echocardiography: relation to cerebrovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;16(4):1000-9. PMID 2212349
105: Schneider B, Zienkiewicz T, Jansen V, Hofmann T, Noltenius H, Meinertz T. Diagnosis of patent foramen ovale by transesophageal echocardiography and correlation with autopsy findings. Am J Cardiol 1996;77(14):1202-9. PMID 8651096
106: Schrale RG, Ormerod J, Ormerod OJ. Percutaneous device closure of the patent foramen ovale during pregnancy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;69(4):579-83. PMID 17295329
107: Schwerzmann M, Seiler C, Lipp E, et al. Relation between directly detected patent foramen ovale and ischemic brain lesions in sport divers. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(1):21-4. PMID 11187416
108: Schwerzmann M, Wiher S, Nedeltchev K, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale reduces the frequency of migraine attacks. Neurology 2004;62(8):1399-401. PMID 15111681
109: Sievert H, Fischer E, Heinisch C, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale without an implant: initial clinical experience. Circulation 2007;116(15):1701-6. PMID 17893276
110: Silver MD, Dorsey JS. Aneurysms of the septum primum in adults. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1978;102:62-5. PMID 579965
111: Snijder RJ, Luermans JG, de Heij AH, et al. Patent foramen ovale with atrial septal aneurysm is strongly associated with migraine with aura: a large observational study. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5(12). PMID 27930349
112: Sondergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377(11):1033-42. PMID 28902580
113: Spies C, Strasheim R, Timmermanns I, Schraeder R. Patent foramen ovale closure in patients with cryptogenic thrombo-embolic events using the Cardia PFO occluder. Eur Heart J 2006;27(3):365-71. PMID 16254007
114: Sposato LA, Albin CSW, Elkind MSV, Kamel H, Saver JL. Patent foramen ovale management for secondary stroke prevention: state-of-the-art appraisal of current evidence. Stroke 2024;55(1):236-247. PMID 38134261
115: Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. Recurrent stroke predictors differ in medically treated patients with pathogenic vs. other PFOs. Neurology 2014;83(3):221-6. PMID 24928123
116: Thomson JD. Percutaneous PFO closure, further data but many unanswered questions. Eur Heart J 2006;27(3):258-9. PMID 16311239
117: US Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Information for Physicians and Patients on the Withdrawal of Two Humanitarian Device Exemptions (HDEs) For Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Occluders. USFDA Humanitarian Device Exemptions for PFO Occluders. Accessed November 23, 2006.
118: Vermeer SE, Hollander M, van Dijk EJ, et al. Silent brain infarcts and white matter lesions increase stroke risk in the general population: the Rotterdam Scan Study. Stroke 2003;34(5):1126-9. PMID 12690219
119: Vick GW. Classification and clinical features of isolated atrial septal defects in children. In: UpToDate, Rose, BD (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2006.
120: Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45(3):377-80. PMID 15680715
121: Wahl A, Kunz M, Moschovitis A, et al. Long-term results after fluoroscopy guided closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism. Heart 2008;94(3):336-41. PMID 17639093
122: Wammes-van der Heijden EA, Tijssen CC, Egberts AC. Right-to-left shunt and migraine: the strength of the relationship. Cephalalgia 2006;26(2):208-13. PMID 16426277
123: Wiegers SE, Sutton MG. Devices for percutaneous closure of a secundum atrial septal defect. In: UpToDate, Rose, BD (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2006.
124: Wilmshurst PT, Nightingale S, Walsh KP, Morrison WL. Effect on migraine of closure of cardiac right-to-left shunts to prevent recurrence of decompression illness or stroke or for haemodynamic reasons. Lancet 2000;356(9242):1648-51. PMID 11089825
125: Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation 2000;101(8):893-8. PMID 10694529
126: Windecker S, Wahl A, Nedeltchev K, et al. Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44(4):750-8. PMID 15312853
127: Wu LA, Malouf JF, Dearani JA, et al. Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: current understanding and management options. Arch Intern Med 2004;164(9):950-6. PMID 15136302
128: Yankovsky AE, Kuritzky A. Transformation into daily migraine with aura following transcutaneous atrial septal defect closure. Headache 2003;43(5):496-8. PMID 12752756
129: Zajarias A, Thanigaraj S, Lasala J, Perez J. Predictors and clinical outcomes of residual shunt in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. J Invasive Cardiol 2006;18(11):533-7. PMID 17090816

Contributors

All contributors' financial relationships have been reviewed and mitigated to ensure that this and every other article is free from commercial bias.

Authors

Shadi Yaghi MD

Dr. Yaghi of NYU Langone Brooklyn has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile
Maheen Rana MD

Dr. Rana of Alpert Medical School of Brown University had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile

Editor

Steven R Levine MD

Dr. Levine of the SUNY Health Science Center at Brooklyn has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile

Former Authors

Alison Thaler MD
Fransisca Indraswari MD
Manjunath Markandaya MD, Robert P Gatewood Jr MD, Catalina Ionita MD, Brian Mac Grory BAO BCh MB MRCP, Shadi Yaghi MD, Shawna Cutting MD, Fransisca Indraswari MD

Patient Profile

Age range of presentation: 0 month to 65+ years
Sex preponderance: male=female
Heredity: heredity may be a factor
Population groups selectively affected: none selectively affected
Occupation groups selectively affected: None selectively affected. However, it is unclear if musicians (trumpet players, etc.) who frequently perform the Valsalva maneuver and, thus, potentiate right-to-left shunts are at an increased risk for primary and recurrent paradoxical embolic events.

ICD & OMIM codes

ICD-10: Atrial septal defect: Q21.1

Congenital malformation of cardiac chambers and connections, unspecified: Q20.9
ICD-11: Patent oval foramen: LA8E.0

Other specified congenital anomaly of atrial septum: LA8E.Y

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.

Nearly 3,000 illustrations, including video clips of neurologic disorders.
Every article is reviewed by our esteemed Editorial Board for accuracy and currency.
Full spectrum of neurology in 1,200 comprehensive articles.
Listen to MedLink on the go with Audio versions of each article.

Questions or Comment?

MedLink®, LLC

3525 Del Mar Heights Rd, Ste 304
San Diego, CA 92130-2122

Toll Free (U.S. + Canada): 800-452-2400

US Number: +1-619-640-4660

Support: service@medlink.com

Editor: editor@medlink.com

ISSN: 2831-9125

Patent foramen ovale

Associated Disorders

Atrial myxoma
Atrial septal aneurysm
Atrial septal defect
Cryptogenic stroke
Embolic stroke
- Fat embolism
- Ischemic stroke
- Neurologic decompression illness
- Obstructive sleep apnea
- Papillary fibroelastoma
- Paradoxical embolism
- Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome
- Pulmonary embolism
- Pulmonary hypertension
- Right heart failure
- Thromboembolism
- Transient ischemic attack
- Tumor embolism
- Venous thrombosis

Differential Diagnosis

aortic arch thrombosis
atrial myxoma
atrial septal defects
atrial septal aneurysm with perforations
benign cardiac tumors
- ischemic stroke
- papillary fibroelastoma
- pulmonary arteriovenous malformations
- transient ischemic attack
- valvular strands

Also Relevant

Cardiovascular intervention: neurologic complications
Cardiovascular procedures: neurologic complications
Cerebral embolism
Cerebral gas embolism
Hypercoagulable states and cerebrovascular disease
- Ischemic stroke
- Migraine
- Pregnancy and stroke
- Stroke in young adults
- Stroke therapy
- Transient global amnesia

Patent foramen ovale

Introduction

Overview

Key points

Historical note and terminology

Clinical manifestations

Presentation and course

Prognosis and complications

Clinical vignette

Biological basis

Etiology and pathogenesis

Epidemiology

Prevention

Differential diagnosis

Diagnostic workup

Management

Primary stroke prevention in the setting of a patent foramen ovale

Secondary stroke prevention in the setting of a patent foramen ovale

Initial studies on patent foramen ovale closure

Patent foramen ovale closure trials

Special considerations

Current recommendations

Patent foramen ovale and migraine

Special considerations

Pregnancy

Anesthesia

Media

References

Contributors

Authors

Editor

Former Authors

Patient Profile

ICD & OMIM codes

This is an article preview. Start a Free Account to access the full version.

Questions or Comment?

Also in This Category

Acute cerebellar ataxia in children

Zika virus: neurologic complications

Cerebral edema in childhood

CNS germinoma

Vein of Galen malformations

Neuroimaging in acute stroke

Atrial myxoma

Anterior cerebral artery stroke syndromes

This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.