Article citationsMore>>

Furie, K.L., Kasner, S.E., Adams, R.J., Albers, G.W., Bush, R.L., Fagan, S.C., Halperin, J.L., Johnston, S.C., Katzan, I., Kernan, W.N., Mitchell, P.H., Ovbiagele, B., Palesch, Y.Y., Sacco, R.L., Schwamm, L.H., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Turan, T.N. and Wentworth, D. (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, 227-276.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0b013e3181f7d043

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure versus Medical Therapy in Cryptogenic Stroke: An Update Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

  AUTHORS: Xiaohui Luo, Dandan Yan, Hui Shao, Yajuan Du

  KEYWORDS: Patent Foramen Ovale, Transcatheter Closure, Medical Therapy, Cryptogenic Stroke, Meta-Analysis

  JOURNAL NAME: World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, Vol.8 No.8, August 15, 2018

  ABSTRACT: Objectives: Concerns regarding the real efficacy of transcatheter patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke remained unresolved. We performed a meta-analysis using the randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of transcatheter PFO closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Methods: Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was recurrent stroke and transient-ischemic attack (TIA). Original data, hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were abstracted to calculate a pooled effect size. Results: Our meta-analysis showed benefit with device closure when compared with medical therapy with an HR of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.39 - 0.74, P = 0.108) in the intention-to-treat cohort, 0.44 (95% CI: 0.24 - 0.82, P = 0.103) in the per-protocol populations, and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.31 - 0.60, P = 0.019) in the as-treated populations. There was a significantly higher incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation in PFO closure patients (OR = 4.53, 95% CI: 2.58 - 7.97, P = 0.094). PFO Patients with an atrial septal aneurysm benefit from device closure (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.22 - 0.69, P = 0.053). Patients with a substantial PFO shunt benefit the greatest with device closure with a pooled OR of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.14 - 0.56, P = 0.525). Conclusions: The meta-analysis concluded that PFO closure was associated with significantly lower risk of recurrent stroke in PFO patients with cryptogenic stroke than with medical therapy alone. The benefit of PFO closure was greater in patients with a substantial shunt and atrial septal aneurysm. PFO closure was associated with higher rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation.