Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:57:42.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recurrent Stroke/TIA in Cryptogenic Stroke Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Leanne Casaubon ,
Peter McLaughlin ,
Gary Webb ,
Erik Yeo ,
Darren Merker  and
Cheryl Jaigobin
Leanne Casaubon
Affiliation:
University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Peter McLaughlin
Affiliation:
University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Gary Webb
Affiliation:
University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Erik Yeo
Affiliation:
University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Darren Merker
Affiliation:
University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Cheryl Jaigobin
Affiliation:
University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is present in 40% of patients with cryptogenic stroke and may be associated with paradoxical emboli to the brain. Therapeutic options include antiplatelet agents, anticoagulation, percutaneous device and surgical closure. We assessed the hypothesis that there are differences in rates of recurrent TIA or stroke between patients in the four treatment groups.

Methods:

Patients presenting from January 1997 with cryptogenic stroke or TIA and PFO were followed prospectively until June 2003. Treatment choice was made on an individual case basis. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, TIA, and vascular death.

Results:

Baseline. Our cohort consisted of 121 patients; 64 (53%) were men. Median age was 43 years. Sixty-nine percent presented with stroke and 31% with TIA. One or more vascular risk factor was present in 40%. Atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) was present in 24%. Treatment consisted of antiplatelet agents (34%), anticoagulation (17%), device (39%) and surgical closure (11%). Follow-up. Recurrent events occurred in 16 patients (9 antiplatelet, 3 anticoagulation, 4 device closure); 7 were strokes, 9 were TIA. Comparing individual treatments there was a trend toward more strokes in the antiplatelet arm (p=0.072); a significant difference was seen for the composite endpoint (p=0.012). Comparing closure versus combined medical therapy groups, a significant difference was seen for primary (p=0.014) and secondary (p=0.008) outcomes, favoring closure. Age and pre-study event predicted outcome.

Conclusion:

Patent foramen ovale closure was associated with fewer recurrent events. Complications of surgical and device closure were self-limited.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ: Contexte:

Parmi les patients qui présentent un accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) cryptogénique, 40% sont porteurs d'un foramen ovale perméable (FOP) qui peut être à l'origine d'une embolie paradoxale au cerveau. Les différentes options thérapeutiques sont : les antiplaquettaires, les anticoagulants, un dispositif percutané et la fermeture chirurgicale. Notre hypothèse était que le taux de récidive de l'accident ischémique transitoire (AIT) ou de l'AVC est différent selon que le patient reçoit l'un ou l'autre de ces traitements.

Méthodes:

Il s'agit d'une étude prospective de tous les patients porteurs d'un FOP ayant subi un AVC ou un AIT cryptogénique depuis janvier 1997 et qui ont été suivis jusqu'en juin 2003. Le choix du traitement était individualisé. Le critère d'évaluation principal était la récidive d'AVC. Le critère d'évaluation secondaire était composé de l'AVC, de l'AIT et du décès d'origine vasculaire.

Résultats:

Notre cohorte était constituée de 121 patients dont 64 étaient des hommes (53%). L'âge médian était de 43 ans. Soixante-neuf pour cent ont consulté pour un AVC et 31% pour un AIT. Quarante pour cent avaient un ou plusieurs facteurs de risque vasculaires et 24% avaient un anévrisme septal auriculaire. Trente-quatre pour cent ont reçu des antiplaquettaires, 17% ont été anticoagulés, 39% ont reçu un dispositif percutané et 11% ont subi une occlusion chirurgicale. Au cours du suivi, 16 patients ont subi une récidive, soit un AVC chez 7 et un AIT chez 9. Neuf de ces patients étaient sous antiplaquettaires, 3 patients étaient anticoagulés et 4 patients avaient reçu un dispositif percutané. En comparant les quatre traitements, on note une tendance à observer plus d'AVC sous traitement antiplaquettaire (p = 0,072); la différence était significative pour le critère d'évaluation composé (p = 0,012). La différence entre la fermeture et les traitements médicaux était significative tant en ce qui concerne le critère d'évaluation principal (p = 0,014) que le critère d'évaluation secondaire (p = 0,008), en faveur de la fermeture. L'âge et l'événement précédant l'étude prédisait l'issue.

Conclusion:

Moins de récidives ont été observées chez les patients qui ont subi une occlusion du FOP. Les complications de la chirurgie et de l'implantation d'un dispositif percutané étaient autolimitées.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 74 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2007

References

1. 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;59:17–20.Google Scholar
2. Lechat, PH, Mas, JL, Lascault, G, Loran, P, Theard, M, Klimczac, M, et al. Prevalence of patient foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1148–52.Google Scholar
3. Lethen, H, Flachskampf, FA, Schneider, R, Sliwka, U, Kohn, G, Noth, J, et al. Frequency of deep vein thrombosis in patients with patent foramen ovale and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:1066–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. De Castro, S, Cartoni, D, Fiorelli, M, Rasura, M, Anzini, A, Zanette, EM, et al. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke. 2000;31:2407–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Hanna, JP, Sun, JP, Furlan, AJ, Stewart, WJ, Sila, CA, Tan, M. Patent foramen ovale and brain infarct: echocardiographic predictors, recurrence, and prevention. Stroke. 1994;25:782–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Steiner, MM, Di Tullio, MR, Rundek, T, Gan, R, Chen, X, Liguori, C, et al. Patent foramen ovale size and embolic brain imaging findings among patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke. 1998;29:944–8.Google Scholar
7. Stone, DA, Godard, J, Corretti, MC, Kittner, SJ, Sample, C, Price, TR, et al. Patent foramen ovale: association between the degree of shunting by contrast transesophageal echocardiography and the risk of future ischemic neurologic events. Am Heart J. 1996;131:158–61.Google Scholar
8. Berthet, K, Lavergne, T, Cohen, A, Guize, L, Bousser, M-G, Le Heuzey, J-Y, et al. Significant association of atrial vulnerability with atrial septal abnormalities in young patients with ischemic stroke of unknown cause. Stroke. 2000;31:398–403.Google Scholar
9. Homma, S, Sacco, RL, Di Tullio, MR, Sciacca, RR, Mohr, JP, for the PFO in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS) Investigators. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke study. Circulation. 2002;105:2625–31.Google Scholar
10. 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;135:532–41.Google Scholar
11. Ende, DJ, Chopra, PS, Rao, PS. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect or patent foramen ovale with the buttoned device for prevention of recurrence of paradoxical embolism. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:233–6.Google Scholar
12. Guffi, M, Bogousslavsky, J, Jeanrenaud, X, Devuyst, G, Sadeghi, H. Surgical prophylaxis of recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale: a pilot study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;112:260–3.Google Scholar
13. Ruchat, P, Bogousslavsky, J, Hurni, M, Fischer, AP, Jeanrenaud, X, von Segesser, LK. Systematic surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in selected patients with cerebrovascular events due to paradoxical embolism. Early results of a preliminary study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997;11:824–7.Google Scholar
14. Windecker, S, Wahl, A, Chatterjee, T, Garachemani, A, Eberli, FR, Seiler, C, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation. 2000;101:893–8.Google Scholar
15. Harrer, JU, Wessels, T, Franke, A, Lucas, S, Berlit, P, Klotzsch, C. Stroke recurrence and its prevention in patients with patent foramen ovale. Can J Neurol Sci. 2006;33:39–47.Google Scholar
16. Windecker, S, Wahl, A, Nedeltchev, K, Arnold, M, Schwerzmann, M, Seiler, C, 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):750–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Wahl, A, Meier, B, Haxel, B, Nedeltchev, K, Arnold, M, Eicher, E, et al. Prognosis after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical embolism. Neurology. 2001;57:1330–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Braun, MU, Fassbender, D, Schoen, SP, Haass, M, Schraeder, R, Scholtz, W, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cerebral ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(12):2019–25.Google Scholar
19. Bruch, L, Parsi, A, Grad, MO, Rux, S, Burmeister, T, Krebs, H, et al. Transcatheter closure of interatrial communications for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism: single-center experience. Circulation. 2002;105(24):2845–8.Google Scholar
20. Bogousslavsky, J, Garazi, S, Jeanrenaud, X, Aebischer, N, Van Melle, G, for the Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxical Embolism Study Group. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: The Lausanne Study. Neurology. 1996;46(5):1301–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Cabanes, L, Mas, JL, Cohen, A, Amarenco, P, Cabanes, PA, Oubary, P, 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.Google Scholar
22. Mas, JL, Zuber, M. Recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack. French Study Group on Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Aneurysm. Am Heart J. 1995;130:1083–8.Google Scholar
23. Mas, JL, Arquizan, C, Lamy, C, Zuber, M, Cabanes, L, Derumeaux, G, et al. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm or both. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1740–6.Google Scholar
24. Nedeltchev, K, Arnold, M, Wahl, A, Sturzenegger, M, Vella, EE, Windecker, S, et al. Outcome of patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72:347–50.Google Scholar
25. Overell, JR, Bone, I, Lees, KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology. 2000;55(8):1172–9.Google Scholar
26. Adams, HP Jr, Bendixen, B, Kappelle, LJ, Biller, K, Love, BB, Gordon, DL, et al. Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke: definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. Stroke. 1993;24(1):35–41.Google Scholar
27. Gladstone, D, Kapral, MK, Fang, J, Laupacis, A, Tu, JV. Management and outcomes of transient ischemic attacks in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J. 2004;170(7):1099–104.Google Scholar
28. Mattioli, AV, Aquilina, M, Oldani, A, Longhini, C, Mattioli, G. Atrial septal aneurysm as a cardioembolic source in adult patients with stroke and normal carotid arteries. Eur Heart J. 2001;22:261–8.Google Scholar
29. Rodriguez, CJ, Homma, S. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Curr Treatment Options in Cardiovasc Med. 2003;5:233–40.Google Scholar
30. Messe, SR, Silverman, ID, Kizer, JR, Homma, S, Zahn, C, Gronseth, G, et al. 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. 2004;62:1042–50.Google Scholar