PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention: is the discussion closed?

Joseph J. Shatzel, Molly M. Daughety, Vinay Prasad, Thomas Deloughery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Three previous reports of PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention failed to find any significant benefit. Recently however, three conflicting reports were published suggesting a benefit in select patients. Although we are enthusiastic for PFO closure in appropriate patients, caution is warranted in the extrapolation of this data and the application of this intervention to broader patient groups. Only small minorities of stroke patients are likely to benefit from PFO closure, the intervention has a notable complication rate, and it has not been compared against modern anticoagulation options. Clinicians should consider all of these points as discussions around PFO closure are likely to become more and more common going forward.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-3
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Feb 20 2018

Fingerprint

Secondary Prevention
Stroke

Keywords

  • Anticoagulation
  • PFO
  • PFO closure
  • Stroke

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention : is the discussion closed? / Shatzel, Joseph J.; Daughety, Molly M.; Prasad, Vinay; Deloughery, Thomas.

In: Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 20.02.2018, p. 1-3.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9a368acbb0a64a6184c7ad998331bc38,
title = "PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention: is the discussion closed?",
abstract = "Three previous reports of PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention failed to find any significant benefit. Recently however, three conflicting reports were published suggesting a benefit in select patients. Although we are enthusiastic for PFO closure in appropriate patients, caution is warranted in the extrapolation of this data and the application of this intervention to broader patient groups. Only small minorities of stroke patients are likely to benefit from PFO closure, the intervention has a notable complication rate, and it has not been compared against modern anticoagulation options. Clinicians should consider all of these points as discussions around PFO closure are likely to become more and more common going forward.",
keywords = "Anticoagulation, PFO, PFO closure, Stroke",
author = "Shatzel, {Joseph J.} and Daughety, {Molly M.} and Vinay Prasad and Thomas Deloughery",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1007/s11239-018-1633-2",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--3",
journal = "Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis",
issn = "0929-5305",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention

T2 - is the discussion closed?

AU - Shatzel, Joseph J.

AU - Daughety, Molly M.

AU - Prasad, Vinay

AU - Deloughery, Thomas

PY - 2018/2/20

Y1 - 2018/2/20

N2 - Three previous reports of PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention failed to find any significant benefit. Recently however, three conflicting reports were published suggesting a benefit in select patients. Although we are enthusiastic for PFO closure in appropriate patients, caution is warranted in the extrapolation of this data and the application of this intervention to broader patient groups. Only small minorities of stroke patients are likely to benefit from PFO closure, the intervention has a notable complication rate, and it has not been compared against modern anticoagulation options. Clinicians should consider all of these points as discussions around PFO closure are likely to become more and more common going forward.

AB - Three previous reports of PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention failed to find any significant benefit. Recently however, three conflicting reports were published suggesting a benefit in select patients. Although we are enthusiastic for PFO closure in appropriate patients, caution is warranted in the extrapolation of this data and the application of this intervention to broader patient groups. Only small minorities of stroke patients are likely to benefit from PFO closure, the intervention has a notable complication rate, and it has not been compared against modern anticoagulation options. Clinicians should consider all of these points as discussions around PFO closure are likely to become more and more common going forward.

KW - Anticoagulation

KW - PFO

KW - PFO closure

KW - Stroke

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042229204&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042229204&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11239-018-1633-2

DO - 10.1007/s11239-018-1633-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 29464458

AN - SCOPUS:85042229204

SP - 1

EP - 3

JO - Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

JF - Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

SN - 0929-5305

ER -