Cargando…

Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in stroke prevention. METHODS: We searched Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane central database for randomized control trials assessing the incidence of recurrent stroke after patent fora...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agasthi, Pradyumna, Kolla, Kantha Ratnam, Yerasi, Charan, Tullah, Sibghat, Pulivarthi, Venkata Siva, Louka, Boshra, Arsanjani, Reza, Yang, Eric H, Mookadam, Farouk, Fortuin, F David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365999/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30783525
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119828261
_version_ 1783393520500867072
author Agasthi, Pradyumna
Kolla, Kantha Ratnam
Yerasi, Charan
Tullah, Sibghat
Pulivarthi, Venkata Siva
Louka, Boshra
Arsanjani, Reza
Yang, Eric H
Mookadam, Farouk
Fortuin, F David
author_facet Agasthi, Pradyumna
Kolla, Kantha Ratnam
Yerasi, Charan
Tullah, Sibghat
Pulivarthi, Venkata Siva
Louka, Boshra
Arsanjani, Reza
Yang, Eric H
Mookadam, Farouk
Fortuin, F David
author_sort Agasthi, Pradyumna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in stroke prevention. METHODS: We searched Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane central database for randomized control trials assessing the incidence of recurrent stroke after patent foramen ovale closure when compared to medical therapy. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model. The heterogeneity among studies was tested using the χ(2) test and inconsistency was quantified using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 71 articles. We included five studies with a total of 3440 patients. Median age in the device group was 45 (43, 5.5) years and in the medical group was 45 (44.5, 46) years; 52% were male, 27.7% of patients had an atrial septal aneurysm, 25% had hypertension, and 20.5% had diabetes mellitus. The median follow-up time was 44 (34.5–50) months. The pooled odds ratio of recurrent stroke, transient ischemic attack and composite end point of stroke + transient ischemic attack + peripheral embolism in the patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy group were 0.4 (95% confidence interval 0.25–0.63, I(2) = 57.5%), 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.61–1.42, I(2) = 0%), and 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.44–0.82, I(2) = 0%), respectively. The incidence of atrial fibrillation was found to be significantly higher in the patent foramen ovale closure group with odds ratio of 6 (95% confidence interval 3.13–11.4, I(2) = 33.5%). On subgroup analysis, patent foramen ovale closure appeared to benefit males and patients with a large shunt. Number needed to treat to prevent one recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale closure is 42. Number needed to harm to cause one atrial fibrillation with patent foramen ovale closure is 39. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of randomized trials concludes that percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure is effective in recurrent stroke prevention especially in males and in those with a large shunt.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6365999
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63659992019-02-19 Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials Agasthi, Pradyumna Kolla, Kantha Ratnam Yerasi, Charan Tullah, Sibghat Pulivarthi, Venkata Siva Louka, Boshra Arsanjani, Reza Yang, Eric H Mookadam, Farouk Fortuin, F David SAGE Open Med Original Article BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in stroke prevention. METHODS: We searched Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane central database for randomized control trials assessing the incidence of recurrent stroke after patent foramen ovale closure when compared to medical therapy. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random effects model. The heterogeneity among studies was tested using the χ(2) test and inconsistency was quantified using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 71 articles. We included five studies with a total of 3440 patients. Median age in the device group was 45 (43, 5.5) years and in the medical group was 45 (44.5, 46) years; 52% were male, 27.7% of patients had an atrial septal aneurysm, 25% had hypertension, and 20.5% had diabetes mellitus. The median follow-up time was 44 (34.5–50) months. The pooled odds ratio of recurrent stroke, transient ischemic attack and composite end point of stroke + transient ischemic attack + peripheral embolism in the patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy group were 0.4 (95% confidence interval 0.25–0.63, I(2) = 57.5%), 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.61–1.42, I(2) = 0%), and 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.44–0.82, I(2) = 0%), respectively. The incidence of atrial fibrillation was found to be significantly higher in the patent foramen ovale closure group with odds ratio of 6 (95% confidence interval 3.13–11.4, I(2) = 33.5%). On subgroup analysis, patent foramen ovale closure appeared to benefit males and patients with a large shunt. Number needed to treat to prevent one recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale closure is 42. Number needed to harm to cause one atrial fibrillation with patent foramen ovale closure is 39. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of randomized trials concludes that percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure is effective in recurrent stroke prevention especially in males and in those with a large shunt. SAGE Publications 2019-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6365999/ /pubmed/30783525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119828261 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Article
Agasthi, Pradyumna
Kolla, Kantha Ratnam
Yerasi, Charan
Tullah, Sibghat
Pulivarthi, Venkata Siva
Louka, Boshra
Arsanjani, Reza
Yang, Eric H
Mookadam, Farouk
Fortuin, F David
Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
title Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_full Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_fullStr Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_full_unstemmed Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_short Are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
title_sort are we there yet with patent foramen ovale closure for secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke? a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365999/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30783525
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119828261
work_keys_str_mv AT agasthipradyumna arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT kollakantharatnam arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT yerasicharan arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT tullahsibghat arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT pulivarthivenkatasiva arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT loukaboshra arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT arsanjanireza arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT yangerich arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT mookadamfarouk arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials
AT fortuinfdavid arewethereyetwithpatentforamenovaleclosureforsecondarypreventionincryptogenicstrokeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedtrials