Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed?

The optimal treatment strategy for secondary prevention in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been a matter of controversy for decades. After three randomized trials failed to show a benefit of closure with an excess of complications in the interventional arm, two la...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Köhrmann, Martin, Schellinger, Peter D., Tsivgoulis, Georgios, Steiner, Thorsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Stroke Society 2019
Materias:
Review
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6372901/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30732440
http://dx.doi.org/10.5853/jos.2018.03097
Descripción
Sumario:The optimal treatment strategy for secondary prevention in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been a matter of controversy for decades. After three randomized trials failed to show a benefit of closure with an excess of complications in the interventional arm, two large recent trials suggest a benefit with regard of preventing further ischemic strokes. With this discrepancy in results it is important to discuss recent trials in detail and evolve an informed clinical approach for daily practice.

Ejemplares similares