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
_version_ 1783394857422684160
author Köhrmann, Martin
Schellinger, Peter D.
Tsivgoulis, Georgios
Steiner, Thorsten
author_facet Köhrmann, Martin
Schellinger, Peter D.
Tsivgoulis, Georgios
Steiner, Thorsten
author_sort Köhrmann, Martin
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6372901
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Korean Stroke Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63729012019-02-25 Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed? Köhrmann, Martin Schellinger, Peter D. Tsivgoulis, Georgios Steiner, Thorsten J Stroke Review 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. Korean Stroke Society 2019-01 2019-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6372901/ /pubmed/30732440 http://dx.doi.org/10.5853/jos.2018.03097 Text en Copyright © 2019 Korean Stroke Society This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Köhrmann, Martin
Schellinger, Peter D.
Tsivgoulis, Georgios
Steiner, Thorsten
Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed?
title Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed?
title_full Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed?
title_fullStr Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed?
title_full_unstemmed Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed?
title_short Patent Foramen Ovale: Story Closed?
title_sort patent foramen ovale: story closed?
topic Review
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT kohrmannmartin patentforamenovalestoryclosed
AT schellingerpeterd patentforamenovalestoryclosed
AT tsivgoulisgeorgios patentforamenovalestoryclosed
AT steinerthorsten patentforamenovalestoryclosed

Ejemplares similares