Open AccessDual‐center experiences with interventional closure of patent foramen ovale: A medium‐term follow‐up study comparing two patient groups aged under and over 60 years
Author(s) -
Nachoski Dejan,
Schroeder Joerg,
Almalla Mohammad,
Kubini Ralf,
Tchaikovski Vadim,
Kosinski Christoph,
Becker Michael,
Aljalloud Ali
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
clinical cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.263
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1932-8737
pISSN - 0160-9289
DOI - 10.1002/clc.23548
Subject(s) - medicine , patent foramen ovale , closure (psychology) , term (time) , center (category theory) , dual (grammatical number) , surgery , pediatrics , percutaneous , market economy , art , chemistry , physics , literature , quantum mechanics , economics , crystallography
Background Current guidelines recommend interventional closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke who are under 60 years of age. Hypothesis The hypothesis of this study was to compare follow‐up results of PFO closure in patients over 60 years of age to those of patients under 60 years of age in order to determine whether the procedure is safe and effective for both age groups. Methods We included 293 patients who had a cryptogenic ischemic stroke and a PFO confirmed by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and who were scheduled for percutaneous closure of the PFO between 2014 and 2019. The device implantation was completed in all patients using an Amplatzer™, Occlutec™, or Cardia Ultrasept PFO occluder. Results Follow‐up TEE examinations were performed at intervals of 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation. Patients were followed for a median of 3.6 ± 1.2 years. Recurrent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, cardiac death, arrhythmias, and residual shunt were reported equally in both groups. Conclusions Interventional closure of PFO can be as safe and effective in patients over 60 years of age as it is in patients under 60 years of age regardless of the device used. In this older patient group, rigorous discussion and a case‐by‐case decision‐making process including cardiologists and neurologists is warranted to ensure optimal procedure selection.