Literature Review

Updated AAN advisory outlines when PFO closure may be option for patients with stroke


 

FROM NEUROLOGY

Calls for thorough work-up

“If an alternative plausible higher-risk mechanism of stroke is identified, it is likely that the PFO was an innocent bystander,” the authors said. “Secondary stroke prevention is optimized by targeting the most likely etiology of the preceding event. ... The randomized PFO closure trials all mandated thorough evaluations for participants before enrollment ... to rule out other stroke mechanisms; moreover, all studies required TEE [transesophageal echocardiography] to characterize the PFO and ensure that it was the most likely etiology for the initial event.”

In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should obtain brain imaging to confirm stroke size and distribution (level B); obtain vascular imaging of the cervical and intracranial vessels to look for dissection, vasculopathy, and atherosclerosis (level B); and perform hypercoagulable studies (level B), according to the advisory. Clinicians must perform a baseline ECG to look for atrial fibrillation (level A), and patients thought to be at risk of atrial fibrillation should receive prolonged cardiac monitoring for at least 28 days (level B).

Before PFO closure, a clinician with expertise in stroke should assess the patient to ensure that the PFO is the most plausible mechanism of stroke (level B). “If a higher-risk alternative mechanism of stroke is identified, clinicians should not routinely recommend PFO closure (level B),” the authors said. Patients also should be assessed by a clinician with expertise in assessing the anatomic features of a PFO and performing PFO closure (level B).

The randomized trials focused on patients whose PFOs were closed within 6 months of a stroke, and registry studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes, noted Dr. Messé and colleagues. “It remains unclear whether closure provides a similar benefit in these patients who otherwise still fit the studies’ inclusion criteria,” the authors said. “Long-term and large-scale safety registries for patients who have received PFO closure are needed to assess the risk of device erosion, fracture, embolization, and thrombotic and endocarditis risks, and the effect of residual shunts and incidence of atrial fibrillation.”

About 25% of the general adult population has a PFO. “It’s important to note that having a PFO is common, and that most people with PFO will never know they have it because it usually does not cause any problems,” Dr. Messé said. “However, while there is generally a very low risk of stroke in patients with PFO, in younger people who have had a stroke without any other possible causes identified, closing the PFO may reduce the risk of having another stroke better than medication alone.”

The practice advisory was developed with financial support from the AAN. Dr. Messé and most of the authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Several authors disclosed ties to medical device and pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Messé SR et al. Neurology. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009443.

Pages

Recommended Reading

ICH survival lags in the community setting
MDedge Neurology
Intracranial artery stenting shows promising 1-year results
MDedge Neurology
Renal denervation shown safe and effective in pivotal trial
MDedge Neurology
Cardiovascular disease is implicated in link between air pollution and dementia
MDedge Neurology
National Watchman registry reports impressive procedural safety
MDedge Neurology
COVID-19: Are acute stroke patients avoiding emergency care?
MDedge Neurology
Predictors of ICH after thrombectomy identified
MDedge Neurology
FOURIER: Evolocumab follow-up shows no cognitive adverse effects
MDedge Neurology
Statins and ICH: new meta-analysis
MDedge Neurology
Silent brain infarcts found in 3% of AFib patients, tied to cognitive decline
MDedge Neurology