Address for reprints: Michael Becker, M.D., Medical Clinic I, University RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52057 Aachen, Germany. Fax: +49-241-8082303; e-mail: [email protected]

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Objective: To identify differences between various occluder types regarding thromboembolic event rates and existence of residual shunts during medium-term follow-up.

Methods: Three hundred nine consecutive patients with presumed paradoxical embolism and scheduled for percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect between 1997 and 2006 were considered for this study. Device implantation failed in seven patients (nonstable device position), so 302 patients (46 ± 12 years, 190 males) formed the study group using Amplatzer™ (n = 208), Starflex™ (n = 61), and Cardiastar™ (n = 33) occluders. Follow-up transesophageal echocardiography was performed 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation.

Results: Periinterventional complications occurred in two patients (cardiac arrhythmias). There were more residual shunts in the Starflex™ and Cardiastar™ group than in the Amplatzer™ group at 6-month follow-up (8/61 vs. 7/33 vs. 8/208, P = 0.0005). Performing logistic regression, the type of occluder device was a significant risk factor for the presence of residual shunt 6 months after implantation (P = 0.0033; Cardiastar™ vs. Amplatzer™ OR 6.346, 95% CI 1.998 – 20.156; Starflex™ vs. Amplatzer™ OR 4.369, 95% CI 1.444 – 13.222). During mean follow-up of 31 ± 8 months 16 recurrent thromboembolic events occurred; the annual recurrence was 2.1% for combined end-point stroke, TIA, and peripheral embolism (Amplatzer™: 1.3%, Starflex™: 3.9%, and Cardiastar™: 3.6%, P = 0.0467). The presence of an atrial septal aneurysm was the only significant risk factor (P = 0.0168, OR 3.664, 95% CI 1.263 – 10.630) for the occurrence of thromboembolic events.

Conclusions: Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect is a safe procedure with little incidence of peri- and postprocedural complications. There is a significant difference between the Amplatzer™, Cardiastar™, and Starflex™ occluders in regard to complete closure of the defects and annual recurrence of thromboembolic events.

References

1 Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988; 318(18): 1148–1152.
10.1056/NEJM198805053181802
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR, et al. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: A meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology 2000; 55(8): 1172–1179.
10.1212/WNL.55.8.1172
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Knauth M, Ries S, Pohimann S, et al. Cohort study of multiple brain lesions in sport divers: Role of a patent foramen ovale. BMJ 1997; 314: 701–705.
10.1136/bmj.314.7082.701
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Gill EA, Jr. Definitions and pathophysiology of the patent foramen ovale: Broad overview. Cardiol Clin 2005; 23: 1–6.
10.1016/j.ccl.2004.10.001
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Lethen H, Flachskampf FA, Schneider R, et al. Frequency of deep vein thrombosis in patients with patent foramen ovale and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80(8): 1066–1069.
10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00604-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Hanna JP, Sun JP, Furlan AJ, et al. Patent foramen ovale and brain infarct. Echocardiographic predictors, recurrence, and prevention. Stroke 1994; 25(4): 782–786.
10.1161/01.STR.25.4.782
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Comess KA, DeRook FA, Beach KW, et al. Transesophageal echocardiography and carotid ultrasound in patients with cerebral ischemia: Prevalence of findings and recurrent stroke risk. J Am Cardiol 1994; 23(7): 1598–1603.
10.1016/0735-1097(94)90662-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, et al. G. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: The Lausanne Study. Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxal Embolism Study Group. Neurology 1996; 46; 1301–1305.
10.1212/WNL.46.5.1301
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Stone DA, Godard J, Corretti MC, et al. Patent foramen ovale: Association between the degree of shunt by contrast transesophageal echocardiography and the risk of future ischemic neurologic events. Am Heart J 1996; 131(1): 158–161.
10.1016/S0002-8703(96)90065-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Mügge A, Daniel WG, Angermann C, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm in adult patients. A multicenter study using transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation 1995; 93(2): 398.
Google Scholar
11 Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, et al. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1740–1746.
10.1056/NEJMoa011503
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Chatterjee T, Petzsch M, Ince H, et al. Interventional closure with Amplatzer PFO occluder of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical cerebral embolism. J Interv Cardiol 2005; 18(3): 173–179.
10.1111/j.1540-8183.2005.04050.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
13 Bridges ND, Hellenbrand W, Latson L, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical embolism. Circulation 1992; 86: 1902–1908.
10.1161/01.CIR.86.6.1902
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: Long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation 2000; 101(8): 893–898.
10.1161/01.CIR.101.8.893
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Hung J, Landzberg MJ, Jenkins KJ, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical emboli: Intermediate-term risk of recurrent neurological events following transcatheter device placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35(5): 1311–1316.
10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00514-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Bruch L, Parsi A, Grad M, et al. Transcatheter closure of interatrial communications for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism. Circulation 2002; 105: 2845–2848.
10.1161/01.CIR.0000019069.32964.0E
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Slavin L, Tobis J, Rangarajan K, et al. Five-year experience with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale. Am J Cardiol 2007; 99: 1316–1320.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.12.054
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Sharafuddin MJ, Gu X, Titus JL, et al. Transvenous closure of secundum atrial septal defects: Preliminary results with a new self-expanding nitinol prosthesis in a swine model. Circulation 1997; 95: 2162–2168.
10.1161/01.CIR.95.8.2162
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Martin F, Sanchez PL, Doherty E, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation 2002; 106: 1121–1126.
10.1161/01.CIR.0000027819.19722.EE
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Petty GW, Khandheria BK, Chu CP, et al. Patent foramen ovale in patients with cerebral infarction. A transesophageal echocardiographic study. Arch Neurol 1997; 54(7): 819–822.
10.1001/archneur.1997.00550190013008
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Cabanes L, Mas JL, Cohen A, et al. Atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale as risk factors for cryptogenic stroke in patients less than 55 years of age. A study using transesophageal echocardiography. Stroke 1993; 24(12): 1865–1873.
10.1161/01.STR.24.12.1865
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Mohr JP, Thompson JL, Lazar RM, et al. A comparison of warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1444–1451.
10.1056/NEJMoa011258
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, et al. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke 1997; 28(12): 2376–2381.
10.1161/01.STR.28.12.2376
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Dearani JA, Ugurlu BS, Danielson GK, et al. Surgical patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of paradoxical embolism-related cerebrovascular ischemic events. Circulation 1999; 100: 171–175.
10.1161/01.CIR.100.suppl_2.II-171
PubMed Google Scholar
25 Ruchat P, Bogousslavsky J, Hurni M, et al. Systematic surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in selected patients with cerebrovascular events due to paradoxical embolism. Early results of a preliminary study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1997; 11: 824–827.
10.1016/S1010-7940(97)01175-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al. Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45(3): 377–380.
10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.043
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Wahl A, Meier B, Haxel B, et al. Prognosis after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical embolism. Neurology 2001; 57(7): 1330–1332.
10.1212/WNL.57.7.1330
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Sievert H, Horvath K, Zadan E, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure in patients with transient ischemia attack/stroke. J Interv Cardiol 2001; 14: 261–266.
10.1111/j.1540-8183.2001.tb00745.x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
29 Onorato E, Melzi G, Casilli F, et al. Patent foramen ovale with paradoxical embolism: Mid-term results of transcatheter closure in 256 patients. J Interv Cardiol 2003; 16: 43–50.
10.1046/j.1540-8183.2003.08002.x
PubMed Google Scholar
30 Schwerzmann M, Windecker S, Wahl A, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: Impact of device design on safety and efficacy. Heart 2004; 90: 186–190.
10.1136/hrt.2002.003111
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Braun M, Gliech V, Boscheri A, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism. Peri-procedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems. Eur Heart J 2004; 25: 424–430.
10.1016/j.ehj.2003.10.021
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Beitzke A, Schuchlenz H, Beitzke M, et al. Interventional occlusion of foramen ovale and atrial septal defects after paradoxical embolism incidents. Z. Kardiol. 2002; 91: 693–700.
10.1007/s00392-002-0835-x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 Krumsdorf U, Ostermayer S, Billinger K, et al. Incidence and clinical course of thrombus formation on atrial septal defect and patient foramen ovale closure devices in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 302–309.
10.1016/j.jacc.2003.10.030
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

Impact of Occluder Device Type on Success of Percutaneous Closure of Atrial Septal Defects–A Medium-Term Follow-up Study

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Impact of Occluder Device Type on Success of Percutaneous Closure of Atrial Septal Defects–A Medium-Term Follow-up Study

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information