J Stroke Search

CLOSE


J Stroke > Volume 26(2); 2024 > Article
Lee, Kim, Song, Kwon, Kim, Lee, Sun, Woo, Ann, Suh, Kim, Lee, Lee, Heo, Jeong, Jang, Bae, Kim, Heo, and Kim: Device Closure or Antithrombotic Therapy After Cryptogenic Stroke in Elderly Patients With a High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale

Abstract

Background and Purpose

In young patients (aged 18-60 years) with patent foramen ovale (PFO)-associated stroke, percutaneous closure has been found to be useful for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, it remains unknown whether PFO closure is also beneficial in older patients.

Methods

Patients aged ≥60 years who had a cryptogenic stroke and PFO from ten hospitals in South Korea were included. The effect of PFO closure plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone was assessed by a propensity-score matching method in the overall cohort and in those with a high-risk PFO, characterized by the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm or a large shunt.

Results

Out of the 437 patients (mean age, 68.1), 303 (69%) had a high-risk PFO and 161 (37%) patients underwent PFO closure. Over a median follow-up of 3.9 years, recurrent ischemic stroke or TIA developed in 64 (14.6%) patients. In the propensity score-matched cohort of the overall patients (130 pairs), PFO closure was associated with a significantly lower risk of a composite of ischemic stroke or TIA (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-0.84; P=0.012), but not for ischemic stroke. In a subgroup analysis of confined to the high-risk PFO patients (116 pairs), PFO closure was associated with significantly lower risks of both the composite of ischemic stroke or TIA (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.21-0.77; P=0.006) and ischemic stroke (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23-0.95; P=0.035).

Conclusion

Elderly patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO have a high recurrence rate of ischemic stroke or TIA, which may be significantly reduced by device closure.

Introduction

Since the initial clinical reports of the high prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in young stroke patients (age <55 years) [1,2], the association between PFO and cryptogenic stroke has been a highly debated topic. Successful clinical introduction of percutaneous device closure of the PFO has further complicated the situation, and landmark randomized clinical trials have shown that PFO closure can effectively reduce the recurrence rate of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) [3-9]. Thus, current practice guidelines recommend antithrombotic therapy or device closure of the PFO for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with PFO-associated ischemic stroke [10-12]. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from all 6 landmark randomized clinical trials shows that among patients aged 18 to 60 years with PFO-associated stroke, a multivariable causal classification system (PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood [PASCAL] classification system) combining individual vascular risk factors and stroke pattern with high-risk anatomical features of PFO (e.g., atrial septal aneurysm, large-sized shunt), is useful in predicting the likelihood of risk reduction for recurrent ischemic stroke with device closure [13].
Despite these promising results, there is a lack of evidence on whether device closure is also helpful for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke in elderly (>60 years) patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke. This is because the current guidelines mention an age limit of <60 years in endorsing the use of device closure, which is based on a meta-analysis of case-control studies published in 2000 in which the benefits of device closure in stroke patients older than 55 years were relatively unclear [14]. As a result, most randomized controlled trials on this issue exclusively enrolled patients aged <60 years [3-8].
In contrast, one randomized clinical trial performed in South Korea did not employ any age limitation [9], which was possible because the Korean healthcare policy does not have an age limitation in the reimbursement of medical insurance fees for percutaneous device closure of PFO. As a result, institutions in South Korea have adopted an individualized heart-brain team approach to determine whether medical therapy alone or device closure is more suitable for patients with PFO. This approach has facilitated the collection of clinical data on older cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO who have undergone device closure. In this study, we evaluated whether percutaneous device closure of PFO was beneficial in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke in cryptogenic stroke patients aged over 60 years, with a particular focus on those who had a high-risk PFO.

Methods

Subjects

This is a multicenter, retrospective study. Ten South Korean stroke centers (Asan Medical Center, Severance Hospital, Chungnam National University Hospital, Kyung Hee University Hospital, Ulsan University Hospital, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Daejeon St. Mary’s Hospital, Hanyang University Medical Center, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, and Chungbuk National University Hospital) that are actively performing device closure of PFO participated in this study. The study included consecutive patients aged ≥60 years with cryptogenic ischemic stroke who were diagnosed with PFO through a standardized evaluation protocol including transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) who were admitted to the aforementioned centers between January 2008 and December 2020. Patients who had been involved in the multidisciplinary team [15] were carefully selected for this study. The decision to choose between PFO closure or medical therapy for an individual was made through consensus, which took into account the interpretation of neuro- and cardiac imaging, the possibility of other sources of cardiac embolism, the presence of comorbidities, assessment of PFO morphology, and the procedural risk of PFO closure at each participating center.
An ischemic stroke was defined as an acute focal neurologic deficit associated with evidence of relevant infarction on magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, regardless of the duration of the symptoms. The index stroke was regarded as cryptogenic after the exclusion of other identifiable mechanisms of stroke (e.g., large-artery disease, cardioembolic infarction, small-vessel disease, other determined etiologies such as arterial dissection or moyamoya disease) through a standardized evaluation conducted at each center. Large-artery disease was defined when there was relevant significant (≥50%) steno-occlusion in the intracranial or extracranial arteries evaluated by computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, or ultrasonography. Patients with significant atherothrombosis (plaque thickness of ≥4 mm) in the thoracic aorta were also considered in this category. Cardiac origin of embolism was considered when there was a cardiac condition with a high embolic risk, such as atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease (presence of a prosthetic valve or moderate-to-severe rheumatic mitral stenosis), acute myocardial infarction with a mural thrombus, endocarditis, or systolic heart failure with an ejection fraction of ≤40%. To rule out cardiac embolism, electrocardiography, Holter monitoring (24 hr or 72 hr), and transthoracic echocardiography were performed at the discretion of an attending physician. A stroke caused by small vessel disease was defined as a small (<1.5 cm in diameter) and deep (e.g., basal ganglia, thalamus, brainstem) infarction, without evidence of relevant large artery disease or cardiac embolism.
In these patients with cryptogenic stroke, TEE was performed in all cases to detect the PFO, and to assess the morphologic characteristics of the atrial septum and right-to-left shunting through the PFO with agitated saline while the patient was undergoing a Valsalva maneuver. High-risk PFOs were defined when there was an atrial septal aneurysm (i.e., protrusion of the dilated segment of the septum at least 10 mm beyond the level surface of the atrial septum) or a large shunt (>20 bubbles in the left atrium).

Treatment and study endpoints

All patients received antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation therapy chosen by the attending physicians at each participating center. Percutaneous device closure of PFO was considered through a shared decision-making process and closure was performed by experienced interventional cardiologists using contemporary devices, such as the Amplatzer PFO Occluder, Cocoon PFO Occluder, and Figulla Flex II PFO Occluder. After PFO closure, patients were generally recommended to take a dual antiplatelet regimen (aspirin 100 mg/day in combination with clopidogrel 75 mg/day) for at least 6 months; however, the attending physicians could choose to continue either antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation therapy after considering the risk-to-benefit ratio for each patient.
The clinical, laboratory, and outcome data, other than ischemic stroke or TIA, were determined by analyzing the medical records and through telephone contact by research coordinators. The occurrence of ischemic stroke or TIA was verified by neurologists at each center based on the clinical findings and relevant neuroimaging studies. TIA was defined as a neurological deficit lasting less than 24 hours regardless of imaging findings.
Although follow-up strategies varied from center to center, most of the patients regularly visited the outpatient clinic in the neurology departments. Patients who underwent PFO closure also visited the department of cardiology. Follow-up information was obtained from reviewing medical records. In patients who were not being followed at the participating centers (n=58), telephone contact was made in addition to the chart review. All the chart reviews and telephone contacts were conducted between December 2020 and April 2022. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke or TIA. Secondary outcomes included death; ischemic stroke; a composite of ischemic stroke, TIA, and systemic embolization; intracranial bleeding; major bleeding according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction definition [16]; and atrial fibrillation. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center (Approval No. 2019-0778) and each participating centers, with a waiver for the requirement of written informed consent.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics for continuous variables are presented as mean±standard deviation and were compared using Student’s t-test. Categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages and were tested using the Pearson chi-square or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Rates of outcomes were evaluated using incidence rates and presented as the number of cases per 100 person-years (PY). Unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the PFO closure group, compared with the medical therapy alone group, were estimated using Cox’s proportional hazards regression analyses. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Considering the differences in the characteristics of patients who received PFO closure and those who received medical therapy alone in registry data, propensity-score matching was used to select patients with similar baseline who might be equally suitable for the two treatment strategies. Propensity scores were estimated nonparametrically by fitting a logistic regression model using variables such as age, sex, body-mass index, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, chronic kidney disease, smoking status, prior stroke or TIA, migraine, prior deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism, history of cancer, superficial infarction, and presence of a high-risk PFO. Propensity score matching was performed using a 1:1 matching protocol without replacement (greedy-matching algorithm) and with a caliper width equal to 0.2 times the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. Standardized differences were estimated for the covariates before and after matching, and a significant improvement in baseline was achieved after matching (Supplementary Table 1). Cox proportional hazards regression model with robust standard errors that accounts for the clustering of the pairs was used to compare the risks of outcomes in the matched cohort. Considering the higher likelihood of a causal relationship between high-risk PFO features and paradoxical embolization, we also compared the relative treatment effect of PFO closure and medical therapy alone in patients with a high-risk PFO. A formal test of interaction was conducted to assess if there were differences in the effects of treatment modalities between different patient enrollment periods (<2016 vs. ≥2016 based on the median of index stroke year). To adjust for the potential impact of participating centers (Supplementary Table 2), we conducted a separate analysis in each matched cohort using the Cox proportional hazards regression model with a shared frailty factor.
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). All reported P values are two-sided, and those smaller than <0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 437 patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the current analysis; the mean age was 68.1±6.4 years, 262 (60%) were men, and 303 (69%) had a high-risk PFO. After the index stroke, 161 (37%) patients received PFO closure, and 276 (63%) patients underwent medical therapy alone. The baseline patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The PFO closure group and the medical therapy alone group did not have significant differences with regard to sex, body mass index, and key clinical factors such as diabetes, smoking status, prior stroke, history of venous thromboembolism, and history of cancer. However, compared with the medical therapy alone group, the PFO closure group was younger (69.2 vs. 66.2 years; P<0.001), had a higher Risk of Paradoxical Embolism score (3.8±1.2 vs. 4.2±1.2, P<0.001), a higher prevalence of migraine (1.4% vs. 5.6%; P=0.030), and high-risk features of PFO including atrial septal aneurysm (18.8% vs. 30.4%; P=0.008) and large-sized shunt (51.8% vs. 88.2%; P<0.001). Medications in each group during follow-up were summarized in the Supplementary Table 3.

Clinical outcomes

During a median clinical follow-up duration of 3.9 years (interquartile range 2.1-7.5 years), primary endpoint occurred in 64 (14.6%) patients. Ischemic stroke, TIA, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding occurred in 52 (11.9%), 16 (3.7%), 11 (2.5%), and 24 (5.5%) patients, respectively. The overall incidence rate of ischemic stroke or TIA was 3.98 cases per 100 PY in the medical therapy alone group and 2.24 cases per 100 PY in the PFO closure group. The incidence rate of ischemic stroke was 3.12 cases per 100 PY in the medical therapy alone group and 1.91 cases per 100 PY in the PFO closure group. The results of clinical outcomes are shown in Supplementary Table 4 and Supplementary Figure 1. The risk of ischemic stroke or TIA was significantly lower in the PFO closure group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.95; P=0.034). Of note, 10 patients who initially received medical therapy underwent PFO closure after stroke recurrence, and 2 patients who initially received PFO closure developed procedure-related strokes. The risks of intracranial (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.09-1.86; P=0.243) or major bleeding (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.25-1.58; P=0.319) were not significantly different between the two groups. The risks of death (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.04-0.81; P=0.025) and the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, TIA, or systemic embolization (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.31-0.99; P=0.046) were significantly lower in the PFO closure group, whereas the rate of atrial fibrillation was higher in the PFO closure group (HR 2.28; 95% CI 1.08-4.82; P=0.030). The difference in rates of ischemic stroke outcomes was especially prominent in patients with a high-risk PFO; the PFO closure group showed significantly lower risks of recurrent ischemic stroke (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18-0.75; P=0.006) and the composite outcome of ischemic stroke or TIA (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19-0.69; P=0.002).

Propensity score-matched analyses in the overall cohort and high-risk PFO cohort

After conducting propensity score matching to create a cohort of patients with clinical equipoise for medical therapy and PFO closure at baseline, there were 130 and 116 pairs in the overall and high-risk PFO populations, respectively. The baseline characteristics of each matched cohort are provided in Table 2. The adjusted HRs for between-group comparisons in each cohort are shown in Table 3. In the overall cohort, the 5-year rates of ischemic stroke or TIA rates in the medical therapy alone group and the PFO closure group were 21.6% and 12.7%, respectively, resulting in incidence rates of 4.25 cases per 100 PY and 2.10 cases per 100 PY. Although the incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke was not significantly different between the groups (HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.30-1.12; P=0.107), there was a significant difference between the groups in the risk of a composite outcome of ischemic stroke or TIA (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.24-0.84; P=0.012), favoring the PFO closure group (Figure 1). The risks of other secondary outcomes were comparable between the groups. In the analysis confined to the high-risk PFO population, the PFO closure group had significantly lower risks of a composite of ischemic stroke or TIA (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.21-0.77; P=0.006) and ischemic stroke (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.23-0.95; P=0.035) (Figure 2). No significant interaction effect was found between the relative effect of treatment modalities and different patient enrollment periods for each outcome (Supplementary Table 5). The results of the analysis adjusted for the participating center effect were largely consistent with the unadjusted results (Supplementary Table 6).

Atrial fibrillation

Regarding the device closure procedure, 14 serious nonfatal complications occurred in 13 patients, which included puncture site hematomas (n=4), pericardial effusion (n=3), stroke (n=2), pericarditis (n=2), transient atrial fibrillation (n=2), and deep vein thrombosis (n=1). There were 28 new cases (13 in the medical therapy alone group and 15 in the PFO closure group) of atrial fibrillation during follow-up (5-year event rate: medical therapy alone group, 4.5% [0.95 cases per 100 PY] vs. PFO closure group, 9.6% [2.45 cases per 100 PY], P=0.026); in the PFO closure group, atrial fibrillation was detected within 45 days after the procedure in 5 patients. In the matched analysis of the high-risk PFO population, the risk of atrial fibrillation tended to be higher in the PFO closure group, albeit without statistical significance (HR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.85-6.24; P=0.099).

Discussion

In this retrospective analysis of multicenter registry data, we found that the recurrence rate of ischemic stroke or TIA was as high as 14.6% in elderly patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO. Importantly, a propensity-score matched analysis showed that elderly cryptogenic stroke patients with a high-risk PFO (e.g., atrial septal aneurysm, large-sized shunt) may significantly benefit from undergoing percutaneous PFO device closure to prevent the recurrence of ischemic events. Although the benefit of PFO closure in older patients has not been confirmed through randomized clinical trials, our results may be useful in guiding shared and individualized decision-making for percutaneous device closure in this selected group of patients with cryptogenic stroke.
PFO remains open in approximately one-fourth of the general population, and its prevalence decreases gradually with increasing age, from 34% during the first three decades of life to 20% during the ninth decade [17]. Since the initial observational studies on the higher prevalence of PFO in patients with cryptogenic stroke, clinicians’ interest has mainly been focused on the potential association between PFO and the development of ischemic stroke development in relatively young patients as well as the additive beneficial effect of PFO closure to prevent ischemic stroke recurrence thereof, with only a small number of studies including older cryptogenic stroke patients. However, a landmark study that used TEE in all consecutive ischemic stroke patients to overcome the selection bias of previous studies found that the association between the presence of PFO and cryptogenic stroke was present in patients aged ≥55 years as well as those aged <55 years [18]. A population-based clinical study using the less invasive transcranial Doppler ultrasound also reported that the association between right-to-left shunt on transcranial Doppler ultrasound and cryptogenic events remained significant in older ages, resulting in the substantial population burden of PFO-associated events [19]. Thus, age restrictions on access to diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in older patients with cryptogenic TIA or stroke should not hinder the necessary further clinical investigation on older patients to develop appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic management strategies.
Age is the single most important risk factor for stroke and the rate of stroke increases by 2-fold for every decade after the age of 55 [20-22]. Age is also a strong predictor of stroke recurrence. In an analysis of a pooled dataset from 11 stroke registries, older age groups (60-80 years, >80 years) had significantly higher risks compared with the younger age group (<60 years) for recurrent ischemic stroke or TIA (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.21-2.98; HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.57-4.70, respectively) [23]. Age is also an important prognostic factor after cryptogenic stroke or TIA in patients with PFO who are receiving medical treatment alone: in a pooled analysis of 4 studies, increased risk of ischemic stroke recurrence with PFO was only evident in those aged 65 years or older (odds ratio 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.2, P=0.001) [24]. Accordingly, in our study patients (mean age: 68.1 years), the overall incidence of ischemic stroke recurrence was 3.12 cases per 100 PY in the medical therapy alone group, which was higher than the incidence rates of 1.26 cases per 100 PY reported in randomized trials including young stroke patients (mean age, 46.5 years) or 2.37 cases per PY in observational cohorts with a mean age of 51.8 years [24]. Meanwhile, our incidence rate is comparable to that (3.27 cases per 100 PY) reported in large randomized clinical trials that included patients with a mean age over 60 years [25,26]. Considering that cases of PFO-associated stroke are common in older individuals, the clinical significance of conducting investigations to assess the potential benefits of PFO closure should not be underestimated or ignored.
Recently, a new classification called PASCAL was developed to integrate the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism score with two simple anatomical features of a high-risk PFO (PFO with atrial septal aneurysm and PFO with a large shunt [>20 bubbles in the left atrium]) [27]. This system categorizes individuals based on the probability that the stroke was causally related to the PFO, allowing for a clearer distinction between patients who would benefit from device closure and those without, as shown in an analysis of pooled individual patient data from 6 randomized clinical trials [13]. In this study, we used the same criteria for high-risk PFO suggested in the PASACAL classification system and found that PFO closure was significantly beneficial in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke in elderly cryptogenic stroke patients with a high-risk PFO. On the other hand, the association between PFO closure and the development of atrial fibrillation may require more attention in elderly patients. Randomized trials that mostly enrolled patients aged ≤60 years suggested an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation after PFO closure; indeed, a pooled analysis of those trials reported that the rate of atrial fibrillation was 5.0% with device closure over a median follow-up of 57 months, which was significantly higher than 1.1% in those without device closure [13]. Because the atrial substrate for tachyarrhythmia progresses with age, the risk of atrial fibrillation triggered by the procedure or implanted device could be higher in older patients. In our study, the 5-year rate of atrial fibrillation was 9.6% in the PFO closure group, which was higher than that in the medical therapy group despite the younger age and relatively lower prevalence of risk factors. The observed incidence rate (2.45 cases per 100 PY) of our study was similar to that of a recent descriptive report by Alperi et al. [28], which included 388 elderly (>60 years) patients who underwent PFO closure (2.66 cases per 100 PY). To date, the incidence, pattern, and impact of atrial fibrillation after PFO closure in this population are largely unknown. The ongoing Defense-Elderly study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04285918) could provide valuable insights into this topic. Yet, considering the result of the ultimate endpoint of both PFO treatment and atrial fibrillation in our study, our findings suggest that instead of ruling out the use of device closure in elderly patients with cryptogenic stroke, the choice of treatment should be made through shared decision-making to effectively weigh the advantages and disadvantages of PFO closure in preventing secondary stroke, particularly in individuals with a high-risk PFO.
Several limitations should be recognized when interpreting the study results. First, despite careful patient selection and rigorous statistical adjustment, the treatment strategy in our registry was not randomized, which may introduce selection bias. Neurologists assessing the endpoints were not blinded to the management of PFO, which also limits the value of the comparison. Therefore, overall findings should be regarded as explorative and hypothesis-generating. Second, since the study included patients who actively participated in the multidisciplinary decision-making process, it was inevitable that the matched cohort predominantly consisted of high-risk PFO patients. Accordingly, comparing outcomes between treatments was not possible for patients with non-high-risk PFO; thus, our data only offer limited information about this population. Third, although our findings are in line with a previous subgroup analysis of a clinical trial that did not impose age restrictions for patient enrollment [29], there are some safety considerations regarding device closure that may diminish its potential benefits, including the increased background risk of stroke due to other causes and the potentially higher procedural risk in the elderly population [30]. In addition, as prolonged cardiac monitoring using an implantable loop recorder was not performed in our current study, there is a possibility of undiagnosed paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, which has a higher prevalence in the elderly population. However, since there is no solid evidence from randomized clinical trials supporting that the use of a loop recorder in reducing the rate of stroke recurrence [31], we believe that this would not have significantly affected our main findings.

Conclusions

Elderly patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO had a high recurrence rate of ischemic stroke or TIA, and device closure was associated with a significant risk reduction in the risk of recurrent events, particularly in those with a high-risk PFO. Limiting the use of device closure should be reconsidered, and individualized decision-making for percutaneous device closure is necessary for this specific group of patients with cryptogenic stroke.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2023.03265.
Supplementary Table 1.
Standardized differences of clinically relevant variables between the treatment groups before and after propensity-score matching
jos-2023-03265-Supplementary-Table-1,2.pdf
Supplementary Table 2.
Patient numbers who underwent PFO device closure and antithrombotic medical treatment only at each participating center
jos-2023-03265-Supplementary-Table-1,2.pdf
Supplementary Table 3.
Medications in each group during follow-up
jos-2023-03265-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf
Supplementary Table 4.
Crude analysis of clinical outcomes in the overall and high-risk PFO population
jos-2023-03265-Supplementary-Table-4.pdf
Supplementary Table 5.
Interaction effects between treatment modalities and different patient enroll periods in the overall and high-risk PFO population
jos-2023-03265-Supplementary-Table-5,6.pdf
Supplementary Table 6.
Hazard ratios adjusted for the participating center effect in the propensity-score matched cohorts
jos-2023-03265-Supplementary-Table-5,6.pdf
Supplementary Figure 1.
Cumulative incidence of clinical outcomes. (A) Stroke or TIA. (B) Ischemic stroke. (C) Major bleeding. (D) Atrial fibrillation. TIA, transient ischemic attack; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.
jos-2023-03265-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Notes

Funding statement
This research was supported in part by a grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project through the Korean Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI19C0481, HC21C0139).
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.
Author contribution
Conceptualization: PHL, JSK (Jung-Sun Kim), JKS, SUK, JSK (Jong S. Kim). Study design: PHL, JSK (Jung-Sun Kim), JKS. Methodology: PHL, JSK (Jung-Sun Kim), SUK, BJK, JSL, JSK (Jong S. Kim). Data collection: PHL, JSK (Jung-Sun Kim), JKS, SHK, BJK, BJS, JSW, SHA, JWS, JYK, KL, SYL, RH, SJ, JYJ, JHB, YDK, SHH, JSK (Jong S. Kim). Investigation: PHL, JSK (Jung-Sun Kim), JKS, SHK, BJK, BJS, JSW, SHA, JWS, JYK, KL, SYL, RH, SJ, JYJ, JHB, YDK, SHH, JSK (Jong S Kim). Statistical analysis: PHL, JSL. Writing—original draft: PHL, JKS. Writing—review & editing: PHL, JSK (Jung-Sun Kim), JKS, JSK (Jong S Kim). Funding acquisition: JKS, SUK. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank the research coordinators at each participating centers for their help in collecting and ensuring the accuracy and completeness of clinical data.

Figure 1.
Recurrent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in the propensity-score matched overall cohort. PFO, patent foramen ovale; HR, hazard ratio.
jos-2023-03265f1.jpg
Figure 2.
Recurrent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in the propensity-score matched high-risk patent foramen ovale (PFO) cohort. HR, hazard ratio.
jos-2023-03265f2.jpg
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the overall patients
Medical therapy alone (n=276) PFO closure (n=161) P
Age (yr) 69.2±6.7 66.2±5.2 <0.001
Male sex 164 (59.4) 98 (60.9) 0.766
Body mass index (kg/m2) 23.8±3.1 24.0±2.6 0.472
Medical history
 Hypertension 170 (61.6) 84 (52.2) 0.068
 Diabetes 69 (25.0) 30 (18.6) 0.157
 Current smoker 56 (20.3) 25 (15.5) 0.268
 Hyperlipidemia 89 (32.2) 44 (27.3) 0.281
 Chronic kidney disease* 12 (4.3) 3 (1.9) 0.270
 Prior stroke 61 (22.1) 39 (24.2) 0.610
 Prior transient ischemic attack 19 (6.9) 7 (4.3) 0.280
 Prior DVT or PTE 9 (3.3) 1 (0.6) 0.147
 Migraine 4 (1.4) 9 (5.6) 0.030
 History of cancer 31 (11.2) 22 (13.7) 0.549
Qualifying event 0.584
 Vertebrobasilar territory 95 (34.4) 49 (30.4)
 Multiple territories 60 (21.7) 33 (20.5)
Cortical infarction 158 (57.2) 109 (67.7) 0.031
PFO morphology
 Atrial septal aneurysm 52 (18.8) 49 (30.4) 0.008
 Large sized shunt 143 (51.8) 142 (88.2) <0.001
RoPE score 3.8±1.2 4.2±1.2 <0.001
Antithrombotic therapy at 30 days after stroke
 Antiplatelet alone 231 (83.7) 146 (90.7) 0.057
 Anticoagulant alone 28 (10.1) 10 (6.2) 0.218
 Both 11 (4.0) 5 (3.1) 0.835
 None 6 (2.2) 0 0.145
Data are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).
PFO, patent foramen ovale; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PTE, pulmonary thromboembolism; RoPE, Risk of Paradoxical Embolism.
* Defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2;
P-value by Pearson chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, Student’s t-test, or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel shift test, as appropriate.
Table 2.
Baseline characteristics of the propensity-matched cohorts
Overall cohort
High-risk PFO cohort
Medical therapy alone (n=130) PFO closure (n=130) P Medical therapy alone (n=116) PFO closure (n=116) P
Age (yr) 66.7±5.2 67.1±5.3 0.536 66.6±4.9 66.9±5.2 0.481
Male sex 89 (68.5) 85 (65.4) 0.572 78 (67.2) 75 (64.7) 0.648
Body mass index (kg/m2) 23.9±2.9 24.0±2.6 0.810 23.8±2.7 23.8±2.4 0.960
Medical history
 Hypertension 76 (58.5) 78 (60.0) 0.789 65 (56.0) 68 (58.6) 0.675
 Diabetes 25 (19.2) 25 (19.2) >0.999 24 (20.7) 24 (20.7) >0.999
 Current smoker 25 (19.2) 23 (17.7) 0.715 23 (19.8) 22 (19.0) 0.847
 Hyperlipidemia 41 (31.5) 38 (29.2) 0.668 36 (31.0) 34 (29.3) 0.758
 Chronic kidney disease* 6 (4.6) 3 (2.3) 0.273 6 (5.2) 3 (2.6) 0.273
 Prior stroke 29 (22.3) 31 (23.8) 0.758 24 (20.7) 26 (22.4) 0.746
 Prior transient ischemic attack 7 (5.4) 6 (4.6) 0.782 5 (4.3) 5 (4.3) >0.999
 Prior DVT or PTE 3 (2.3) 1 (0.8) 0.341 3 (2.6) 1 (0.9) 0.341
 Migraine 4 (3.1) 5 (3.8) 0.706 3 (2.6) 4 (3.4) 0.657
 History of cancer 18 (13.8) 13 (10.0) 0.321 14 (12.1) 10 (8.6) 0.396
Cortical infarction 87 (66.9) 88 (67.7) 0.893 80 (69.0) 81 (69.8) 0.886
High-risk PFO morphology 116 (89.2) 116 (89.2) >0.999 NA NA NA
Data are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).
PFO, patent foramen ovale; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; PTE, pulmonary thromboembolism; NA, not applicable.
* Defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2;
P-value by conditional logistic regression.
Table 3.
Propensity-score matching analysis for clinical outcomes in the overall cohort and the high-risk PFO cohort
Overall cohort
Medical therapy alone (n=130)
PFO closure (n=130)
HR (95% CI) P
N (%)* Incidence rate (100 PY, 95% CI) N (%)* Incidence rate (100 PY, 95% CI)
Primary outcome
 Ischemic stroke or TIA 30 (23.1) 4.25 (2.77-6.53) 12 (9.2) 2.10 (1.05-4.19) 0.45 (0.24-0.84) 0.012
Secondary outcomes
 Death 8 (6.2) 1.17 (0.60-2.30) 2 (1.5) 0.38 (0.09-1.53) 0.40 (0.09-1.89) 0.247
 Ischemic stroke 12 (16.9) 3.38 (2.17-5.26) 11 (8.5) 2.19 (1.17-4.11) 0.58 (0.30-1.12) 0.107
 Vascular death 1 (0.8) 0.15 (0.02-1.02) 1 (0.8) 0.19 (0.03-1.37) 1.27 (0.11-15.04) 0.850
 Ischemic stroke, TIA, or systemic embolization 31 (23.8) 4.48 (2.96-6.79) 13 (10.0) 2.31 (1.19-4.46) 0.47 (0.26-0.87) 0.017
 Intracranial bleeding 5 (3.8) 0.67 (0.25-1.77) 2 (1.5) 0.29 (0.05-1.81) 0.46 (0.12-1.77) 0.258
 Major bleeding 10 (7.7) 1.50 (0.79-2.82) 6 (4.6) 1.13 (0.50-2.56) 0.72 (0.27-1.90) 0.505
 Atrial fibrillation 7 (5.4) 1.12 (0.55-2.28) 12 (9.2) 2.52 (1.40-4.54) 1.97 (0.76-5.09) 0.162
High-risk PFO cohort
Medical therapy alone (n=116)
PFO closure (n=116)
HR (95% CI) P
N (%)* Incidence rate (100 PY, 95% CI) N (%)* Incidence rate (100 PY, 95% CI)
Primary outcome
 Ischemic stroke or TIA 28 (24.1) 4.41 (2.80-6.95) 10 (8.6) 1.92 (0.90-4.12) 0.40 (0.21-0.77) 0.006
Secondary outcomes
 Death 6 (5.2) 0.98 (0.45-2.12) 2 (1.7) 0.42 (0.10-1.69) 0.55 (0.11-2.72) 0.461
 Ischemic stroke 22 (19.0) 3.81 (2.45-5.94) 9 (7.8) 1.99 (0.99-3.99) 0.47 (0.23-0.95) 0.035
 Vascular death 0 - 1 (0.9) - NE NE
 Ischemic stroke, TIA, or systemic embolization 29 (25.0) 4.66 (3.00-7.24) 11 (9.5) 2.15 (1.04-4.43) 0.42 (0.22-0.81) 0.009
 Intracranial bleeding 4 (3.4) 0.58 (0.21-1.56) 1 (0.9) 0.09 (0.00-9.51) 0.29 (0.05-1.59) 0.154
 Major bleeding 9 (7.8) 1.51 (0.77-2.94) 4 (3.4) 0.80 (0.29-2.25) 0.51 (0.17-1.54) 0.235
 Atrial fibrillation 6 (5.2) 1.08 (0.50-2.31) 12 (10.3) 2.82 (1.55-5.10) 2.31 (0.85-6.24) 0.099
PFO, patent foramen ovale; PY, person-years; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; TIA, transient ischemic attack; NE, non-estimable.
* Data are presented as crude number and event rates;
Hazard ratios are for the PFO closure group as compared with the medical therapy alone group. Cox proportional hazard model with robust standard errors to account for clustering in matched pairs.

References

1. Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, Loron P, Theard M, Klimczac M, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1148-1152.
crossref pmid
2. Webster MW, Chancellor AM, Smith HJ, Swift DL, Sharpe DN, Bass NM, et al. Patent foramen ovale in young stroke patients. Lancet 1988;2:11-12.
crossref pmid
3. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, Smalling RW, Berry S, MacDonald LA, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1092-1100.
crossref pmid
4. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, Mauri L, Adams H, Albers GW, et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012;366:991-999.
crossref pmid
5. Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Guillon B, Massardier E, Hosseini H, Mechtouff L, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1011-1021.
pmid
6. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, Khattab AA, Hildick-Smith D, Dudek D, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1083-1091.
crossref pmid
7. Saver JL, Carroll JD, Thaler DE, Smalling RW, MacDonald LA, Marks DS, et al. Long-term outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy after stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1022-1032.
crossref pmid
8. Søndergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF, Andersen G, Iversen HK, Nielsen-Kudsk JE, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1033-1042.
crossref pmid
9. Lee PH, Song JK, Kim JS, Heo R, Lee S, Kim DH, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and high-risk patent foramen ovale: the DEFENSE-PFO trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:2335-2342.
pmid
10. Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, Cockroft KM, Gutierrez J, Lombardi-Hill D, et al. 2021 guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2021;52:e364-e467.
pmid
11. Messé SR, Gronseth GS, Kent DM, Kizer JR, Homma S, Rosterman L, et al. Practice advisory update summary: patent foramen ovale and secondary stroke prevention: report of the guideline subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2020;94:876-885.
crossref pmid pmc
12. Pristipino C, Sievert H, D’Ascenzo F, Louis Mas J, Meier B, Scacciatella P, et al. European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. General approach and left circulation thromboembolism. Eur Heart J 2019;40:3182-3195.
crossref pmid
13. Kent DM, Saver JL, Kasner SE, Nelson J, Carroll JD, Chatellier G, et al. Heterogeneity of treatment effects in an analysis of pooled individual patient data from randomized trials of device closure of patent foramen ovale after stroke. JAMA 2021;326:2277-2286.
pmid pmc
14. Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology 2000;55:1172-1179.
crossref pmid
15. Kim JS, Thijs V, Yudi M, Toyoda K, Shiozawa M, Zening J, et al. Establishment of the heart and brain team for patent foramen ovale closure in stroke patients: an expert opinion. J Stroke 2022;24:345-351.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
16. Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, Gibson CM, Caixeta A, Eikelboom J, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the bleeding academic research consortium. Circulation 2011;123:2736-2747.
crossref pmid
17. Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD. Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clin Proc 1984;59:17-20.
crossref pmid
18. Handke M, Harloff A, Olschewski M, Hetzel A, Geibel A. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke in older patients. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2262-2268.
crossref pmid
19. Mazzucco S, Li L, Binney L, Rothwell PM; Oxford Vascular Study Phenotyped Cohort. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic transient ischaemic attack and non-disabling stroke at older ages: a population-based study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:609-617.
crossref pmid pmc
20. Brown RD, Whisnant JP, Sicks JD, O’Fallon WM, Wiebers DO. Stroke incidence, prevalence, and survival: secular trends in Rochester, Minnesota, through 1989. Stroke 1996;27:373-380.
pmid
21. Marinigh R, Lip GY, Fiotti N, Giansante C, Lane DA. Age as a risk factor for stroke in atrial fibrillation patients: implications for thromboprophylaxis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:827-837.
pmid
22. Wolf PA, D’Agostino RB, O’Neal MA, Sytkowski P, Kase CS, Belanger AJ, et al. Secular trends in stroke incidence and mortality. The Framingham study. Stroke 1992;23:1551-1555.
crossref pmid
23. Ntaios G, Lip GYH, Vemmos K, Koroboki E, Manios E, Vemmou A, et al. Age- and sex-specific analysis of patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Neurology 2017;89:532-539.
crossref pmid pmc
24. Mazzucco S, Li L, Rothwell PM. Prognosis of cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale at older ages and implications for trials: a population-based study and systematic review. JAMA Neurol 2020;77:1279-1287.
crossref pmid pmc
25. Diener HC, Sacco RL, Easton JD, Granger CB, Bernstein RA, Uchiyama S, et al. Dabigatran for prevention of stroke after embolic stroke of undetermined source. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1906-1917.
pmid
26. Kasner SE, Swaminathan B, Lavados P, Sharma M, Muir K, Veltkamp R, et al. Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:1053-1060.
pmid pmc
27. Elgendy AY, Saver JL, Amin Z, Boudoulas KD, Carroll JD, Elgendy IY, et al. Proposal for updated nomenclature and classification of potential causative mechanism in patent foramen ovale-associated stroke. JAMA Neurol 2020;77:878-886.
crossref pmid
28. Alperi A, Guedeney P, Horlick E, Nombela-Franco L, Freixa X, Pascual I, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in older patients with cryptogenic thromboembolic events. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2022;15:e011652.
crossref pmid
29. Kwon H, Lee PH, Song JK, Kwon SU, Kang DW, Kim JS. Patent foramen ovale closure in old stroke patients: a subgroup analysis of the DEFENSE-PFO trial. J Stroke 2021;23:289-292.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
30. Merkler AE, Gialdini G, Yaghi S, Okin PM, Iadecola C, Navi BB, et al. Safety outcomes after percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2017;48:3073-3077.
crossref pmid pmc
31. Tsivgoulis G, Triantafyllou S, Palaiodimou L, Grory BM, Deftereos S, Köhrmann M, et al. Prolonged cardiac monitoring and stroke recurrence: a meta-analysis. Neurology 2022;98:e1942-e1952.
pmid


ABOUT JoS
AUTHOR INFORMATION
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
Editorial Office
Department of Neurology, Asan Medical Center,Ulsan University College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Submission, status and progress, etc ⟫ E-mail: editor@j-stroke.org
Website and system ⟫ E-mail: journal@m2community.co.kr
Publishing company ⟫ E-mail: ka72sus@smileml.com
Developed in M2PI
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Stroke Society.
Close layer
prev next