Asian-Pacific Expert Opinion on Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Review of New Evidence and Focused Update

Article information

J Stroke. 2025;27(3):329-337

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 September 29

doi : https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2025.02908

, Hans Cristoph Diener ², Ting-Ting Low ³, Bert Albers ⁴, Vijay Kumar Sharma ⁵, Bum Joon Kim ⁶

¹Department of Neurology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, Gangneung, Korea

²Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IMIBE), Faculty of Medicine, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

³National University Heart Centre, Singapore and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore

⁴Albers Clinical Evidence Consultancy, Winterswijk Woold, The Netherlands

⁵Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and Division of Neurology, National University Hospital, Singapore

⁶Department of Neurology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Jong S. Kim Department of Neurology, Gangneung Asan Hospital, 36 Bangdong-gil, Gangneung 25440, Korea Tel: +82-2-8702-3440 E-mail: jongskim@amc.seoul.kr

Received 2025 June 26; Revised 2025 August 20; Accepted 2025 September 3.

Abstract

In 2020, clinical experts from leading Asian-Pacific cardiology and neurology centers published an expert opinion and consensus statement on transcatheter patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure for patients in the Asian-Pacific region. Given recent evidence and new insights, an update of this expert opinion is necessary on certain topics. This focused update reviews evidence on PFO closure in elderly and migraine patients, along with the use of contrast transcranial Doppler ultrasound as a screening tool. This update reflects the consensus reached by Asian-Pacific clinical experts during the Asia-Pacific Heart-Brain Summit (October 3, 2024, Bangkok, Thailand).

Keywords: Stroke; Patent foramen ovale; Closure

Introduction

Transcatheter closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an established secondary stroke prevention therapy for patients with an embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). The safety and clinical benefits of this approach have been demonstrated in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [1-4]. Patients who experience the greatest benefit are those with a high likelihood of the PFO playing a causal role in the stroke etiology, as shown in a meta-analysis of individual patient data [5]. As outlined by the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) Classification System [5], these include patients with high-risk PFO features, such as a large right-to-left shunt (RLS) and an atrial septal aneurysm (ASA). While mounting evidence supports PFO closure in predominantly Caucasian populations, limited data exist for Asian-Pacific cohorts. Consequently, in 2020, a group of Asian-Pacific clinical experts published an expert opinion and consensus statement for the region [6]. This same group also addressed the need to establish a Heart and Brain Team for managing stroke patients with PFO [7].

Several factors justify the need for updated expert opinions and guidance on PFO closure specifically for the Asia-Pacific region. Although no clear differences in PFO morphology or prevalence between Asians and Caucasians have been identified, it is likely that variations exist in individual physiological characteristics and healthcare delivery systems. For instance, elderly Asian patients may be more prone to hemorrhagic complications and, thus, less likely to benefit from anti-thrombotics compared to other ethnicities [8]. Consequently, PFO closure may offer greater benefits for older Asian patients with PFO-related stroke, who otherwise would require life-long anti-thrombotic therapy. Since the publication of the 2020 Asian-Pacific expert opinion, new evidence has emerged, offering further guidance on several important topics. Recent findings from elderly ESUS cohorts [9-18] support the role of PFO closure in elderly patients, two of which came from an Asian country [17,18]. This calls for a reassessment of PFO closure in patients over 60 years, who were excluded from most RCTs [1-3] that provided the initial evidence for PFO closure.

Additionally, contrast transcranial Doppler ultrasound (cTCD), if appropriately performed, may be a cost-effective tool in Asian countries with limited medical resources. Finally, while PFO closure has shown favorable and reproducible outcomes in ESUS, its role in treating intractable migraine remains debated [19-21]. Given the interest shown by some physicians during the symposium, we believe a discussion on PFO closure in migraine patients is warranted.

Methods

This focused update of the expert opinion on PFO closure for the Asia-Pacific region was developed by a group of clinical experts from the region, including neurologists and cardiologists experienced in stroke treatment and catheter-based cardiac interventions. The objective of this update was to review recently published evidence on specific topics related to PFO closure, including its role in elderly and migraine patients, as well as the appropriate use of cTCD as a screening tool for ESUS patients. The evidence was reviewed and discussed during the Asia-Pacific Heart-Brain Summit (October 3, 2024, Bangkok, Thailand). Clinical experts from Japan, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, India, and South Korea (see Acknowledgments) attended the meeting and contributed to the discussions that led to the expert opinions presented in this manuscript. A voting system was used to determine the prevailing opinions among the experts. A writing group (see authors’ list) was formed, consisting of the experts attending the meeting and involved in the discussions. This group was tasked with preparing a manuscript that reflects the leading opinions derived from the meeting.

PFO closure in patients aged 60 years or older

Evidence for PFO closure in ESUS patients primarily comes from RCTs that enrolled patients younger than 60 years of age. As a result, evidence-based guidelines offer limited guidance on PFO closure in patients aged 60 years or older [22]. While the European Stroke Organization (ESO) [23] guidelines do not provide a specific recommendation for PFO closure in patients over 60, they include a consensus statement advocating for the inclusion of older adults in RCTs, or at least in registries.

The rationale for considering PFO closure in patients older than 60 is supported by several clinical observations. Evidence shows an age-related increase in the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a PFO who have had a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) of unknown cause [24]. This may be partly due to a higher prevalence of PFO characteristics that increase the risk of paradoxical embolism, such as a large PFO-mediated RLS and the presence of an ASA, in elderly compared to younger patients [9,10]. Additionally, advanced age is associated with a higher risk of venous thromboembolism [25,26] and changes in the structure and function of the right ventricle [27], both of which may elevate the risk of paradoxical embolism [11].

Recent non-randomized studies further support the consideration of PFO closure in patients over 60 years of age (Supplementary Material 1). These studies report similar rates of procedural complications in elderly and younger patients, including device-related adverse events and paroxysmal episodes of periprocedural atrial fibrillation (AF) [9,10,13,14,16]. Some studies found a higher incidence of new-onset AF at follow-up in elderly compared to younger patients [9,14], which may reflect increased atrial vulnerability in older individuals. However, like younger patients, many new-onset AF episodes occurred within the first month after the procedure [12]. Additionally, older adults have a higher risk of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-related complications [28].

From non-age-restricted cohorts undergoing PFO closure, favorable long-term outcomes have been reported in patients over 60 [9,10,12,14,16]. While some studies observed a higher incidence of thromboembolic events in older adults, the rates were lower than those predicted by their Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score [9,10]. A higher mortality in older patients was mainly attributed to age itself [14] with deaths typically non-cardiovascular [10,12]. Studies comparing treatments in elderly populations showed that PFO closure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of recurrent stroke and/or TIA compared to medical therapy [13,15,17]. In a post hoc analysis of the Device Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke Patients With High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale (DEFENSE-PFO) randomized controlled trial, the additional benefit of PFO closure over medical therapy was greater in patients over 60 than in younger patients [18].

The RoPE score is a validated tool used to assess the likelihood of paradoxical embolism as a potential stroke cause [29], with a higher score indicating a stronger causal role of the PFO in stroke etiology. However, it may be less suitable for considering PFO closure in older adults. Due to the increased likelihood of other stroke risk factors in elderly individuals, advanced age typically results in a lower RoPE score. Additionally, the RoPE score does not factor in high-risk anatomic PFO features, which are more common in older patients [9,10] and are associated with a greater benefit of PFO closure over medical therapy [6,17]. The PASCAL Classification System incorporates both the RoPE score and high-risk anatomic features [5]. While older adults with a stroke of undetermined source may not be considered for PFO closure based on their RoPE score alone, the PASCAL Classification System may identify them as potential candidates due to high-risk PFO features. A Japanese prospective multicenter study, including 500 patients undergoing PFO closure (30% >60 years of age), further supports this [30]. While 57.5% of patients had a RoPE score <7, 85.5% had at least one high-risk PFO feature, and 92.1% had a “Probable” or “Possible” PASCAL classification.

Guidelines and consensus documents [31-34] recommend excluding subclinical AF before PFO closure. The prevalence of AF in Asia-Pacific countries ranges from 0.5%–5.4%, with an increased prevalence of 4.6%–8.2% in individuals over 70 [35]. These rates are generally lower than those in many Western countries. However, the true incidence of AF may only be detected through continuous monitoring using an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM). Studies of ESUS populations with varying monitoring durations report ICM-detected AF rates of 12% to 41% [36-41]. Given their older age and higher likelihood of AF risk factors, patients over 60 should be considered for intensive monitoring (e.g., long-term ICM monitoring) to exclude AF [33]. Older patients with minimal AF risk may undergo less intensive monitoring. Risk scores predicting AF likelihood in ESUS patients [36,40,42] may be useful for selecting high-risk patients for long-term ICM monitoring.

An expert opinion regarding PFO closure in older adults is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Expert opinion: PFO closure in elderly patients

cTCD screening

cTCD with agitated saline (bubble contrast) is a noninvasive diagnostic procedure used to detect an RLS [43]. Meta-analyses have shown that cTCD has high sensitivity (91%–97%) for detecting an intracardiac shunt when compared with TEE [44,45]. cTCD is also more sensitive than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in detecting PFO-mediated RLS [45]. However, cTCD does not reveal the anatomic location of the RLS. It provides a positive result for any shunt from venous to arterial circulation, including intracardiac septal defects and pulmonary arteriovenous malformations. Therefore, cTCD may have slightly lower specificity for detecting a PFO compared to direct imaging of the left atrium [45].

The methodology of cTCD for detecting an RLS is well-documented in the literature [46]. In brief, a low-frequency pulsed Doppler probe (2.0 MHz) is secured to the scalp, typically using a commercially available headframe. The ultrasound probe is aimed at obtaining Doppler spectra from the middle cerebral artery through an appropriate temporal acoustic window. An agitated saline solution (typically 9 mL saline mixed with 1 mL air and a few drops of the patient’s blood [46]) is injected via a large-bore cannula, preferably placed in one of the antecubital veins. The solution is vigorously shaken through a tri-way connector. The addition of blood significantly increases the number of microbubbles, enhancing the contrast mixture’s effectiveness [47]. Approximately 4–6 seconds after injection of the saline-air mixture, the patient is instructed to perform a strong Valsalva maneuver, which reduces observed flow velocities. Continuous TCD monitoring is then conducted for 22 seconds, and the number of microbubbles is counted. In the case of an RLS, microbubbles will travel from the venous to the arterial circulation. Detection of a microbubble in the intracranial artery produces a distinct micro-embolic signal (MES), characterized by an audible high-intensity transient signal (HITS) and visualized on the TCD screen (Figure 1). A grading system based on the number of MES is used to determine the functional grade of RLS (Supplementary Material 2). Since RLS is position-dependent, it is recommended to perform cTCD evaluation twice: once in the supine position and once sitting upright [48].

Figure 1.

Right-to-left shunt (RLS) grading on transcranial Doppler (TCD). (A) Low-grade RLS. White arrows represent the high-intensity transient signals (HITS) observed during the so-called TCD-bubble test. A total of 24 HITS were recorded during the test, suggestive of Spencer’s grade 2 RLS. (B) High-grade RLS, where about 200 HITS were recorded, suggestive of Spencer’s grade 4 RLS.

In a study of 572 patients using cTCD to screen all patients with ischemic stroke or TIA, cTCD was feasible in 91% of the patients [49]. Reasons for failure included unsuitability for contrast injection due to pregnancy, patient intolerance, lack of a suitable temporal bone window, and cannulation issues. An RLS was found in 37% of patients with a cryptogenic event and 23% of patients with a known cause.

cTCD offers several advantages over TTE or TEE. It is relatively inexpensive, easy to perform as a bedside procedure, non-invasive, well-tolerated by patients, and has a low-risk profile. It is also easier for patients to perform a Valsalva maneuver during cTCD than during TEE. Therefore, cTCD is an ideal first-line screening tool in the setting of ESUS. If an RLS is revealed in a patient diagnosed with ESUS, TEE is recommended to confirm the presence of a PFO and its role in the RLS. Given its high sensitivity, cTCD should also be considered for detecting residual shunts after PFO closure [34].

An expert opinion regarding the use of cTCD in patients diagnosed with ESUS is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Expert opinion: cTCD in the setting of ESUS

Migraine and PFO closure

Although not fully explained, the PFO is suggested to play a role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Proposed mechanisms include the passage of micro-emboli, metabolites, and vasoactive substances through the PFO, as well as transient hypoxemia causing microinfarcts in the brain [50]. Nevertheless, the association between migraine and PFO appears to be variable and has been questioned by previous studies [21]. Given the mixed outcomes from studies on this topic, the debate regarding migraine as an exclusive indication for PFO closure remains unresolved.

Recent meta-analyses [50,51] on the effect of PFO closure for migraine symptoms provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence. RCTs showed that PFO closure was associated with a significant reduction in the number of migraine attacks. However, complete resolution of migraine was only observed in observational studies, not RCTs. These findings provide insufficient support for PFO closure as a standalone treatment for migraine [21], though reducing migraine symptoms may be an additional benefit of PFO closure. This view is supported by recent reviews [19,20], emphasizing the need for further RCTs. Instead, monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway, as recommended by guidelines, offer another effective pharmacological alternative [52,53].

An expert opinion on PFO closure for migraine is provided in Table 3.

Table 3.

Expert opinion: PFO closure for treatment of migraine

Discussion

Since the publication of the Asian-Pacific expert opinion on PFO closure in 2020, new clinical evidence has provided further guidance on several topics addressed in the expert opinion. These include growing support for considering PFO closure in selected patients over 60 years of age. Additionally, the need for further support in using cTCD as a screening tool to identify potential candidates for PFO closure has been emphasized. This method may be particularly beneficial in Asian-Pacific healthcare settings, aligning with current practices.

While the safety and efficacy of PFO closure in ESUS have been demonstrated in patients under 60, particularly those with high-risk PFO features [5], there are opportunities for broader indications and further optimization of the therapy. This expert opinion encourages physicians to consider PFO closure in ESUS patients older than 60 with high-risk PFO features, guided by the PASCAL Classification System [5] and clinical judgment in an individualized approach. Evidence supports the idea that, in addition to younger populations, cryptogenic embolic events in older adults are also associated with RLS [49] and favorable outcomes from PFO closure are expected [9,10,12-17].

Currently, two Asian studies are ongoing that include elderly ESUS patients with high-risk PFO features. The multicenter, prospective, observational Prospective Registry of Elderly ESUS With PFO (COACH_ESUS) registry study [54] compares outcomes in patients treated with PFO closure after 3–6 months of monitoring for paroxysmal AF versus patients receiving medical therapy. The Evaluation of Prevalence and Clinical Impact of Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Patients With Cryptogenic Stroke and High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale (DefenseElderly) study is a prospective cohort study comparing the incidence of paroxysmal AF in elderly ESUS patients [55]. Patients with a PFO and no AF during 6 months will be recommended for PFO closure and will be compared with a control group of ESUS patients without a PFO. Both studies may provide additional insights into the safety and efficacy of PFO closure in the elderly Asian population. Nevertheless, RCTs comparing PFO closure and medical therapy in elderly populations, particularly those with high-risk PFO features, are warranted.

While this expert opinion encourages broadening the indications for PFO closure in older adults, there are reservations about PFO closure as an exclusive indication for migraine patients. Despite the benefits experienced by migraine patients after PFO closure [56], there is currently no clear and reproducible evidence justifying PFO closure as a first-line treatment for these patients.

This expert opinion encourages the use of cTCD as a routine, first-line screening tool to detect RLS in all ESUS patients. This may expedite the diagnostic process and facilitate early identification of patients with a PFO-associated stroke. TCD has all the characteristics of a routine screening tool: it is easy to learn and apply, well tolerated by the patient, and most importantly, highly sensitive for detecting the pathology of interest.

Currently, insufficient evidence from RCTs is available to recommend an optimal antithrombotic therapy after PFO closure. Guidelines and consensus statements suggest dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for several months after PFO closure, followed by long-term single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) [23,34]. These recommendations are based on the antithrombotic regimen used during RCTs on PFO closure in ESUS patients. Nevertheless, a lower-intensity antithrombotic regimen may be considered specifically in Asian patients, who are known to have a higher bleeding risk and lower risk of thrombotic events compared to Caucasian patients [57,58]. Such an approach seems to be supported by results from a French/Canadian non-randomized multicenter study including 1,532 relatively young (<50 years) patients who underwent PFO closure. This study reported no difference between short-term DAPT followed by SAPT versus SAPT only in the 5-year rate of all-cause death, stroke, TIA, peripheral embolism, myocardial infarction, or BARC type ≥2 bleeding [59]. Outcomes from other studies suggest that discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy within 6–12 months after PFO closure may be a reasonable strategy in relatively young patients [60,61]. However, given the lack of strong evidence from RCTs, the decision to stop antithrombotic therapy should be the result of an individualized risk-based approach and left to the discretion of the treating neurologist. Whether a short-term antithrombotic strategy after PFO closure is safe for older Asian patients remains an unanswered question and requires further research.

Regarding the prevention of thrombus formation on the occlusion device, a study reported favorable results from a light antithrombotic regimen of 100 mg of aspirin for 6 months after closure of a PFO or an atrial septal defect [62]. After this period, endothelialization of the device is typically complete, and device-related thrombus is rarely observed. Further research on this topic is desired to develop an evidence-based recommendation. Major issues to be clarified include the need for DAPT versus SAPT during the first months after closure and the optimal duration of antithrombotic therapy in the long-term after PFO closure.

Like the initial expert opinion published in 2020, this update was the result of discussions among neurologists and cardiologists. It is important to emphasize that both clinical specialties should be involved in decision-making related to PFO closure in general, and more specifically in the topics addressed by this expert opinion, i.e., considerations regarding PFO closure in older adults or in patients with intractable migraine.

In summary, while mounting clinical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of PFO closure in ESUS patients <60 years of age, further research is warranted to confirm the benefits of PFO closure in older adults and to guide optimal antithrombotic therapy after PFO closure.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2025.02908.

Supplementary Material 1.

Recently published data from patent foramen ovale closure in elderly patients

jos-2025-02908-Supplementary-Material-1.pdf

Supplementary Material 2.

Transcranial Doppler grading of right-to-left shunt

jos-2025-02908-Supplementary-Material-2.pdf

Notes

Funding statement

Abbott provided funding to facilitate the Asia-Pacific Heart-Brain Summit. There was no involvement from industry in the content of this expert consensus.

Conflicts of interest

Hans Cristoph Diener reports the following over the last 3 years: honoraria for participation in clinical trials, contribution to advisory boards, or oral presentations from: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and WebMD Global. Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca provided financial support for research projects. Research grants from the German Research Council (DFG). Bert Albers received an honorarium from Abbott for the preparation of this manuscript. Vijay Kumar Sharma received the Senior Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council, Singapore. The remaining authors report nothing to disclose.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: JSK, HCD. Study design: JSK, HCD, BA. Methodology: JSK, HCD, BA. Data collection: all authors. Investigation: JSK, HCD, BA. Statistical analysis: BA. Writing—original draft: JSK, HCD, BA, VKS. Writing—review & editing: JSK, HCD, BA, VKS. Funding acquisition: BA. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following physicians who actively participated in the discussions during the Asia-Pacific Heart-Brain Summit 2024 and provided input to the expert opinion statements included in this manuscript: Teiji Akagi, Japan; Chen Po-Lin, Taiwan; Masao Imai, Japan; Song Jie, China; Hiroyuki Kawano, Japan; Tomohito Kogure, Japan; Ming Chern Leong, Malaysia; Rui Li, China; Hīng-Ka Lîm, Taiwan; Ka-Chun Un, Hong Kong. We also appreciate Pauline Kwang for her assistance in the revision of this paper.

References

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Diener HC, Akagi T, Durongpisitkul K, Thomson VS, Prabhakar AT, Sharpe R, et al. Closure of the patent foramen ovale in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source: a clinical expert opinion and consensus statement for the Asian-Pacific region. Int J Stroke 2020;15:937–944.

7. 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.

8. Ikeda Y, Shimada K, Teramoto T, Uchiyama S, Yamazaki T, Oikawa S, et al. Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in Japanese patients 60 years or older with atherosclerotic risk factors: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312:2510–2520.

9. 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;15e011652.

10. Wintzer-Wehekind J, Alperi A, Houde C, Côté JM, Del Val D, Côté M, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients older than 60 years of age with cryptogenic embolism. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2020;73:219–224.

11. Farjat-Pasos JI, Chamorro A, Lanthier S, Robichaud M, Mengi S, Houde C, et al. Cerebrovascular events in older patients with patent foramen ovale: current status and future perspectives. J Stroke 2023;25:338–349.

12. Farjat-Pasos JI, Guedeney P, Horlick E, Abtan J, Nombela-Franco L, Hibbert B, et al. Determinants of adverse outcomes following patent foramen ovale closure in elderly patients. EuroIntervention 2024;20:1029–1038.

13. Chen PL, Wang CS, Huang JA, Fu YC, Liao NC, Hsu CY, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure in non-elderly and elderly patients with cryptogenic stroke: a hospital-based cohort study. Front Neurol 2023;14:1190011.

14. Gili S, Calligaris G, Teruzzi G, Santagostino Baldi G, Muratori M, Montorsi P, et al. Patent foramen ovale occlusion in elderly patients: is it worth it? A large, single-center retrospective analysis. J Clin Med 2024;13:3514.

15. Eichelmann A, Kubini R, Nachoski D, Kosinski C, Becker M, Aljalloud A. Patent foramen ovale closure versus drug therapy in patients over 60 years and a follow-up of 5 years. Clin Cardiol 2024;47e24251.

16. Nachoski D, Schroeder J, Almalla M, Kubini R, Tchaikovski V, Kosinski C, et al. Dual-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. Clin Cardiol 2021;44:386–391.

17. Lee PH, Kim JS, Song JK, Kwon SU, Kim BJ, Lee JS, et al. Device closure or antithrombotic therapy after cryptogenic stroke in elderly patients with a high-risk patent foramen ovale. J Stroke 2024;26:242–251.

18. 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.

19. Apostolos A, Alexiou P, Papanikolaou A, Trantalis G, Drakopoulou M, Ktenopoulos N, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure in special clinical situations: more questions than answers? Life (Basel) 2024;14:706.

20. Honasoge AP, Suradi HS, Tobis JM, Kavinsky CJ. Patent foramen ovale closure for nonstroke indications. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv 2023;2(6 Part A):101135.

21. Pristipino C, Germonpré P, Toni D, Sievert H, Meier B, D’Ascenzo F, et al. European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. Part II - Decompression sickness, migraine, arterial deoxygenation syndromes and select high-risk clinical conditions. Eur Heart J 2021;42:1545–1553.

22. Saver JL. Guideline updates needed: closure devices to prevent recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale. J Am Heart Assoc 2024;13e035937.

23. Caso V, Turc G, Abdul-Rahim AH, Castro P, Hussain S, Lal A, et al. European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patent foramen ovale (PFO) after stroke. Eur Stroke J 2024;9:800–834.

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.

25. Kniffin WD Jr, Baron JA, Barrett J, Birkmeyer JD, Anderson FA Jr. The epidemiology of diagnosed pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:861–866.

26. Stein PD, Hull RD, Kayali F, Ghali WA, Alshab AK, Olson RE. Venous thromboembolism according to age: the impact of an aging population. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2260–2265.

27. Henein M, Waldenström A, Mörner S, Lindqvist P. The normal impact of age and gender on right heart structure and function. Echocardiography 2014;31:5–11.

28. Hasnie AA, Parcha V, Hawi R, Trump M, Shetty NS, Ahmed MI, et al. Complications associated with transesophageal echocardiography in transcatheter structural cardiac interventions. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2023;36:381–390.

29. Prefasi D, Martínez-Sánchez P, Fuentes B, Díez-Tejedor E. The utility of the RoPE score in cryptogenic stroke patients ≤50 years in predicting a stroke-related patent foramen ovale. Int J Stroke 2016;11:NP7–NP8.

30. Akagi T, Hara H, Kanazawa H, Fukui S, Hashimoto Y, Iguchi Y, et al. Real-world patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in Japan–30-day clinical outcomes from the Amplatzer^TM PFO occluder Japan post-marketing surveillance study. Circ J 2024;88:1391–1397.

31. Anselmino M, Sillano D, Casolati D, Ferraris F, Scaglione M, Gaita F. A new electrophysiology era: zero fluoroscopy. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2013;14:221–227.

32. Rubiera M, Aires A, Antonenko K, Lémeret S, Nolte CH, Putaala J, et al. European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on screening for subclinical atrial fibrillation after stroke or transient ischaemic attack of undetermined origin. Eur Stroke J 2022;7:VI.

33. Diener HC, Wachter R, Wong A, Thijs V, Schnabel RB, Ntaios G, et al. Monitoring for atrial fibrillation prior to patent foramen ovale closure after cryptogenic stroke. Int J Stroke 2023;18:400–407.

34. Pristipino C, Sievert H, D’Ascenzo F, Mas JL, Meier B, Scacciatella P, et al. European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. General approach and left circulation thromboembolism. EuroIntervention 2019;14:1389–1402.

35. Chan NY, Orchard J, Agbayani MJ, Boddington D, Chao TF, Johar S, et al. 2021 Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) practice guidance on atrial fibrillation screening. J Arrhythm 2021;38:31–49.

36. Grygorowicz C, Benali K, Serzian G, Mouhat B, Duloquin G, Pommier T, et al. Value of HAVOC and Brown ESUS-AF scores for atrial fibrillation on implantable cardiac monitors after embolic stroke of undetermined source. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2024;33:107451.

37. Yushan B, Tan BYQ, Ngiam NJ, Chan BPL, Luen TH, Sharma VK, et al. Association between bilateral infarcts pattern and detection of occult atrial fibrillation in embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) patients with insertable cardiac monitor (ICM). J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2019;28:2448–2452.

38. Israel C, Kitsiou A, Kalyani M, Deelawar S, Ejangue LE, Rogalewski A, et al. Detection of atrial fibrillation in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source by prolonged monitoring with implantable loop recorders. Thromb Haemost 2017;117:1962–1969.

39. Kitsiou A, Rogalewski A, Kalyani M, Deelawar S, Tribunyan S, Greeve I, et al. Atrial fibrillation in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source during 3 years of prolonged monitoring with an implantable loop recorder. Thromb Haemost 2021;121:826–833.

40. Mele F, Scopelliti G, La Volpe L, Ferrari Aggradi C, Molitierno N, Cova I, et al. Prediction scores of subclinical atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke and transient ischemic attack. Int J Stroke 2025;Apr. 28. [Epub]. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1177/17474930251341101.

41. Tan ESJ, de Leon J, Boey E, Chin HK, Ho KH, Aguirre S, et al. Stroke recurrence in embolic stroke of undetermined source without atrial fibrillation on invasive cardiac monitoring. Heart Lung Circ 2023;32:1000–1009.

42. Ntaios G, Perlepe K, Lambrou D, Sirimarco G, Strambo D, Eskandari A, et al. Identification of patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source and low risk of new incident atrial fibrillation: the AF-ESUS score. Int J Stroke 2021;16:29–38.

43. D’Andrea A, Conte M, Riegler L, Scarafile R, Cocchia R, Pezzullo E, et al. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound: incremental diagnostic role in cryptogenic stroke part II. J Cardiovasc Echogr 2016;26:71–77.

44. Mojadidi MK, Roberts SC, Winoker JS, Romero J, Goodman-Meza D, Gevorgyan R, et al. Accuracy of transcranial Doppler for the diagnosis of intracardiac right-to-left shunt: a bivariate meta-analysis of prospective studies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:236–250.

45. Zhang D, Jiang L, Chen YN, Pan MF. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler and contrast-enhanced transthoracic echocardiography for right to left shunt in patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurol 2024;15:1447964.

46. D’Andrea A, Conte M, Cavallaro M, Scarafile R, Riegler L, Cocchia R, et al. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography: from methodology to major clinical applications. World J Cardiol 2016;8:383–400.

47. Sastry S, Daly K, Chengodu T, McCollum C. Is transcranial Doppler for the detection of venous-to-arterial circulation shunts reproducible? Cerebrovasc Dis 2007;23:424–429.

48. Lao AY, Sharma VK, Tsivgoulis G, Malkoff MD, Alexandrov AV, Frey JL. Effect of body positioning during transcranial Doppler detection of right-to-left shunts. Eur J Neurol 2007;14:1035–1039.

49. 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.

50. Silalahi TDA, Hariyanto TI. Efficacy and safety of patent foramen ovale closure for mitigating migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2024;17:17562864241271033.

51. Zhang Y, Wang H, Liu L. Patent foramen ovale closure for treating migraine: a meta-analysis. J Interv Cardiol 2022;2022:6456272.

52. Sacco S, Amin FM, Ashina M, Bendtsen L, Deligianni CI, Gil-Gouveia R, et al. European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention - 2022 update. J Headache Pain 2022;23:67.

53. Charles AC, Digre KB, Goadsby PJ, Robbins MS, Hershey A, ; American Headache Society. Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: an American Headache Society position statement update. Headache 2024;64:333–341.

54. Kwon SU, Kim BJ. Prospective registry of elderly ESUS with PFO (COACH_ESUS) [Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine; 2022. [accessed June 18, 2025]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05238610.

55. Song JK, Kim JS. Evaluation of prevalence and clinical impact of atrial fibrillation in elderly patients with cryptogenic stroke and high-risk patent foramen ovale (DefenseElderly) [Internet]. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine; 2019. [accessed June 18, 2025]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04285918.

56. Wilmshurst PT, Nightingale S, Walsh KP, Morrison WL. Effect on migraine of closure of cardiac right-to-left shunts to prevent recurrence of decompression illness or stroke or for haemodynamic reasons. Lancet 2000;356:1648–1651.

57. Kim HK, Tantry US, Smith SC Jr, Jeong MH, Park SJ, Kim MH, et al. The East Asian paradox: an updated position statement on the challenges to the current antithrombotic strategy in patients with cardiovascular disease. Thromb Haemost 2021;121:422–432.

58. Liang Y, Yang Q, Zhu J, Eikelboom J. Bleeding risk in Asian patients: potential for thrombin amplification pathway blockade using factor XI inhibitors. JACC Asia 2024;4:163–165.

59. Guedeney P, Farjat-Pasos JI, Asslo G, Roule V, Beygui F, Hermida A, et al. Impact of the antiplatelet strategy following patent foramen ovale percutaneous closure. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2023;9:601–607.

60. Kefer J, Carbonez K, Pierard S, Mouthuy FP, Peeters A, Hermans C, et al. Antithrombotic therapy duration after patent foramen ovale closure for stroke prevention: impact on long-term outcome. J Interv Cardiol 2022;2022:6559447.

61. Wintzer-Wehekind J, Alperi A, Houde C, Côté JM, Guimaraes LFC, Côté M, et al. Impact of discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy following closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic embolism. Am J Cardiol 2019;123:1538–1545.

62. Rigatelli G, Zuin M, Dell’Avvocata F, Roncon L, Vassilev D, Nghia N. Light anti-thrombotic regimen for prevention of device thrombosis and/or thrombotic complications after interatrial shunts device-based closure. Eur J Intern Med 2020;74:42–48.

Article information Continued

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.