Article: article from journal or magazin.
Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: head-to-head comparison of two different devices
Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been proposed as the treatment of choice for young high-risk patients who suffered cryptogenic stroke and/or peripheral paradoxical embolism. We sought to compare prospectively two different devices used for percutaneous PFO closure.Prospective data were collected on 40 high risk patients (females: 38%, mean age : 44 +/- 11 years, interatrial septal aneurysm >10 mm: 68%) who underwent percutaneous PFO closure after cryptogenic stroke (n = 38) or peripheral paradoxical embolism (n = 2). Chronologically, 20 patients were first treated by a PFO-Star (Cardia, Burnsville, MI) device. Then, 20 other patients received a Starflex occluder (NMT, Boston, MA). The primary endpoint was complete PFO closure at 6 months as assessed by transthoracic contrast echocardiography. Secondary endpoints were major peri- or post procedural complications and clinical recurrence at 1 year follow-up.Baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics were comparable for both groups. Complete PFO closure was observed in 50% (PFO-Star) and 90% (Starflex) of patients (p=0.001) respectively. Major peri-procedural complications occurred in the PFO-star group only: right-sided device thrombus (1 patient) and aorto-right atrial fistula (1 patient). At 1 year follow-up, no clinical recurrence occurred.In conclusion, despite the absence of clinical recurrence in this high-risk population with presumed paradoxical embolism, complete PFO closure at 6 months follow-up was significantly related to the type of closure device used
Last modification date