Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism Periprocedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems

Authors:
  • VGV Gliech
    V Gliech
  • ABA Boscheri
    A Boscheri
  • SSS Schoen
    S Schoen
  • GGG Gahn
    G Gahn
  • HRH Reichmann
    H Reichmann
  • MHM Haass
    M Haass
  • RSR Schraeder
    R Schraeder
  • RSR H Strasser
    R H Strasser
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Interventional PFO closure has previously been reported to reduce the risk for recurrent thromboembolic events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate three different occluder systems in respect to (a) the safety and practicability and (b) the mid-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Since 08/98 until 12/02, 307 consecutive patients (138 women, 169 men, mean age 43 years) with a symptomatic PFO underwent PFO closure using the PFO-Star ( n=177), Amplatzer PFO occluder ( n=69) and CardioSeal/Starflex ( n=61 ). Implantation was successful in all patients. Periinterventional complications occurred in 9 patients (5x ST-segment elevations, 1x arteriovenous fistula, 2x TIA, 1x device dislodgement). All of them were reversible and not associated with a specific type of device. During the median follow-up of 24 months (25/75th percentiles: 14/37 months), the annual risk of recurrence was 0.6% for TIA, 0% for stroke and 0.2% for peripheral embolism (PFO-Star: 0.8%, Amplatzer PFO occluder: 0.7% and CardioSeal/Starflex: 1.0%). Interventional PFO closure appears to be safe and a promising technique in symptomatic PFO patients with a low incidence of periinterventional complications and recurrent thromboembolic events using three different devices (PFO-Star, Amplatzer PFO occluder or the CardioSeal/Starflex).