Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Medical Treatments for Secondary Stroke Prevention

Patients discovered to have a patent foramen ovale in the setting of a cryptogenic stroke may be treated with percutaneous closure, antiplatelet therapy, or anticoagulants. A recent randomized trial (CLOSURE I) did not detect any benefit of closure over medical treatment alone; the optimal medical therapy is also unknown. We synthesized the available evidence on secondary stroke prevention in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke.A MEDLINE search was performed for finding longitudinal studies investigating medical treatment or closure, meta-analysis of incidence rates (IR), and IR ratios of recurrent cerebrovascular events.Fifty-two single-arm studies and 7 comparative nonrandomized studies and the CLOSURE I trial were reviewed. The summary IR of recurrent stroke was 0.36 events (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.56) per 100 person-years with closure versus 2.53 events (95% CI, 1.91-3.35) per 100 person-years with medical therapy. In comparative observational studies, closure was superior to medical therapy (IR ratio=0.19; 95% CI, 0.07-0.54). The IR for the closure arm of the CLOSURE I trial was higher than the summary estimate from observational studies; there was no significant benefit of closure over medical treatment (P=0.002 comparing efficacy estimates between observational studies and the trial). Observational and randomized data (9 studies) comparing medical therapies were consistent and suggested that anticoagulants are superior to antiplatelets for preventing stroke recurrence (IR ratio=0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98).Although further randomized trial data are needed to precisely determine the effects of closure on stroke recurrence, the results of CLOSURE I challenge the credibility of a substantial body of observational evidence strongly favoring mechanical closure over medical therapy.