Article

Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale – Data from Randomized Clinical Trials and Meta-Analyses

Abstract

Data from epidemiologic studies have indicated a close association between the presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) and cryptogenic stroke that is suggestive of paradoxical embolism as the underlying cause. Percutaneous closure of PFO has been proposed for the secondary prevention among patients suffering from paradoxical embolism. While observational data support this strategy, three randomized trials investigating percutaneous PFO closure with medical therapy have failed to detect a statistically significant reduction of the primary endpoint of recurrent ischemic cerebrovascular events, peripheral embolism, and death in the intention-to-treat analysis. Several reasons have been discussed as basis for the negative primary study results, including long recruitment rates, low number of recurrent events, and the use of different devices. In order to provide an answer to these unresolved factors, several meta-analyses have been published that have provided conflicting results. This article will review the available evidence of percutaneous PFO closure, will provide an overview on randomized clinical trials, and summarize the evidence from meta-analyses.

Disclosure: Dr. Stortecky has no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Windecker reports having received research grants to the institution from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, The Medicines Company, Medtronic, and St Jude, and speaker fees from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, and Eli Lilly.

Received:

Accepted:

Citation:Interventional Cardiology Review 2015;10(1):45–8

Correspondence: Stefan Stortecky, Department of Cardiology, Swiss Cardiovascular Centre Bern, Bern University Hospital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland. E: stefan.stortecky@insel.ch

Open access:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

Cerebrovascular events are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and are considered the global second leading cause of death.1 The majority of strokes are ischemic, although the etiology remains unknown in a considerable number of patients,2 commonly referred to as “non-defined” or “cryptogenic.”3 Data from epidemiologic studies point towards a relevant association between the prevalence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) and the occurrence of cryptogenic stroke or embolism.4 Thus, paradoxical embolism via PFO has been suggested as plausible mechanism and etiology of cryptogenic cerebrovascular or other embolic events in a considerable number of patients.56

Percutaneous PFO closure has been proposed as effective treatment for the secondary prevention of recurrent cerebrovascular or peripheral embolism, and several devices have been introduced into clinical practice. Observational studies investigating percutaneous PFO closure for patients with presumed paradoxical embolism suggested a substantial benefit in the secondary prevention of recurrent neurologic and vascular events over medical therapy,7,8 and even a mortality benefit during long-term follow-up when comparing patients after device closure with patients before or without PFO closure.7

Randomized Evidence—PFO Closure versus Medical Therapy
Two devices for percutaneous PFO closure (STARFlex, NMT Medical, Boston, MA, US; Amplatzer PFO Occluder, St Jude Medical, Plymouth, MN) have been investigated in three randomized clinical trials and compared with medical therapy among patients with cryptogenic stroke or embolism.9–11

CLOSURE I Trial
The first randomized trial investigating whether percutaneous PFO closure is effective in the secondary prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke was the multicenter CLOSURE I trial.9 PFO closure was performed with the STARFlex closure device, and medical therapy consisted of either warfarin (target international normalized ratio [INR] 2–3) or acetylsalicylic acid (325 mg/d) as implemented by the treating neurologist. A total of 909 patients with a previous history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) were included in this study and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either undergo PFO closure or medical therapy between 2003 and 2008. The primary endpoint of the study was assessed after 2 years and consisted of a composite endpoint of stroke or TIA within 2 years, death of any cause during the first 30 days, and death of neurologic cause after 30 days up to 2 years of follow-up. After 2 years of follow-up, no difference was observed in the primary endpoint between percutaneous PFO closure and medical therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.45–1.35; p=0.37). While the low event rates have been noted, procedural and device specific attributes and complications attracted considerable attention. Effective closure of PFO closure with the STARFlex device was achieved in only 87 % of patients after 2 years of follow-up and device-associated thrombus was as frequent as 1.1 % of patients and considered responsible for recurrent stroke in two patients. Of note, the risk for new onset of atrial fibrillation was almost eightfold increased among PFO closure patients compared with those allocated to medical treatment (5.7 % versus 0.7 %; p<0.001), two-thirds of which have been observed in the first week after the intervention.

PC Trial
The Amplatzer PFO Occluder was investigated in the PC trial, which was initiated in 2000 as a multicenter, randomized clinical trial.10 A total of 414 patients have been recruited and randomized to either PFO closure using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder (n=204) or medical therapy (n=210). After a mean follow-up duration of 845 patient-years in the closure group and 835 patient-years in the medical therapy group, the predefined combined primary endpoint of all-cause death, recurrent stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism had occurred in seven patients of the closure group compared with 11 patients in the medical therapy group (HR 0.63; 95 % CI 0.24–1.62; p=0.34). Recruitment was protracted over almost 9 years, and the event rate was low in both treatment arms. Of note, a numerical difference in recurrent stroke was observed with an 86 % relative risk reduction in the Amplatzer PFO Occluder compared with the medical therapy group (HR 0.14, 95 % CI 0.02–1.17; p=0.07) after implementing the endpoint definition applied in the RESPECT trial.

RESPECT Trial
The RESPECT trial was conducted between 2003 and 2011 as multicenter, randomized clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO Occluder in the secondary prevention of ischemic vascular events. In the overall patient cohort of 980 patients and after a maximum follow-up duration of 8.1 years of follow-up, the primary endpoint recurrent stroke or death within either 30 days after the intervention or 45 days after randomization was observed in nine patients of the PFO closure group compared with 16 patients of the medical therapy group (HR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.22–1.11; p=0.08). While the intention-to-treat analysis provided a numerical difference in the primary endpoint between treatment groups, the per-protocol analysis (HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.14–0.96; p=0.03) and the as-treated analysis (HR 0.27, 95 % CI 0.10–0.75; p=0.007) favored percutaneous PFO closure over medical therapy. Of note, the treatment effect was particularly pronounced among patients with high-risk PFO criteria as defined by the presence of a substantial shunt (0.8 % versus 4.3 %; p=0.012) or atrial septal aneurysm (1.1 % versus 5.3 %; p=0.016) at baseline. None of the patients had signs of device-related thrombus during echocardiographic follow-up in RESPECT and the PC trial. A nonsignificant twofold increased risk for new onset of atrial fibrillation was noted in the closure group compared with patients receiving medical therapy alone (3.0 % vs 1.5 %; p=0.13), but this was not associated with adverse events.

Randomized Evidence—PFO Closure Devices
Most recently, long-term data from a randomized controlled trial investigating clinical outcomes and device-specific differences of three PFO occluder devices (Amplatzer PFO Occluder, STARFlex, or HELEX, (WL Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) became available,12 and provided further information for the ongoing debate. A total of 660 patients with previous cryptogenic stroke and PFO were recruited and randomized to closure with one of these closure devices. No differences were observed in technical success between devices; however, significant differences in effective PFO closure rates were observed (Amplatzer versus STARFlex versus HELEX, 98.6 % versus 96.8 % versus 91.8 %; p=0.0012) during follow-up assessment. The primary composite endpoint, recurrent cerebral ischemia, death from neurologic cause, or paradoxical embolism within 5 years after the index procedure was observed in 1.4 %, 6.0 %, and 4.0 % of patients, respectively (p=0.04). Furthermore, there were significant differences in device-associated thrombus formation (0 % versus 5.0 % versus 0.5 %, respectively; p<0.0001) and new-onset of atrial fibrillation (3.6 % versus 12.3 % versus 2.3 %, respectively; p<0.0001) during the followup duration of 5 years.

Meta-analyses Summarizing Randomized Evidence
Several meta-analyses with various statistical approaches and different composite endpoints have been published to date, summarizing the available evidence from randomized clinical trials (see Table 1). By combining the results of the three randomized trials investigating PFO closure compared with medical therapy, Wolfrum et al. came to the conclusion that PFO closure does not appear to be superior in patients with cryptogenic stroke or embolism,13 showing a nonsignificant relative risk (RR) reduction of 44 % in the primary intention-to-treat (RR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.37–1.19) and in the per protocol analysis (RR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.32–1.38). Similarly, Kitsios et al. failed to show a significant reduction for the endpoint stroke (HR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.26–1.18); however, a significant effect was observed when analyzing the composite primary outcomes (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.44– 1.00). By using the same trial data and in contrast to the previous analyses, Rengifo-Moreno et al. was able to prove a relevant benefit in the reduction of cerebrovascular events (recurrent stroke and TIA; HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.36–0.97) and furthermore in the combined endpoint of death and vascular events (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.44–1.00). Moreover, in a subgroup analysis the authors point towards a potential beneficial effect of percutaneous PFO closure among patients with substantial PFO shunt (HR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.12–1.03), however, this did not reach statistical significance.14 Capodanno et al. reported no beneficial effect for percutaneous PFO closure when compared with medical therapy in the secondary prevention of stroke (HR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.34–1.11).15 However, separating the data according to the PFO device used showed a significant reduction of stroke (HR 0.44, 95 % CI 0.20–0.95) among patients receiving the Amplatzer PFO Occluder, suggesting a device-specific effect on clinical outcomes.

A variation in effectiveness and safety between different devices has been further emphasized after the availability of the long-term data of a randomized head-to-head comparison of the three most frequently used devices.12 Using the data of this head-to-head comparison, potential device specific effects on clinical outcomes were investigated by performing a network meta-analysis (see Table 1).13–33 Overall, the results of this analysis indicated a clinically relevant difference in effectiveness between the Amplatzer and the STARFlex device.16 Accordingly, the probability to be best in preventing recurrent cerebrovascular events was 77.1 % for the Amplatzer, 20.9 % for the Helex, and 1.7 % for the STARFlex PFO closure device, and only 0.4 % for medical therapy alone. Differences in device design and material resulted in a significant reduction of recurrent stroke when using the Amplatzer (RR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.17–0.84), whereas the STARFlex (RR 1.01, 95 % CI 0.44–2.41) and the Helex device (RR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.17–2.78) were not able to show a statistically significant secondary preventive effect. Conversely, the implantation of the Amplatzer device was associated with a twofold increased risk and the STARFlex with a sevenfold increased risk for new-onset atrial fibrillation compared with medical therapy alone.

Meta-analyses Investigating Percutaneous PFO Closure
Download original
Open in new tab

Future Outlook
Three randomized trials are currently registered and recruiting patients, with the aim to contribute to our understanding of safety and efficacy of PFO closure when compared with medical therapy:

  • DEFENSE-PFO (NCT01550588): comparing PFO closure with the Amplatzer device with medical therapy in 210 patients during a follow-up duration of 2 years.
  • Gore REDUCE trial (NCT00738894): compares PFO closure with the Helex PFO occlude in 664 patients with an estimated mean follow-up of 6 years.
  • CLOSE trial (NCT00562289): allocates 900 patients to either PFO closure with different devices, or antiplatelet/ antithrombotic therapy. The recently published evidence of specific inter-device comparisons on clinical outcomes will make the interpretation of the results difficult, unless the setup of the trial allows stratification by type of device.

Summary
Randomized clinical trials and the large number of meta-analyses have been performed to further inform the discussion on the effectiveness of percutaneous PFO closure in the secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke and embolism. While the available evidence points towards a potential treatment effect in favor of percutaneous PFO closure, there still remain substantial uncertainties. In addition to device-specific differences that may impact on clinical outcomes owing to differences in closure success and predisposition for thrombus formation and atrial arrhythmias, appropriate patient selection remains crucial. Although not specifically examined in dedicated randomized trials, patients with certain echocardiographic high-risk criteria, such as atrial septal aneurysm and other anatomical and functional characteristics of the PFO, which are associated with increased shunt size, as well as the presence of an Eustachian valve or a Chiari network, contribute to an increased risk of recurrent embolic events and may benefit most from percutaneous PFO closure. However, additional randomized studies comparing PFO closure with medical therapy are unlikely to answer these open questions conclusively, given the low rates of recurrent events, and unrealistically large treatment effect assumptions used for sample size considerations.

References

  1. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, et al., Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010, Lancet, 2012;380:2095–128.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Sacco RL, Ellenberg JH, Mohr JP, et al., Infarcts of undetermined cause: the NINCDS Stroke Data Bank, Ann Neurol, 1989;25:382–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Handke M, Harloff A, Olschewski M, et al., Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke in older patients, N Engl J Med, 2007;357:2262–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, et al., Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke, N Engl J Med, 1988;318:1148–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Windecker S, Stortecky S, Meier B, Paradoxical embolism, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014;64:403¬15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Hargreaves M, Maloney D, Gribbin B, Westaby S, Impending paradoxical embolism: a case report and literature review, Eur Heart J, 1994;15:1284–5.
    PubMed
  7. Wahl A, Juni P, Mono ML, et al., Long-term propensity scorematched comparison of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale with medical treatment after paradoxical embolism, Circulation, 2012;125:803–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Agarwal S, Bajaj NS, Kumbhani DJ, et al., Meta-analysis of transcatheter closure versus medical therapy for patent foramen ovale in prevention of recurrent neurological events after presumed paradoxical embolism, JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2012;5:777-89.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al., Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale, N Engl J Med, 2012;366:991–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, et al., Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism, N Engl J Med, 2013;368:1083–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al., Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke, N Engl J Med, 2013;368:1092–100.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Hornung M, Bertog SC, Franke J, et al., Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing three different devices for percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale, Eur Heart J, 2013;34:3362–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Wolfrum M, Froehlich GM, Knapp G, et al., Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Heart, 2014;100:389–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Rengifo-Moreno P, Palacios IF, Junpaparp P, et al., Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure versus medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Eur Heart J, 2013;34:3342–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Capodanno D, Milazzo G, Vitale L, et al., Updating the evidence on patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of 2,303 patients from three randomised trials and 2,231 patients from 11 observational studies, EuroIntervention, 2014;9:1342–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Stortecky S, da Costa BR, Mattle HP, et al., Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic embolism: a network meta-analysis, Eur Heart J, 2015;36:120–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Hernandez J, Moreno R, Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: “Closed” door after the last randomized trials?, World J Cardiol, 2014;6:1–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Dentali F, Gianni M, Mumoli N, et al., Efficacy and safety of patent foramen ovale closure in patients with a cryptogenic stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis, Thromb Haemost, 2014;111.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Pandit A, Aryal MR, Pandit AA, et al., Amplatzer PFO occluder device may prevent recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomised Trials, Heart Lung Circ, 2014;23:303–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Riaz IB, Dhoble A, Mizyed A, et al., Transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2013;13:116.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Khan AR, Bin Abdulhak AA, Sheikh MA, et al., Device closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis, JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2013;6:1316–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Zhang B, Zhou J, Li H, et al., Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale does not reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke versus medical therapy alone: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Int J Cardiol, 2013;169:e106–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Hakeem A, Marmagkiolis K, Hacioglu Y, et al., Safety and efficacy of device closure for patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of neurological events: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Cardiovasc Revasc Med, 2013;14:349–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, et al., Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomised trials, Heart Lung Circ, 2013;22:903–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Pineda AM, Nascimento FO, Yang SC, et al., A meta-analysis of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy for prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events, Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2013;82:968–75.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Chen L, Luo S, Yan L, Zhao W, A systematic review of closure versus medical therapy for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack, J Neurol Sci, 2014;337:3–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Ntaios G, Papavasileiou V, Makaritsis K, Michel P, PFO closure versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A systematic review and metaanalysis, Int J Cardiol, 2013;169:101–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Kwong JS, Lam YY, Yu CM, Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Int J Cardiol, 2013;168:4132–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Kitsios GD, Thaler DE, Kent DM, Potentially large yet uncertain benefits: a meta-analysis of patent foramen ovale closure trials, Stroke, 2013;44:2640–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Capodanno D, Milazzo G, Vitale L, et al., Updating the evidence on patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke: asystematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of 2,303 patients from three randomised trials and 2,231 patients from 11 observational studies, EuroIntervention, 2012;91342–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Spencer FA, Lopes LC, Kennedy SA, Guyatt G, Systematic review of percutaneous closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale, BMJ Open, 2014;4:e004282.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Udell JA, Opotowsky AR, Khairy P, et al., Patent foramen ovale closure vs medical therapy for stroke prevention: metaanalysis of randomized trials and review of heterogeneity in meta-analyses, Can J Cardiol, 2014;30:1216–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Pickett CA, Villines TC, Ferguson MA, Hulten EA, Percutaneous closure versus medical therapy alone for cryptogenic stroke patients with a patent foramen ovale: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Tex Heart Inst J, 2014;41:357–67.
    Crossref | PubMed