ReviewHerz2017
Transcatheter closure of PFO as secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke.
Review in Herz, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patent foramen ovale presenting with platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome and stroke after multi-organ resection.BMJ case reports · 2021Article
- Ischemic Stroke in a Patient With Quadricuspid Aortic Valve and Patent Foramen Ovale.Cardiology research · 2017Article
- Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome : Orthostatic dyspnea and possible pathophysiological substrates.Herz · 2017Review
- Platypnea-Orthodeoxia Syndrome: Multiple Pathophysiological Interpretations of a Clinical Picture Primarily Consisting of Orthostatic Dyspnea.Journal of clinical medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article covers the main unsolved issues regarding the potential role that the patent foramen ovale (PFO) plays in the genesis of so-called cryptogenic stroke. Some brief notions of the anatomy and epidemiology of the PFO are outlined. Subsequently, the results of the three trials on secondary prevention (medical therapy vs. transcatheter closure) in patients with PFO and a history of cryptogenic stroke are presented. The conflicting results of numerous meta-analyses derived from the three randomized controlled trials are discussed. Official scientific guidelines dispute an alleged superior efficacy of transcatheter PFO occlusion in comparison with antithrombotic therapy alone (anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents), except for selected cases of patients with documented PFO and a concomitant clinical-instrumental picture of deep venous thrombosis. Nevertheless, considering recent doubts about the presumptive thrombogenic and arrhythmogenic potential of PFO occlusion, which concerns only one of the septal occluders previously used, further in-depth investigations are warranted, centered on the use of newer dedicated devices to be tested in comparison with antithrombotic regimens alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.