Trial reportMedicine2017
Safety and efficacy of Cardi-O-fix occluder for percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale: A single-center prospective study.
Trial report in Medicine, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioresorbable patent foramen ovale closure-is less more?Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in children with migraine or dizziness.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- A Prospective, Single-Center, Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Value of Transesophageal Echocardiography in the Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale With a Novel Biodegradable Occluder.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Application of Transesophageal Echocardiography in Amplatzer Atrial Septal Defect Occluder for Percutaneous Closure of Large Patent Foramen Ovale.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmplatzer occluder and Cardio-O-fix occluder are currently used in percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale. However, there is still a lack of relevant reports comparison the differences between them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term and mid-term safety and efficacy of the Cardi-O-fix occluder in preventing recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with a patent foramen ovale (PFO).
methodsWe enrolled 246 patients (105 men) with a PFO from May 30, 2013 to March 30, 2015 in this single-center prospective study. All patients were treated by PFO interventional closure, with the Cardi-O-fix PFO occluder being used in 180 patients and the Amplatzer PFO occluder being utilized in the remaining 66 patients. After the procedure, we verified the safety and efficacy of different devices using contrast transthoracic echocardiography.
resultsNeither recurrent stroke nor death was encountered during the follow-up of 12 months. Transient ischemic attack (TIA) was noted in 2 patients (1.1%) in the Cardi-O-fix PFO occluder group, and 1 patient suffered from TIA (1.5%) in the Amplatzer PFO occluder group. Among them, only 1 patient exhibited a small right to left shunt (RLS). There was no statistical difference in recurrent cerebral ischemic events. Three cases of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were observed in the Cardi-O-fix PFO occluder group. One reverted spontaneously to sinus rhythm and the other 2 cases had pharmacologic conversion to sinus rhythm. One case of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation occurred in the Amplatzer group, which underwent pharmacologic conversion to sinus rhythm. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding incidence of arrhythmia. No occluder translocation, erosion, pericardial effusion, and puncture site bleeding were observed in the 2 groups within 12 months of follow-up. The complete closure rates of the Cardi-O-fix and Amplatzer PFO occluder devices at the 12 months after the procedure were 73.9% and 63.6%, respectively, and the effective closure rates were 90.6% and 86.4%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the complete closure rate and effective occlusion rate (P > 0.05) between the devices.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in the short- and mid-term efficacy and safety between the Cardi-O-fix PFO occluder and Amplatzer PFO occluder. The efficacy and safety of the Cardi-O-fix occluder were comparable to those of the Amplatzer PFO occluder.
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.