ReviewDer Internist2018
[Patent foramen ovale-intervention or pharmaceutical treatment].
Review in Der Internist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 40-50% of patients with cryptogenic stroke have a patent foramen ovale (PFO). A concomitant atrial septal aneurysm aggravates the risk of recurrent stroke.
objectiveThe most important changes regarding the evidence for interventional closure of a PFO in patients with cryptogenic stroke are described. This includes the prerequisites for making a diagnosis and the indications for interventional treatment. The article also provides an overview about platelet aggregation inhibitor treatment with and without oral anticoagulation. CURRENT DATA: The balance between benefits and risks of interventional versus pharmaceutical treatment in patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO has so far not been sufficiently proven. In 2017 two prospective randomized trials (CLOSE and REDUCE) and the long-term follow-up results of the RESPECT study were published, followed by the results of the DEFENSE-PFO study in 2018. A better assessment of the weighing up of the treatment options can now be made. All four studies showed that the interventional treatment of PFO is superior to pharmaceutical treatment alone for patients with cryptogenic stroke under 60 years of age.
conclusionThere was a significant reduction in the incidence of recurrent stroke in patients with interventional PFO closure compared with pharmaceutical treatment. The complication rate of PFO closure is very low and younger patients (<60 years) in particular benefit from PFO closure.
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.