Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35834516›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2022

Patent foramen ovale closure: A prospective UK registry linked to hospital episode statistics.

Iain Willits, Kim Keltie, Robert Henderson, Mark de Belder, Nicholas Linker, Hannah Patrick, Helen Powell, Lee Berry, Samuel Urwin, Helen Cole and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Iain WillitsThe Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Kim KeltieThe Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5108-6279
Robert HendersonTrent Cardiac Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0319-3691
Mark de BelderNational Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR), Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2690-8319
Nicholas LinkerSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cardiology, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Hannah PatrickNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom.
Helen PowellNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Lee BerryNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1183-9699
Samuel UrwinThe Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Helen ColeThe Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3036-3374
Andrew J SimsThe Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Newcastle, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9553-7278
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPFO closure is a percutaneous intervention, which aims to reduce risk of recurrent stroke by preventing paradoxical embolism. The objective of this study was to measure procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of PFO closure in a UK setting. METHODS AND

resultsProspective registry data from patients with cryptogenic stroke eligible for PFO closure were collected for up to 2 years and linked to routine data sources for additional follow-up. Outcomes of interest included procedural success rate, health related quality of life, and longer-term death and neurological event rates. A total of 973 PFO closure procedures in 971 patients were included in analysis. Successful device implantation was achieved in 99.4 [95% CI 98.6 to 99.8]% of procedures, with one in-hospital death. During median follow-up of 758 (Q1:Q3 527:968) days, 33 patients experienced a subsequent neurological event, 76% of which were ischaemic in origin. Neurological event rate was 2.7 [95%CI 1.6 to 3.9]% at 1-year (n = 751) and 4.1 [95% CI 2.6 to 5.5]% at 2-years (n = 463) using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Improvements in patient quality of life (utility and visual analogue scale) were observed at 6-weeks and 6-months follow-up.

conclusionOur observational study demonstrates that PFO closure for prevention of recurrent stroke is a relatively safe procedure but in routine clinical practice is associated with a slightly higher risk of recurrent neurological events than in randomised trials. We hypothesize that our study enrolled unselected patients with higher baseline risk, who were excluded from randomised trials, but who may benefit from a similar relative reduction in risk from the intervention.

Indexed as

Foramen Ovale, PatentSeptal Occluder DeviceStrokeCardiac CatheterizationHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansQuality of LifeRecurrenceRegistriesSecondary PreventionTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35834516
PMCPMC9282467
OpenAlexW4285387151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.