ArticleOpen heart2024
Comparative evaluation of microprobe versus conventional transoesophageal echocardiography for PFO closure guidance.
Article in Open heart, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Emerging Role and Clinical Utility of Transnasal Transesophageal Echocardiography.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is traditionally guided by transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) under general anaesthesia, which prolongs procedure duration and increases costs and risks. A transnasal echocardiography with a microTEE-probe (microTNE) is tolerated under conscious sedation and offers an effective alternative to TEE. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility, safety and time expenditure of PFO closure using conventional TEE versus microTNE guidance.
methodsConsecutive patients assigned for PFO losure in Helsinki University Hospital from 2003 to 2021 were included in the study (n=336). TEE with general anaesthesia was used until November 2018 (n=167) while microTNE-guided PFO closure (n=169) under conscious sedation was the principal method thereafter. Patients were followed for 3 months after PFO closure.
resultsThe microTNE-route success rate was 97.2% vs TEE 100% (p=0.06) and procedure success rate was 97.7% with microTNE and 96.0% with TEE-guidance (p=0.54). The procedure time was significantly shorter with microTNE 21±7 min than with TEE 30±13 min (p<0.001). At the beginning of microTNE era, nasal bleeding complication was quite frequent; however, overall complication rates were equal between the groups. However, C reactive protein (CRP) increase was significantly milder with microTNE than TEE 1.0±2.9 vs 3.0±4.0 mg/L (p<0.001). An increase in CRP was independently associated with procedure type (p=0.004) and time (p=0.003).
conclusionsMicroTNE is a feasible and safe alternative for PFO closure guidance. MicroTNE under conscious sedation shortens procedure duration and induces a milder inflammatory reaction than conventional TEE under general anaesthesia.
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.