ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2024
Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Stroke and Beyond.
Review in Current cardiology reviews, 2024. 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, 1 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over 750,000 individuals suffer from stroke annually in the United States, with 87% of these strokes being ischemic in nature. Roughly 40% of ischemic strokes occur in individuals 60 years of age or under. A quarter of all ischemic strokes have no identifiable cause despite extensive workup and are deemed cryptogenic in nature. Patent Foramen Ovales (PFO) has been postulated in stroke causation by either paradoxical embolization or platelet activation in the tunnel of the defect. The incidence of PFO is reported to be 15-25% in the general population but rises to 40% in patients with cryptogenic stroke. While the initial trials evaluating PFO closures were non-revealing, subsequent long-term follow-ups, as well as recent trials evaluating PFO closures in cryptogenic stroke patients 60 years of age or under, demonstrated the superiority of percutaneous closure compared to medical therapy alone, leading to FDA approval of PFO closure devices. In this review, we review the diagnosis of PFO, postulated stroke mechanisms, literature supporting PFO closure, patient selection for percutaneous closure, procedural considerations, and associated procedural complications.
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.