ArticleOpen heart2024
Influence of procedural timing on the preventive yield of percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of patent foramen ovale closure (PFOC) ≤9 months after a cryptogenic stroke has been demonstrated in several randomised clinical trials. There is, however, insufficient data to support PFOC in non-recent cryptogenic strokes.
aimsThe objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of PFOC in relation to the time since the patient's most recent cryptogenic cerebrovascular event (CVE) or systemic embolism (SE).
methodsWe conducted a multicentre, retrospective cohort study with international participation, to assess the results of an early closure (EC, <9 months) for secondary prevention versus a delayed closure (DC, ≥9 months). Recurrence of CVE/SE following PFOC was evaluated as the primary endpoint.
results496 patients were included (65% in the EC and 35% in the DC group). With the exception of a larger defect size in the DC group (tunnel width 6 (4-14) vs 12 (6-16) mm, p=0.005), similar clinical and echocardiographic baseline features were observed between the groups. No differences were observed regarding the type of devices used for PFOC, procedural success rate (99.4 in EC vs 98.8% DC group) and periprocedural complications (2.1% vs 0.8%). Median follow-up was 2.0 (1.2-4.2) years in the whole study population. Recurrence of CVE/SE (3.9% vs 2.6%, p=0.443), death (1.4% vs 1.0%, p=0.697), residual shunt 12 months after PFOC, or antithrombotic treatment strategy were comparable in both groups during follow-up. A subanalysis comparing very delayed PFOC (≥24 months) also showed no differences in recurrence (4.2% in the <24-month vs 3.4% in the ≥24-month group, p=0.770).
conclusionPatients undergoing PFOC before and after 9 months after the index event had a comparable recurrence rate of CVE/SE. These findings suggest that PFOC might be recommended in cryptogenic CVE/SE which are more remote than 9 months.
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.