ArticleCureus2024
Uncovering the Risks and Benefits of Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Closure in Cryptogenic Stroke: A Case Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) exists in 20-25% of the adult population, and about 40% of adults who present with cryptogenic stroke (CS) have a PFO. The benefit of intervention has been debated with regard to stroke prevention given the high risk of postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF). In light of this, clinical decision-making is guided by PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification and Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score analysis. Contemporary studies have shown superlative benefits of PFO with device closure and antiplatelet therapy. In our case study, we describe a 52-year-old female with no comorbid conditions who initially presented with expressive aphasia. Upon further diagnostic workup, she was found to have a PFO on transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE). Cardiac monitoring revealed no underlying arrhythmias. The patient subsequently underwent successful PFO repair with device-assisted closure and intracardiac monitor placement. She was discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy. On postoperative follow-up, no detected arrhythmias were revealed, and she made a meaningful recovery with near-total resolution of her symptoms. Our case raises the question of the extent of comprehensive evaluation to rule out underlying etiologies including AF prior to considering device-assisted closure and suggests the need for further studies.
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.