ArticleHeliyon2024
Presence of patent foramen ovale does not increase cerebrovascular event rates in patients with atrial fibrillation following left atrial appendage closure.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Very late giant device-related thrombosis on the patent foramen ovale occluder after combined closure of left atrial appendage and patent foramen ovale: a case report and literature review.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
- Migraine and patent foramen ovale: correlation, coexistence, dependence. A narrative review.Headache · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Both atrial fibrillation (AF) and patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been associated with occurrences of ischemic stroke. The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients with concomitant AF and PFO were at an increased risk of stroke, and whether PFO closure was necessary for the prevention of stroke in AF patients who underwent left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Method: We retrospectively analyzed 614 patients who underwent LAAC at Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital from May 2014 to April 2021. We compared the baseline clinical characteristics and ischemic stroke rates before LAAC, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and other long-term outcomes between AF patients with and without PFO after LAAC. The predictor for ischemic stroke or TIA after LAAC was analyzed with univariate and multivariable Cox regression, and the long-term cumulative survival rates of AF patients with PFO compared to those without PFO after LAAC were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier graph. Results: A total of 614 patients who underwent LAAC and had completed follow-up data were included in our study. Among them, 74 patients were diagnosed with AF with PFO, and 540 with AF without PFO. There was no significant difference between their baseline clinical data, including ischemic stroke rates (p = 0.961). Patients with and without PFO had similar device implantation success rates (98.6 % vs 99.4 %, Conclusion: AF patients with PFO are not at increased risk for ischemic stroke or TIA before LAAC. The presence of PFO in AF patients did not affect the success rate and safety of LAAC. The presence of mild PFO is not a viable predictor of stroke events in AF patients who underwent LAAC during long-term follow-up. Major leakage (>5 mm) is associated with a higher ischemic stroke/TIA rate in AF patients who underwent LAAC.
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.