ReviewJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2025
Comparison of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure vs Medical Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Cryptogenic Stroke: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patent Foramen Ovale: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Antithrombotic Therapy in Percutaneous Atrial Structural Interventions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Review
- Association between glymphatic dysfunction and cryptogenic stroke risk in patients with patent foramen ovale: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The optimal management approach for patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO) remains uncertain. Whether medical therapy-using antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants-or transcatheter device closure offers superior protection against stroke recurrence has been a topic of considerable debate. This systematic review aims to assess and compare the effectiveness of these two treatment strategies, incorporating recent studies to provide updated insights on the most effective approach to preventing recurrent cryptogenic stroke. Methodology: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid database through December 2024. Eligible studies were randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PFO closure versus medical therapy among patients with cryptogenic stroke. Results: This systematic review analyzed 7 RCTs encompassing 4539 patients with a mean age of 43.6 years, 53.38 % of whom were male. Patient characteristics, including comorbidities such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus, were well-balanced across groups receiving PFO closure or medical therapy. The primary analysis revealed a significant reduction in stroke incidence with PFO closure compared to medical therapy, with no stroke events in the PFO closure groups of the CLOSE and DEFENSE-PFO trials. Similarly, transient ischemic attack (TIA) incidence was consistently lower in PFO closure groups. All-cause mortality was comparable between groups, underscoring the safety profile of PFO closure. However, PFO closure was associated with a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation. Major bleeding risks varied, reflecting the need for tailored risk assessment. Conclusion: PFO closure offers a significant advantage over medical therapy in preventing recurrent cryptogenic stroke and TIA. Nevertheless, the observed increase in atrial fibrillation postclosure highlights the need for additional research to elucidate its long-term implications and to determine whether anticoagulation could benefit specific subsets of patients with PFO and a history of stroke.
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.