ReviewEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Treatment of patent foramen ovale.
Review in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 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
- Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale: Current Evidence and Future Perspective.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Percutaneous closure of an ultra-long-tunnel-type patent foramen ovale: a rare case with multimodal imaging guidance.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Intracardiac Echocardiography in Structural Heart Interventions: A Comprehensive Overview.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After extensive debate, the percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been established as a first-line treatment for the secondary prevention of PFO-related stroke in patients between 18 and 60 years old, whereas the role of PFO closure for primary prevention remains controversial. Additionally, in selected cases, PFO closure may be considered beyond these age limits and for other indications such as the treatment of systemic deoxygenation syndromes and the secondary prevention of systemic embolism or decompression sickness, when the PFO has been determined to be causative in the condition. In all cases, an in-depth diagnostic work-up, requiring collaboration among different specialists, is necessary to estimate the likelihood of PFO being related to the clinical condition. Since the first percutaneous closure of an atrial septal defect in 1976, the technique has been adapted and simplified for PFO. It is now well standardised with double-disc occluders, which are widely adopted because of their ease of use and evidence-based efficacy and safety. The procedure is generally straightforward, but some anatomical characteristics may be challenging. The choice of device and drug therapy after the procedure is currently empirical and guided by patient characteristics. Early and late complications of the procedure are infrequent but require early diagnosis. Further evidence is eagerly awaited to improve diagnosis, define other indications, make better procedural choices, and prescribe the most effective drug therapy after closure.
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.