ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparison of safety and short-term outcomes of septostomy and direct tunnel passage techniques in percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure: a multicenter experience.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an established therapeutic strategy for patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS). This study aimed to compare the procedural safety, efficacy, and short-term clinical outcomes of atrial septostomy vs. standard direct tunnel passage techniques for PFO closure. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent PFO closure for CS at four centers between January 2010 and December 2020. Demographic characteristics, vascular risk factors, Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) scores, PFO anatomical features, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were compared between patients treated with atrial septostomy and those undergoing direct tunnel passage. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median [interquartile range], and categorical variables as counts and percentages. Results: A total of 246 patients were included (mean age 40.5 ± 9.8 years), of whom 69.9% presented with ischemic stroke and 30.1% with transient ischemic attack (TIA). Atrial septostomy was performed in 106 patients (43.1%), while 140 patients (56.9%) underwent direct tunnel passage. Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between groups; however, the septostomy group exhibited significantly more complex PFO anatomy, including atrial septal aneurysm (69.8% vs. 39.3%), septal hypermobility (62.3% vs. 34.3%), and spontaneous shunting at rest (85.8% vs. 50.7%; all Conclusion: Despite being applied in patients with more complex PFO anatomy, atrial septostomy demonstrated comparable procedural safety, technical success, and short-term efficacy to standard direct tunnel passage. Tunnel length emerged as an independent predictor of residual shunt, regardless of closure technique. In experienced centers, atrial septostomy appears to be a safe and practical alternative for anatomically challenging PFO closures.
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.