ArticleCJC open2026
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Primary Prevention of Stroke.
Article in CJC open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is common and has been associated with cryptogenic stroke; however, evidence supporting PFO closure for primary prevention of stroke remains limited. Current guidelines discourage routine closure in patients without prior cerebrovascular events, due to insufficient data. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Network, including adults diagnosed with PFO between 2014 and 2022 without documented prior ischemic stroke or atrial fibrillation and/or flutter. Patients were stratified based on having undergone transcatheter PFO closure vs not having done so. Propensity-score matching was performed using demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory values. Outcomes were assessed up to 1 year following the index event. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, cardiac arrest, and sleep apnea. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 3398 patients were included in each cohort, with comparable baseline characteristics and follow-up duration. PFO closure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of ischemic stroke compared with no closure (3.5% vs 6.4%; aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.82). All-cause hospitalization was also reduced in the closure cohort (15.5% vs 28.6%; aOR 0.46, 95% CI 0.41-0.52). New-onset atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently after PFO closure (1.1% vs 0.4%; aOR 3.09, 95% CI 1.72-5.55), with no significant differences in mortality. Conclusions: In this large cohort without documented prior stroke, PFO closure was associated with lower stroke incidence but higher atrial fibrillation risk. Prospective studies are needed before extending closure indications to primary prevention populations.
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.