Search

Background: Previous randomized trials on patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure versus medical therapy for stroke prevention were inconclusive. Recently, two new randomized trials and new findings from an extended follow-up of a previous trial have been published on this topic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing PFO closure with medical therapy for stroke prevention. Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched until 16th September 2017. The following search terms were used for PubMed: "patent foramen ovale" AND (stroke OR embolism) and "randomized" AND "Trial". For Cochrane Library, the following terms were used: "patent foramen ovale" AND "closure" AND (stroke OR embolism). Results: A total of 91 and 55 entries were retrieved from each database using our search strategy respectively, of which six studies on five trials met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis included 1829 patients in the PFO closure arm (mean age: 45.3 years; 54% male) and 1972 patients in the medical therapy arm (mean age: 45.1 years; 51% male). The median follow-up duration was 50 ± 30 months. When compared to medical therapy, PFO closure significantly reduced primary endpoint events with a risk ratio [RR] of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.44-0.83, P < 0.0001; I2: 15%). It also reduced stroke (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.73, P < 0.0001; I2: 32%) despite increasing the risk of atrial fibrillation/flutter (RR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.23-2.93, P < 0.01; I2: 43%). However, it did not reduce transient ischemic accident events (0.75; 95% CI: 0.51-1.10, P = 0.14; I2: 0%), all-cause bleeding (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.44-1.78, P = 0.74; I2: 51%) or gastrointestinal complications (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.32-2.70, P = 0.88; I2: 0%). Conclusions: PFO closure significantly reduces risk of stroke when compared to medical treatment and should therefore be considered for stroke prevention in PFO patients.