From the Neurological Institute (M.M.S., T.R., R.G., X.C., R.L.S.) and
the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine (M.R. Di T., C.L., S.H.),
Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY; Division of Biostatistics
(X.C.) and Division of Epidemiology and Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center
(R.L.S.), School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY; and
Center for Postgraduate Studies in Neuroscience, Danube University,
Landesnervenklinik Gugging (M.M.S., M.B.), Gugging, Austria.
Correspondence to Ralph L. Sacco, MS, MD, Neurological Institute, ColumbiaPresbyterian Medical Center, 710 West 168th St, New York, NY 10032. E-mail rls1{at}columbia.edu
MethodsAs part of the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study, 95
patients with first ischemic stroke over age 39 underwent
transesophageal echocardiography
(TEE) for evaluation of a cardiac source of embolism. The stroke
subtype was determined by modified NINDS Stroke Data Bank criteria.
Stroke subtype and MRI/CT imaging data were evaluated blind to the
presence of a PFO. These findings were compared between two groups:
patients with medium to large PFO (
ResultsOf the 95 patients who underwent TEE, 31 (33%) had a
PFO. The frequency of PFO was significantly greater among patients with
cryptogenic infarcts (19 of 42; 45%) compared with patients with
determined cause of stroke (12 of 53, 23%; P=0.02).
Medium to large PFOs were found more often among cryptogenic strokes
than among infarcts of determined cause (26% versus 6%;
P=0.04). Superficial infarcts occurred more often in the
group with larger PFOs than in the group with small or no PFOs (50%
versus 21%; P=0.02). Patients with medium or large PFOs
more frequently had occipital and infratentorial strokes (57% versus
27%; P=0.02).
ConclusionsStroke patients with larger PFOs show more brain
imaging features of embolic infarcts than those with small PFOs. Larger
PFOs may be more likely to cause paradoxical embolization and may help
explain the stroke mechanism among patients with no other definite
cause.
Establishing a causal relationship between PFO and stroke remains the
crucial point in the diagnosis of PCE. The suggested criteria for this
diagnosis (systemic or cerebral embolism in the absence of a left-sided
cardiac origin; presence of a venous thrombosis; documentation of a
right-to-left cardiac shunt; occurrence of an elevated right heart
pressure8) may not always be met. The presence of
other cofactors, such as the size of a PFO, may raise the probability
of PCE.9 10 11
Brain imaging findings could also contribute to the evaluation of
the role of the PFO as the mechanism for stroke. If PCE is the
pathogenic mechanism of the event, brain imaging should more often be
compatible with embolism in patients with rather than those without a
PFO.12 13 Only anecdotal
data14 are available on brain imaging findings
among patients with ischemic stroke and PFO; no study
specifically investigating these findings has been conducted.
In our study, we evaluated the brain imaging findings and the vascular
distribution of ischemic strokes among patients in whom a PFO
was diagnosed by TEE in order to determine whether the cerebral
infarction was likely to be embolic and, therefore, supportive of a
diagnosis of PCE.
Reasons for referral for TEE included presentation with
embolic syndrome without an obvious source of embolism, unexplained
stroke, or conflicting data regarding the potential stroke mechanism.
Moreover, younger patients with unexplained stroke were more likely to
be referred for TEE than older stroke patients. Patients who were
obtunded, unable to swallow, or uncooperative were ineligible for the
procedure. (Approximately 15% to 20% of all acute stroke patients
admitted to the Neuromuscular Unit are usually referred for TEE.)
Index Stroke Evaluation
A systematic assessment of lower extremity venous Doppler was not
performed; however, none of our study patients had clinical signs of
lower extremity venous thrombosis.
Stroke Subtype Classification
Brain Imaging
Echocardiography and Diagnosis of PFO
Statistical Analyses
A PFO was detected among 31 patients (33%; mean age, 64.2±10.0)
whereas 64 patients (67%) had no PFO (mean age, 64.6±11.7). All
patients had undergone at least 1 brain imaging, and the mean time of
investigation after onset of stroke symptoms was 2.5±3.6 days for CT
and 3.4±2.5 days for MRI. The diagnosis of the infarct was based on CT
in 54 cases (57%) and MRI in 41 (43%). The frequencies of PFO among
the stroke subtypes are shown in Table 1
Overall, the type, site, size, and number of responsible lesions, as
well as the frequency of hemorrhagic transformation and the vascular
territory of the infarct, were similar between patients with PFO and
without PFO. When we analyzed cryptogenic infarcts only, we
also did not find any statistically significant difference in the
criteria described above.
Of the 31 patients with PFO, 17 (55%) had a small (0 to 1.9 mm)
PFO, 11 (35%) had a medium (2 to 3.9 mm) PFO, and 3 (10%) had a
large (
Since small PFOs may not have the same stroke risk as large PFOs, we
reclassified the PFO status among the 95 stroke patients into 2 groups:
1 group consisted of patients with medium and large PFOs (n=14), and
the other group (n=81) had either no PFOs or small PFOs. Table 2
The separate analysis of cryptogenic infarcts showed trends
similar to those of the overall group, but no statistically significant
difference was achieved.
We found PFOs of medium and large size more frequently in cryptogenic
infarcts, whereas the distribution of small PFOs seemed to be equal
between cryptogenic infarcts and infarcts of defined cause. Homma et
al11 investigated 24 patients with PFO by TEE and
also found significantly larger PFOs (2.1±1.7 mm) in patients
with cryptogenic infarcts than in patients with an identifiable cause
of stroke (0.57±0.78 mm). Another study demonstrated a different
morphologic appearance of PFOs in cryptogenic strokes from PFOs in a
control group.9 From these results as well as the
results of the present study, an association between the size of
PFO and the probability of PCE could be hypothesized, in the sense that
larger PFOs are probably more likely than small PFOs to cause
paradoxical cerebral embolism.
We found features of embolic infarcts, such as more superficial
infarcts, larger infarcts, and infarcts in territories of large
vessels, more often in patients with large PFOs than in patients with
small or no PFOs. No differences were seen in the number of clinically
relevant lesions and hemorrhagic transformation of the infarct. Despite
the fact that the presence of hemorrhagic transformation is a strong
indicator for embolic infarction, a previous published study also did
not demonstrate an association between PFO and hemorrhagic
infarcts.19 The reason we did not find any
differences regarding hemorrhagic transformation between patients with
and without PFO might result from the small sample size and relatively
low frequency of hemorrhagic infarctions. Moreover, only the first
pathological imaging was taken into consideration, and the time span
from onset of symptoms to brain imaging might have been too short to
detect a higher percentage of hemorrhagic transformation.
Several studies have suggested that embolic infarcts may affect the
posterior cerebral artery in approximately 35% of
cases20 and the cerebellum in up to
54%.21 In one transcranial
Doppler study of 12 patients with PFO, microcavitations from
contrast injection were detected in the MCA of all patients and in the
posterior circulation in 75% of the patients.22
In our study, the posterior circulation was more frequently involved in
patients with larger PFOs, suggesting the possibility that paradoxical
embolization may account for some of these findings.
Among the cryptogenic infarct subgroup, the results regarding the
association between PFO and stroke size and distribution were similar
to those of the overall group, but the smaller sample size limited the
ability to reach statistical significance. We found a greater frequency
of PFOs in patients with cryptogenic strokes than in patients with
known cause of stroke. This confirms that the role of a PFO as a risk
factor for stroke may be greater in patients in whom no other cause is
found.2 3 4 5
As there were more features of embolic infarcts found in larger PFOs,
we suggest that a PFO of medium or large size could be a pathway for
PCE. Small PFOs are probably less likely to cause paradoxical embolism.
This could be due to the fact that small PFOs in most cases might not
be hemodynamically functional and therefore not allow
the passage of even small emboli.
The findings of our study suggest that some cryptogenic strokes might
be reclassified as cardioembolic on the basis of the detection of a PFO
and brain imaging findings suggestive of embolism. However, such
reclassification should not be performed routinely but should instead
be made on an individual case basis, taking into consideration other
associated factors, such as deep venous thrombosis or blood
hypercoagulability, that might affect the diagnosis.
Our study has several limitations. First, the association between
imaging findings and embolic origin of an infarct must be considered
with some caution, since a wider variety of sizes and types of lesions
can be associated with an embolic infarct. Also, our sample size was
relatively small, especially for cryptogenic infarcts. Furthermore,
since the mean age of patients in our study was 64 years and only those
over 39 were included in the study, our findings cannot be generalized
to a younger population of patients with stroke.
In summary, we conclude that the presence or absence of a PFO alone may
not be a sufficient finding in itself to suggest paradoxical cerebral
embolism as the cause for the stroke. The measurement of the size of
the PFO and the presence of embolic brain imaging findings could
provide further information on the significance of PFO as a potential
cause of stroke. A possible causal relationship between PFO and stroke
should be suspected in the presence of a large PFO and no other
definite cause of stroke.
Received January 20, 1998;
revision received March 2, 1998;
accepted March 2, 1998.
2.
Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, Loron P, Theard M,
Klimczac M. Prevalence of foramen ovale in patients with stroke.
N Engl J Med. 1988;318:11481152.[Abstract]
3.
Webster MW, Chancellor AM, Smith HJ, Swift DL, Sharpe
DN, Bass NM. Patent foramen ovale in young stroke patients.
Lancet. 1988;2:1112.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
deBelder MA, Tourikis L, Lech G, Camm JA. Risk of
patent foramen ovale for thromboembolic events in all age groups.
Am J Cardiol. 1992;69:13161320.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
5.
Di Tullio M, Sacco RL, Gopal A, Mohr JP, Homma S.
Patent foramen ovale as a risk factor for cryptogenic stroke. Ann
Intern Med. 1992;117:461465.
6.
Di Tullio M, Sacco RL, Venketasubramanian N, Sherman
D, Mohr JP, Homma S. Comparison of diagnostic techniques
for the detection of patent foramen ovale in stroke patients.
Stroke. 1993;24:10201024.
7.
Konstadt SN, Louie EK, Black S, Rao TLK, Scanlon P.
Intraoperative detection of patent foramen ovale by
transesophageal echocardiography.
Anesthesiology. 1991;74:212216.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
8.
Meister SG, Grossmann W, Dexter L, Dalen JE.
Paradoxical embolism: diagnosis during life. Am J Med. 1972;53:292298.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
9.
Cosyns B, Schulze D, Van Camp G, Vandenbossche J-L.
Relationship between patent foramen ovale and unexplained stroke: a
study by quantitative transesophageal contrast
echocardiography. Circulation.
1992;86(suppl I):I-146. Abstract.
10.
Bridges ND, Hellenbrand W, Latson L, Filiano J,
Newburger JW, Lock JE. Transcatheter closure of patent
foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical cerebral embolism.
Circulation. 1992;86:19021908.
11.
Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Mihalatos D, Li Mandro
G, Mohr JP. Characteristics of patent foramen ovale associated with
cryptogenic stroke: a biplane transesophageal
echocardiographic study. Stroke. 1994;25:582586.[Abstract]
12.
Hart RG. Cardiogenic embolism to the brain.
Lancet. 1992;339:589594.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
13.
Caplan LR. Brain embolism, revisited.
Neurology. 1993;43:12811287.
14.
Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, Aebischer N,
Van Melle G, for the Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxical Embolism Study
Group. Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale:
The Lausanne Study. Neurology. 1996;46:13011305.
15.
Gan R, Sacco RL, Kargman DE, Roberts JK, Boden-Albala
B, Gu Q. Testing the validity of the lacunar hypothesis: The Northern
Manhattan Stroke Study experience. Neurology. 1997;48:12041211.
16.
Foulkes MA, Wolf PA, Price TR, Mohr JP, Hier DB. The
Stroke Data Bank: design, methods, and baseline characteristics.
Stroke. 1988;19:547554.
17.
Berkompas DC, Sagar KB. Accuracy of color Doppler
transesophageal echocardiography
for the diagnosis of patent foramen ovale. J Am Soc
Echocardiogr. 1994;7:253256.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
18.
Mohr JP, Sacco RL. Classification of ischemic
strokes. In: Barnett JM, Mohr JP, Stein BM, Yatsu FM, eds.
Stroke: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1992:271283.
19.
Petty GW, Khandheria BK, Chu CP, Sicks JD, Whisnant JP.
Patent foramen ovale in patients with cerebral infarction. Arch
Neurol. 1997;54:819822.
20.
Servan J, Catala M, Rancurel G. Posterior
cerebral artery (PCA) infarction: a study of 76 cases.
Cerebrovasc Dis. 1992;2:233. Abstract.
21.
Amarenco P, Hauw J-J. Cerebellar infarction in the
territory of the superior cerebellar artery: a clinicopathological
study of 33 cases. Neurology. 1990;40:13831390.
22.
Venketasubramanian N, Sacco RL, Di Tullio M, Sherman D,
Homma S, Mohr JP. Vascular distribution of paradoxical emboli by
transcranial Doppler. Neurology. 1993;43:15331535.
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions
Patent Foramen Ovale Size and Embolic Brain Imaging Findings Among Patients With Ischemic Stroke
![]()
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Background and PurposeAlthough the
cause of stroke among patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) may be
due to paradoxical cerebral embolism (PCE), this mechanism is often
difficult to prove. The aim of our study was to evaluate the
association between brain imaging findings suggestive of embolism and
PFO among ischemic stroke patients.
2 mm) and small
(<2 mm) or no PFO.
Key Words: cerebral infarction echocardiography, transesophageal foramen ovale, patent
![]()
Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Patent foramen ovale
(PFO) has long been recognized as a potential risk factor for
ischemic stroke through paradoxical cerebral embolism
(PCE).1 Case-control studies demonstrating a
higher prevalence of PFO among patients with cryptogenic
strokes2 3 4 5 led to the acceptance of PFO
as stroke risk factor. However, when transesophageal
echocardiography (TEE) (the most sensitive technique for detecting a
PFO,6) is used, the prevalence of PFO in the
normal population is high (between 22 and 38%7).
Therefore, the detection of a PFO in a stroke patient does not
necessarily identify the cause for the stroke.
![]()
Subjects and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Study Population
The patients in this study were selected from the Northern
Manhattan Stroke Study, which has been described
previously.15 Patients eligible for this
analysis were those who were prospectively enrolled from
February 1993 to December 1996 if they met the following criteria: (1)
diagnosed with acute cerebral infarction, (2) over the age of 39 years
at stroke, (3) resident of the Northern Manhattan community,
and (4) had undergone TEE.
Patients were examined within a week of stroke onset by one of
the study neurologists. Data were collected through an in-person
interview of the patient or family and review of the hospital
records. Details of medical, neurological, and social history;
stroke risk factors; general and neurological examinations; and
laboratory studies were ascertained. Diagnostic evaluations
included head CT at admission; ECG; extracranial duplex Doppler
ultrasonography; transcranial Doppler; two-dimensional
transthoracic ECG; and when necessary, a follow-up CT or
MRI, Holter monitor, conventional cerebral angiogram, or MR
angiogram.
The stroke subtype was determined by a diagnostic
committee after review of all the available data to characterize each
ischemic stroke by causal mechanism based on a modified NINDS
Stroke Data Bank scheme.16 The project
coordinator prepared the data, which included admitting clinical
syndrome and results of blood tests, brain imaging, and noninvasive
cardiac and vascular evaluation. The committee members were blinded to
the identifying patient data, gender, race/ethnicity, risk factors
(except for history of transient ischemic attack, atrial
fibrillation, and recent myocardial infarction) including presence of
patent foramen ovale, and outcome. Ischemic strokes were
classified into the following categories, which have been characterized
previously15: infarction due to extracranial or
intracranial atherosclerosis, embolism from a commonly
accepted cardiac source, lacunar infarction, cryptogenic infarction,
conflicting mechanisms, and stroke from other unusual causes. Patients
classified as having cryptogenic infarction had no definite
cardioembolic source or obvious ipsilateral atherosclerotic vascular
disease, and they usually presented with a nonlacunar syndrome
and an infarct of unexplained cause. They failed to meet any of the
criteria for infarcts of determined cause or may have had inadequate
evaluation so that reasonable diagnostic classification was
difficult.
The first positive brain imaging or a negative scan after an
appropriate time from the onset of symptoms was reviewed. The brain
imaging features analyzed in this study were the following:
number of lesions seen; number of lesions clinically related to the
stroke; side, type, size, and site of the relevant lesion; and
hemorrhagic transformation of the infarct. Side of the lesion was
categorized as left, right, midline, or both. The type of lesion was
defined as superficial (if the cortex was mainly involved), superficial
and deep (with additional involvement of white matter), deep small (if
1 cm), or deep large (if >1 cm). The size of the lesion was
classified as
1 cm,
1/2 lobe,
1 lobe, or >1 lobe. Possible sites
included the frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, occipital
lobe, basal ganglia, thalamus, corona radiata/centrum
semiovale, internal capsule, midbrain, pons, medulla, and
cerebellum. Hemorrhagic transformation was determined by the
hyperdensity in the infarct area on CT or on MRI suggestive of a
hemorrhagic stroke. On the basis of these results, the
diagnostic committee classified the vascular territory of
the infarct: internal carotid artery (ICA), anterior cerebral artery
(ACA), posterior cerebral artery (PCA), PCA penetrant, middle cerebral
artery (MCA), MCA penetrant, MCA stem, MCA upper division branch, MCA
lower division branch, basilar, basilar penetrant, vertebral/posterior
inferior cerebellar (PICA), or other. An infarct in the
territory of the ICA, ACA, PCA, MCA, basilar, or vertebral/PICA was
classified as infarct of a major vessel. For the purpose of the
analysis vascular territory were categorized into 2 categories,
anterior and posterior.
Echocardiography was performed with a
Hewlett-Packard Sonos 1000 or 2500 equipment with a 5.0-MHz biplane or
omniplane transducer for transesophageal imaging. We
performed both color Doppler and contrast study for the detection
of PFO. The diagnosis of PFO was based on findings from the contrast
study, which has been reported to be more sensitive than color
Doppler.17 Contrast material was prepared by
mixing 10 mL saline with 0.5 mL air by means of two syringes mounted on
a 3-way stopcock. During the test, the suspension was rapidly injected
into an antecubital vein. A PFO was considered to be present when
at least 1 microbubble was seen in the left atrium within 3 cardiac
cycles from their appearance in the right atrium. The test was repeated
during Valsalva maneuver to increase its sensitivity whenever patients
were able to perform it. Otherwise, the test was repeated during
coughing. For transesophageal imaging, the longitudinal
plane was selected to display the fossa ovalis area; the maximum
separation of septum primum and secundum was measured in this view. PFO
size was classified into 3 categories according to the criteria used at
the Echocardiography Laboratory of the
ColumbiaPresbyterian Medical Center: small (when the separation was 0
to 1.9 mm), medium (from 2 to 3.9 mm), and large (
4
mm).
Frequencies of stroke subtypes, brain imaging, and vascular
findings were calculated for the patients with PFO and those without
PFO. According to PFO size, the patients were classified into a group
with medium and large PFOs and a group with small or no PFOs. To
compare the proportions of brain imaging and vascular findings between
those 2 groups, the
2 test was used. The
Fisher exact test was used when the expected cell count was <5.
Statistically significant difference was set at the level of
P<0.05.
![]()
Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Of 584 patients with first ischemic stroke, 95 (mean age,
64.4±11.1; 52% women) underwent TEE for evaluation of a cardiac
source of embolism. A comparison between patients in whom TEE was and
those in whom TEE was not performed disclosed no significant difference
by stroke subtype and gender. Patients with TEE evaluation were younger
(mean age, 64) than those without TEE (mean age, 70 years).
.
The frequency of PFO was significantly higher in patients with
cryptogenic infarcts (19 of 42; 45%) compared with patients with
determined cause of stroke (12 of 53, 23%; P=0.02).
View this table:
[in a new window]
Table 1. Frequencies of PFO Among Stroke Subtypes
4 mm) PFO. The prevalence of PFOs of medium and large
size was greater among cryptogenic infarcts (11 of 42; 26%) than in
infarcts of determined cause (3 of 54, 6%; P=0.04).
shows the imaging and vascular findings
in these two groups of patients. Superficial infarcts occurred more
often in the group with larger PFOs (7 of 14; 50%) than in the small
or no PFO group (18 of 81, 21%; P=0.02). There was a
tendency toward larger infarcts (>1 lobe) in patients with larger PFOs
(2 of 14; 14%) compared with patients with no or small PFOs (2 of 81,
2%; P=0.10). In medium and large PFO group, the site of
stroke was significantly more occipital and infratentorial (8 of 14;
57%) than in the group with no or small PFOs (20 of 81, 27%;
P=0.02). Larger vessels were more often affected in the
group with larger PFOs (9 of 14; 64%) and less often in the group with
smaller PFOs (31 of 81, 38%; P=0.05). The posterior
circulation was more often involved in the group with larger PFOs (9 of
14; 64%), than in the group with no or small PFOs (27 of 81, 33%;
P=0.05). No difference was seen between the 2 groups with
regard to the side of lesion and the frequency of hemorrhagic
transformation.
View this table:
[in a new window]
Table 2. Brain Imaging Findings Among Patients With TEE
(n=95)
![]()
Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
A paradoxical embolism is expected to cause brain infarcts that
are similar on brain imaging to those caused by other embolic sources.
Some features on brain imaging are more likely to indicate an embolic
infarct. If a superficial arterial branch is occluded or if
there is an infarct >1 lobe in size, the presence of an embolic
infarct is strongly suggested.18 When we compared
the brain imaging findings between patients with PFO and those without,
we found no differences concerning findings of embolic infarcts. This
implies that the mere presence of a PFO may not be an indication of the
cause of the stroke in these patients. Embolic brain imaging features,
however, were more frequently found among patients with large PFOs.
Since the size of a PFO may be an important modifying factor of the
stroke risk, we categorized the patients into 2 groups: those with
medium or large PFOs and those with small or no PFOs.
![]()
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01-NS-27517, R01-NS-29993,
R01-NS-33248, and R01-NS-32525).
![]()
Footnotes
Presented in abstract form at the 6th European Stroke Conference in Amsterdam, May 2831, 1997.
![]()
References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
1.
Sacco RL, Homma S, Di Tullio MR. Patent foramen
ovale: a new risk factor for stroke. Heart Dis Stroke. 1993;2:235241.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. A. Alsheikh-Ali, D. E. Thaler, and D. M. Kent Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke: Incidental or Pathogenic? Stroke, July 1, 2009; 40(7): 2349 - 2355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A.-R. Fathi, P. Eshtehardi, and B. Meier Patent foramen ovale and neurosurgery in sitting position: a systematic review Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2009; 102(5): 588 - 596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A Wahl and B Meier Patent foramen ovale and ventricular septal defect closure Heart, January 1, 2009; 95(1): 70 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Serena, J. Marti-Fabregas, E. Santamarina, J. J. Rodriguez, M. J. Perez-Ayuso, J. Masjuan, T. Segura, J. Gallego, A. Davalos, on Behalf of the CODICIA (Right-to-Left Shunt in C, et al. Recurrent Stroke and Massive Right-to-Left Shunt: Results From the Prospective Spanish Multicenter (CODICIA) Study Stroke, December 1, 2008; 39(12): 3131 - 3136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Windecker and B. Meier Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke: To Close or Not to Close? Closure: What Else! Circulation, November 4, 2008; 118(19): 1989 - 1997. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Saremi, S. Channual, A. Raney, S. V. Gurudevan, J. Narula, S. Fowler, A. Abolhoda, and J. C. Milliken Imaging of Patent Foramen Ovale with 64-Section Multidetector CT Radiology, November 1, 2008; 249(2): 483 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. A. Meyer, C. Kunavarapu, J. A. Switzer, F. Nichols III, B. Silver, A. Russman, D. M. Kent, T. A. Trikalinos, D. E. Thaler, M. Handke, et al. Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke N. Engl. J. Med., April 3, 2008; 358(14): 1518 - 1521. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. E. Williamson, J. Kirsch, P. A. Araoz, W. B. Edmister, D. D. Borgeson, J. F. Glockner, and J. F. Breen ECG-Gated Cardiac CT Angiography Using 64-MDCT for Detection of Patent Foramen Ovale Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2008; 190(4): 929 - 933. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N Purandare, R C Oude Voshaar, C McCollum, A Jackson, and A Burns Paradoxical embolisation and cerebral white matter lesions in dementia Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2008; 81(961): 30 - 34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Sarkar, S. Ghosh, S. K. Ghosh, and A. Collier Role of transcranial Doppler ultrasonography in stroke Postgrad. Med. J., November 1, 2007; 83(985): 683 - 689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Sievert, E. Fischer, C. Heinisch, N. Majunke, A. Roemer, and N. Wunderlich Transcatheter Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Without an Implant: Initial Clinical Experience Circulation, October 9, 2007; 116(15): 1701 - 1706. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. L. P. Slottow, D. H. Steinberg, and R. Waksman Overview of the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting on Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices Circulation, August 7, 2007; 116(6): 677 - 682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. R. Di Tullio, R. L. Sacco, R. R. Sciacca, Z. Jin, and S. Homma Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 3, 2007; 50(1): 81 - 81. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. R. Di Tullio, R. L. Sacco, R. R. Sciacca, Z. Jin, and S. Homma Patent Foramen Ovale and the Risk of Ischemic Stroke in a Multiethnic Population J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 20, 2007; 49(7): 797 - 802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. H. Bonati, A. Kessel-Schaefer, A. Z. Linka, P. Buser, S. G. Wetzel, E.-W. Radue, P. A. Lyrer, and S. T. Engelter Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Stroke Attributable to Patent Foramen Ovale: Significance of Concomitant Atrial Septum Aneurysm Stroke, August 1, 2006; 37(8): 2030 - 2034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. L. Sacco, R. Adams, G. Albers, M. J. Alberts, O. Benavente, K. Furie, L. B. Goldstein, P. Gorelick, J. Halperin, R. Harbaugh, et al. Guidelines for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: Co-Sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Circulation, March 14, 2006; 113(10): e409 - e449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. L. Sacco, R. Adams, G. Albers, M. J. Alberts, O. Benavente, K. Furie, L. B. Goldstein, P. Gorelick, J. Halperin, R. Harbaugh, et al. Guidelines for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: Co-Sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke, February 1, 2006; 37(2): 577 - 617. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Hara, R. Virmani, E. Ladich, S. Mackey-Bojack, J. Titus, M. Reisman, W. Gray, M. Nakamura, M. Mooney, A. Poulose, et al. Patent Foramen Ovale: Current Pathology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Status J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 1, 2005; 46(9): 1768 - 1776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Homma and R. L. Sacco Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke Circulation, August 16, 2005; 112(7): 1063 - 1072. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. Merkle and R. C. Gilkeson Remnants of Fetal Circulation: Appearance on MDCT in Adults Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2005; 185(2): 541 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. K. Mohrs, S. E. Petersen, D. Erkapic, C. Rubel, R. Schrader, B. Nowak, W. A. Fach, H.-U. Kauczor, and T. Voigtlaender Diagnosis of Patent Foramen Ovale Using Contrast-Enhanced Dynamic MRI: A Pilot Study Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2005; 184(1): 234 - 240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H.P. Kuhl and P. Hanrath The impact of transesophageal echocardiography on daily clinical practice Eur J Echocardiogr, December 1, 2004; 5(6): 455 - 468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Uzuner, S. Horner, G. Pichler, D. Svetina, and K. Niederkorn Right-to-Left Shunt Assessed by Contrast Transcranial Doppler Sonography: New Insights J. Ultrasound Med., November 1, 2004; 23(11): 1475 - 1482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Windecker, A. Wahl, K. Nedeltchev, M. Arnold, M. Schwerzmann, C. Seiler, H. P. Mattle, and B. Meier Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 18, 2004; 44(4): 750 - 758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. R. Messe, I. E. Silverman, J. R. Kizer, S. Homma, C. Zahn, G. Gronseth, and S. E. Kasner Practice Parameter: Recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology Neurology, April 13, 2004; 62(7): 1042 - 1050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Bittl and L. R. Caplan Stroke after percutaneous coronary interventions J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 7, 2004; 43(7): 1168 - 1169. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Devuyst, B. Piechowski-Jozwiak, T. Karapanayiotides, J.-W. Fitting, V. Kemeny, L. Hirt, L. A. Urbano, P. Arnold, G. van Melle, P.-A. Despland, et al. Controlled Contrast Transcranial Doppler and Arterial Blood Gas Analysis to Quantify Shunt Through Patent Foramen Ovale Stroke, April 1, 2004; 35(4): 859 - 863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. C. Cramer, G. Rordorf, J. H. Maki, L. A. Kramer, J. C. Grotta, W. S. Burgin, J. A. Hinchey, C. Benesch, K. L. Furie, H. L. Lutsep, et al. Increased Pelvic Vein Thrombi in Cryptogenic Stroke: Results of the Paradoxical Emboli From Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) Study Stroke, January 1, 2004; 35(1): 46 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Khairy, C. P. O'Donnell, and M. J. Landzberg Transcatheter Closure versus Medical Therapy of Patent Foramen Ovale and Presumed Paradoxical Thromboemboli: A Systematic Review Ann Intern Med, November 4, 2003; 139(9): 753 - 760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Homma, R. L. Sacco, M. R. Di Tullio, R. R. Sciacca, J. P. Mohr, and PICSS Investigators Atrial anatomy in non-cardioembolic stroke patients: Effect of medical therapy J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 17, 2003; 42(6): 1066 - 1072. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. J. Rodriguez, S. Homma, R. L. Sacco, M. R. Di Tullio, R. R. Sciacca, and J.P. Mohr Race-Ethnic Differences in Patent Foramen Ovale, Atrial Septal Aneurysm, and Right Atrial Anatomy Among Ischemic Stroke Patients Stroke, September 1, 2003; 34(9): 2097 - 2102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Meier and J. E. Lock Contemporary Management of Patent Foramen Ovale Circulation, January 7, 2003; 107(1): 5 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. W. Droste, S. Lakemeier, T. Wichter, J. Stypmann, R. Dittrich, M. Ritter, M. Moeller, M. Freund, and E. B. Ringelstein Optimizing the Technique of Contrast Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound in the Detection of Right-to-Left Shunts Stroke, September 1, 2002; 33(9): 2211 - 2216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Bruch, A. Parsi, M. O. Grad, S. Rux, T. Burmeister, H. Krebs, and F. X. Kleber Transcatheter Closure of Interatrial Communications for Secondary Prevention of Paradoxical Embolism: Single-Center Experience Circulation, June 18, 2002; 105(24): 2845 - 2848. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Homma, R. L. Sacco, M. R. Di Tullio, R. R. Sciacca, J.P. Mohr, and for the PFO in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS) In Effect of Medical Treatment in Stroke Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale: Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study Circulation, June 4, 2002; 105(22): 2625 - 2631. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. B. Horowitz, R. Carrau, D. Crammond, and E. Kanal Risks of Tumor Embolization in the Presence of an Unrecognized Patent Foramen Ovale: Case Report AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., June 1, 2002; 23(6): 982 - 984. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Lamy, C. Giannesini, M. Zuber, C. Arquizan, J.F. Meder, D. Trystram, J. Coste, and J.L. Mas Clinical and Imaging Findings in Cryptogenic Stroke Patients With and Without Patent Foramen Ovale: The PFO-ASA Study Stroke, March 1, 2002; 33(3): 706 - 711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. W. Schuchlenz, W. Weihs, A. Beitzke, J.-I. Stein, A. Gamillscheg, and P. Rehak Transesophageal Echocardiography for Quantifying Size of Patent Foramen Ovale in Patients With Cryptogenic Cerebrovascular Events Stroke, January 1, 2002; 33(1): 293 - 296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.-L. Mas, C. Arquizan, C. Lamy, M. Zuber, L. Cabanes, G. Derumeaux, J. Coste, and the Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Aneurys Recurrent Cerebrovascular Events Associated with Patent Foramen Ovale, Atrial Septal Aneurysm, or Both N. Engl. J. Med., December 13, 2001; 345(24): 1740 - 1746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Hayashida, K. Fukuchi, M. Inubushi, K. Fukushima, S. Imakita, and K. Kimura Embolic Distribution Through Patent Foramen Ovale Demonstrated by 99mTc-MAA Brain SPECT After Valsalva Radionuclide Venography J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2001; 42(6): 859 - 863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. J. Kerr, T. Buck, K. Chia, C. M. Chow, E. Fox, R. A. Levine, and M. H. Picard Transmitral Doppler: a new transthoracic contrast method for patent foramen ovale detection and quantification J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 15, 2000; 36(6): 1959 - 1966. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. R. Overell, I. Bone, and K. R. Lees Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: A meta-analysis of case-control studies Neurology, October 24, 2000; 55(8): 1172 - 1179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. De Castro, D. Cartoni, M. Fiorelli, M. Rasura, A. Anzini, E. M. Zanette, M. Beccia, C. Colonnese, F. Fedele, C. Fieschi, et al. Morphological and Functional Characteristics of Patent Foramen Ovale and Their Embolic Implications Stroke, October 1, 2000; 31(10): 2407 - 2413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Gunther, R. Junker, R. Strater, R. Schobess, K. Kurnik, A. Kosch, U. Nowak-Gottl, and f. t. C. S. S. Group Symptomatic Ischemic Stroke in Full-Term Neonates : Role of Acquired and Genetic Prothrombotic Risk Factors Stroke, October 1, 2000; 31(10): 2437 - 2441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. J. Kirkham, M. Prengler, D. K.M. Hewes, and V. Ganesan Risk Factors for Arterial Ischemic Stroke in Children J Child Neurol, May 1, 2000; 15(5): 299 - 307. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. J. Schwarze, D. Sander, C. Kukla, I. Wittich, V. L. Babikian, and J. Klingelhofer Methodological Parameters Influence the Detection of Right-to-Left Shunts by Contrast Transcranial Doppler Ultrasonography Stroke, June 1, 1999; 30(6): 1234 - 1239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stroke Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 1998 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |