Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on May 14, 2009

Stroke. 2009
Published online before print May 14, 2009, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.547828
A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
40/7/2349    most recent
STROKEAHA.109.547828v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alsheikh-Ali, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Alsheikh-Ali, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Secondary prevention
Right arrow Risk Factors for Stroke

Submitted on January 16, 2009
Accepted on February 4, 2009

Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke. Incidental or Pathogenic?

Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali MD; David E. Thaler MD, PhD; and David M. Kent MD, MS*

From the Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies (A.A.A., D.M.K.), the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine (A.A.A.), and the Department of Neurology (D.E.T.), Tufts Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dkent1{at}tuftsmedicalcenter.org.

Background and Purpose—Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is significantly associated with cryptogenic stroke (CS). However, even in patients with CS, a PFO can be an incidental finding. We sought to estimate the probability that a PFO in a patient with CS is incidental.

Methods—A systematic search identified 23 case–control studies examining the prevalence of PFO in patients with CS versus control subjects with stroke of known cause. Using simple assumptions and Bayes' theorem, we calculated the probability a PFO is incidental in patients with CS. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the odds ratio (OR) of a PFO in CS versus control subjects in different age populations, with or without atrial septal aneurysms, and were used to summarize across studies the probability that a PFO in CS is incidental.

Results—The summary OR (95% CIs) for PFO in CS versus control subjects was 2.9 (CI, 2.1 to 4.0). The corresponding ORs for young and old patients (< or ≥55 years) were 5.1 (3.3 to 7.8) and 2.0 (>1.0 to 3.7), respectively. The corresponding probabilities that a PFO in patients with CS is incidental were 33% (28% to 39%) in age-inclusive studies, 20% (16% to 25%) in younger patients, and 48% (34% to 66%) in older patients. These probabilities were much lower when an atrial septal aneurysm was present.

Conclusions—In patients with otherwise CS, approximately one third of discovered PFOs are likely to be incidental and hence not benefit from closure. This probability is sensitive to patient characteristics such as age and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm, suggesting the importance of patient selection in therapeutic decision-making.


Key words: patent foramen ovale • risk factors for stroke • secondary stroke prevention