Original Article

Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Occlusion in Patients Over 60 Years of Age with History of Stroke

Abstract

Background:

The prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is 27%. PFO is related to paradoxical embolism, which can cause ischemic stroke. Ischemic stroke without an identifiable cause is common, accounting for up to 40% of cases, and PFO is frequently found in these patients. The prevalence of PFO is almost 3 times higher in elderly patients with ischemic stroke without identified etiology, suggesting that these patients may also benefit from PFO closure.

Objectives:

The primary objective was to assess the recurrence of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack during clinical follow-up. The secondary objective was to assess the occurrence of procedural complications, onset of atrial fibrillation, and reduced anticoagulant use.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study included 36 patients over 60 years of age with prior ischemic stroke who underwent PFO closure. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier model. Independence tests between categorical variables were performed using the chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test, adopting a significance level of 0.05.

Results:

The patients’ mean age was 69.6 ± 6.5 years, and 55.5% were men. No complications occurred during the procedures. Echocardiography was performed 30 days after the intervention, showing no residual shunts. During the follow-up of 58.9 ± 42.7 months, there were no cases of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or atrial fibrillation related to the procedure. The use of anticoagulants decreased from 41.7% to 5.6% (p = 0.03).

Conclusions:

Percutaneous PFO occlusion for the prevention of cerebrovascular events in individuals over 60 years of age with prior ischemic stroke is effective and safe, with a low risk of complications, and it can reduce the risk of bleeding by reducing the use of anticoagulants.

Images

Metrics

Views 0
PlumX Metrics

Comments

0 Comments

Comments are moderated by the editorial team before publication. Discussions should be evidence-based and use scientific language. Conflicts of interest should be declared.

No comments yet.

Send a comment