Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2026
Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): An Intervention Sequence
Published on: December 23, 2022
Complications and mid-term outcome after percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure in patients with cryptogenic
J G L M Luermans1, M C Post, H W M Plokker
1Department of Cardiology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Insights
Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a safe and effective treatment to prevent recurrent paradoxical thrombo-embolic events. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of PFO closure in 83 patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Neurology
Background:
- Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure may reduce recurrent thromboembolism risk.
- This study reports on the safety and efficacy of percutaneous PFO closure at a single center.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure.
- To evaluate the recurrence rates of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and peripheral thromboembolism after PFO closure.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 83 patients (>16 years) who underwent percutaneous PFO closure.
- Assessment of recurrent stroke, TIA, and peripheral thromboembolism.
- Reporting of periprocedural and midterm complications.
Main Results:
- 83 patients (mean age 49 years) underwent PFO closure for cryptogenic stroke (59%), TIA (33.7%), or peripheral embolism (2.4%).
- Recurrence rates were low: stroke (1.2%), TIA (3.6%), peripheral embolism (0%).
- Major periprocedural complications occurred in 1.2%, with a 2.4% midterm complication rate (minor).
Conclusions:
- Percutaneous PFO closure is a safe and effective procedure in this center.
- The procedure helps prevent the recurrence of paradoxical thrombo-embolic events.
- No significant difference in outcomes was observed between Cardioseal/Starflex and Amplatzer PFO occluder devices.
Background:
Percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure seems to reduce the risk of recurrent thromboembolism. We report the safety and efficacy of percutaneous PFO closure in our centre.
Methods:
All patients, >16 years of age, who underwent a percutaneous PFO closure in our centre were included. Reoccurrence of stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and peripheral thromboembolism were assessed. Periprocedural and midterm complications are reported.
Results:
Eighty-three consecutive patients (mean age 49+/-13 years) were included. Indications for PFO closure were cryptogenic stroke (59.0%), TIA (33.7%), peripheral embolism (2.4%) and other (4.8%). For PFO closure, a Cardioseal/Starflex device was used in 63 patients and an Amplatzer PFO occluder device in 20 patients. Stroke recurred in 1.2%, TIA in 3.6%, peripheral embolism in 0% during a mean follow-up of 1.9+/-1.2 years. Major periprocedural complications occurred in 1.2%. The mid-term complication rate was 2.4% and only consisted of minor complications. During follow-up, a residual right-to-left shunt was present in 5.7% of the patients. No significant difference in outcome, complications or residual shunting could be documented between the two device types.
Conclusion:
In our centre, the percutaneous closure of a PFO seems to be a safe and effective procedure to prevent recurrence of paradoxical thrombo-embolic events. (Neth Heart J 2008;16:332-6.).
