Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026

Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO): An Intervention Sequence
Published on: December 23, 2022
Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke
John D Carroll1, Jeffrey L Saver, David E Thaler
1University of Colorado Denver/University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. john.carroll@ucdenver.edu
Insights
Closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) did not show significant benefit in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke in the primary analysis. However, PFO closure proved superior to medical therapy alone in secondary analyses for cryptogenic stroke patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Neurology
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Cryptogenic stroke affects patients without a clear cause.
- Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a potential, yet unproven, cause of cryptogenic stroke.
- The efficacy of PFO closure versus medical therapy for stroke prevention remains uncertain.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate if PFO closure is superior to medical therapy alone in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke.
- To assess the safety and efficacy in patients aged 18-60 with cryptogenic stroke.
Main Methods:
- A prospective, multicenter, randomized, event-driven trial.
- 980 patients were randomized 1:1 to medical therapy alone or PFO closure.
- Primary results analyzed upon reaching 25 primary endpoint events.
Main Results:
- In the intention-to-treat analysis, PFO closure did not significantly reduce recurrent stroke (HR 0.49, P=0.08).
- Per-protocol (HR 0.37, P=0.03) and as-treated (HR 0.27, P=0.007) analyses showed significant stroke reduction with PFO closure.
- Adverse events were similar between groups; procedure-related events were low (4.2%).
Conclusions:
- PFO closure showed no significant benefit in the primary intention-to-treat analysis for cryptogenic stroke.
- However, PFO closure demonstrated superiority in per-protocol and as-treated analyses.
- PFO closure is associated with a low rate of risks when compared to medical therapy alone.
Background:
Whether closure of a patent foramen ovale is effective in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients who have had a cryptogenic stroke is unknown. We conducted a trial to evaluate whether closure is superior to medical therapy alone in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke or early death in patients 18 to 60 years of age.
Methods:
In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, event-driven trial, we randomly assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to medical therapy alone or closure of the patent foramen ovale. The primary results of the trial were analyzed when the target of 25 primary end-point events had been observed and adjudicated.
Results:
We enrolled 980 patients (mean age, 45.9 years) at 69 sites. The medical-therapy group received one or more antiplatelet medications (74.8%) or warfarin (25.2%). Treatment exposure between the two groups was unequal (1375 patient-years in the closure group vs. 1184 patient-years in the medical-therapy group, P=0.009) owing to a higher dropout rate in the medical-therapy group. In the intention-to-treat cohort, 9 patients in the closure group and 16 in the medical-therapy group had a recurrence of stroke (hazard ratio with closure, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 1.11; P=0.08). The between-group difference in the rate of recurrent stroke was significant in the prespecified per-protocol cohort (6 events in the closure group vs. 14 events in the medical-therapy group; hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.96; P=0.03) and in the as-treated cohort (5 events vs. 16 events; hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.75; P=0.007). Serious adverse events occurred in 23.0% of the patients in the closure group and in 21.6% in the medical-therapy group (P=0.65). Procedure-related or device-related serious adverse events occurred in 21 of 499 patients in the closure group (4.2%), but the rate of atrial fibrillation or device thrombus was not increased.
Conclusions:
In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant benefit associated with closure of a patent foramen ovale in adults who had had a cryptogenic ischemic stroke. However, closure was superior to medical therapy alone in the prespecified per-protocol and as-treated analyses, with a low rate of associated risks. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; RESPECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00465270.).
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Angle Closure Glaucoma: Treatment
Open Angle Glaucoma: Treatment
Drugs such as carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, α2- and...
Aneurysm II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies

