Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 1, 2025

Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
Interventional prevention of paradoxical embolism as the gold standard: End of discussion?
Radomir Nykl1, Jan Precek1, Martin Sluka1
1Department of Internal Medicine I - Cardiology, University Hospital Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Insights
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure can prevent cryptogenic stroke in carefully selected patients. However, evidence on its superiority over medical therapy remains debated, especially for smaller shunts.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Neurology
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Paradoxical embolism, often due to a patent foramen ovale (PFO), is a significant cause of cryptogenic stroke.
- Interventional closure of PFO is a debated secondary prevention strategy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To provide a comprehensive review of PFO closure for cryptogenic stroke prevention.
- To analyze current data and guidelines regarding PFO closure versus pharmacotherapy.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical trials and guidelines.
- Critical evaluation of study methodologies, patient selection, and outcome data.
Main Results:
- Large trials show conflicting results regarding PFO closure superiority over pharmacotherapy.
- Studies demonstrating superiority often involved patients with large shunts.
- Controversies include lack of comparison with modern anticoagulants and intervention risks.
Conclusions:
- PFO closure is a viable secondary prevention for cryptogenic stroke in select patients.
- Careful patient selection is crucial for successful interventional treatment.
- Further research is needed to clarify optimal patient populations and compare with advanced medical therapies.
Abstract:
Paradoxical embolism is one of the predominant causes of cryptogenic stroke and interventional secondary prevention, i.e., closure of the patent foramen ovale (PFO), is a much discussed issue. This review aims to provide a complex perspective on this topic, aggregates and comments on the available data and current guidelines. Several large trials were performed, some of which proved the superiority of PFO closure over pharmacotherapy while others have not. Studies detecting significant superiority of intervention worked with disproportionately high representation of large shunts compared to the general population. Other controversies also remain, such as the lack of comparison of the effect of modern anticoagulant/antiplatelet treatment to PFO closure or the risk of developing unwanted side effects after intervention, and these are discussed in detail. PFO closure is a suitable method for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism and, therefore, cryptogenic stroke. However, this is only true for carefully selected patient populations and such selection is of the utmost importance in deciding on interventional or conservative treatment.
Related Concept Videos
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Pulmonary Embolism III: Nursing Management
Pulmonary Embolism I: Introduction
Anticoagulant Drugs: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care

