Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025
Closure of a Patent Foramen Ovale PFO: An Intervention Sequence
Published on: December 23, 2022
Transesophageal echocardiography-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided patent foramen ovale closure: A single center
Alexandru Achim1,2,3, Paul Hochegger1, Sadeek S Kanoun Schnur1,3,4
1Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center Graz, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Background:
Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is conventionally performed under continuous transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) guidance. We aimed to evaluate whether a simplified procedural approach, including pure fluoroscopy-guidance and final TEE control, as well as an aimed 'next-day-discharge' is comparable with the conventional TEE-guided procedure in terms of periprocedural and intermediate-term outcomes.
Methods:
All patients who underwent a PFO closure at our center between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively included. Prior to June 2019 cases were performed with continuous TEE guidance (TEE-guided group). Since June 2019, only pure fluoroscopy-guided PFO closures have been performed with TEE insertion and control just prior to device release (fluoroscopy-guided group). We analyzed procedural aspects, as well as long term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.
Results:
In total 291 patients were included in the analysis: 197 in the TEE-guided group and 94 in the fluoroscopy-guided group. Fluoroscopy-guided procedures were markedly shorter (48 ± 20 min vs. 25 ± 9 min; p < .01). There was no difference in procedural complications, including death, major bleeding, device dislodgement, stroke or clinically relevant peripheral embolization between the two groups (.5% vs. 0%; p = .99). Hospital stay was also shorter with the simplified approach (2.5 ± 1.6 vs. 3.5 ± 1.2 days; p < .01), allowing 85% same-day discharges during the last 12 months of observation period. At 6 ± 3 months echocardiographic follow-up a residual leakage was described in 8% of the TEE-guided cases and 2% of the fluoroscopy-guided cases (p = .08).
Conclusion:
While a complete TEE-free PFO closure might have potential procedural risks, our approach of pure fluoroscopy-guided with a brisk final TEE check seems to be advantageous in terms of procedural aspects with no sign of any acute or intermediate-term hazard and it could offer an equitable compromise between the two worlds: a complete TEE procedure and a procedure without any TEE.
