When Should Physicians Consider Referring Elderly Patients with Suspected PFO-Related Stroke for Device Closure?

Alisha Varia1, David Roberts1

  • 1School of Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GE, UK.

PubMed

Insights

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) reduced recurrent stroke and mortality. While promising for secondary prevention, further standardized trials are needed due to study limitations.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Neurology
  • Clinical Trials

Background:

  • Current guidelines recommend PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention in younger adults (18-65).
  • Evidence for PFO closure in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) remains limited.
  • This study evaluates PFO closure versus medical therapy alone in older adults post-cryptogenic stroke.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the efficacy and safety of PFO closure compared to medical therapy alone in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) after cryptogenic stroke.
  • To evaluate the methodological quality of existing trials in this population.
  • To inform potential guideline recommendations for PFO closure in older adults.

Main Methods:

  • A systematic literature search identified four relevant studies (PFOSK, PT, DEFENSE, PFOG).
  • Primary analysis focused on study quality: patient selection, allocation, crossover, and adherence.
  • Secondary analyses compared outcomes including recurrent ischemic events, mortality, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), and disability.

Main Results:

  • In 644 elderly patients, PFO closure significantly reduced recurrent cerebral ischemia (45% reduction) and mortality (85% reduction).
  • Closure groups showed lower disability scores but a higher incidence of new-onset AF (RR 2.15).
  • Study quality was limited by heterogeneity in treatments, crossover, and baseline imbalances (age, shunt size).

Conclusions:

  • PFO closure appears to reduce ischemic event recurrence and mortality in patients aged ≥ 60 years, especially those with high-risk PFO features.
  • Variability in study designs and low event rates limit the certainty of these findings.
  • Large, standardized trials are necessary to establish definitive evidence for guideline recommendations in this demographic.