PLoS ONE (Jan 2022)

Patent foramen ovale closure: A prospective UK registry linked to hospital episode statistics.

  • Iain Willits,
  • Kim Keltie,
  • Robert Henderson,
  • Mark de Belder,
  • Nicholas Linker,
  • Hannah Patrick,
  • Helen Powell,
  • Lee Berry,
  • Samuel Urwin,
  • Helen Cole,
  • Andrew J Sims

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271117
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 7
p. e0271117

Abstract

Read online

AimsPFO closure is a percutaneous intervention, which aims to reduce risk of recurrent stroke by preventing paradoxical embolism. The objective of this study was to measure procedural safety and longer-term effectiveness of PFO closure in a UK setting.Methods and resultsProspective registry data from patients with cryptogenic stroke eligible for PFO closure were collected for up to 2 years and linked to routine data sources for additional follow-up. Outcomes of interest included procedural success rate, health related quality of life, and longer-term death and neurological event rates. A total of 973 PFO closure procedures in 971 patients were included in analysis. Successful device implantation was achieved in 99.4 [95% CI 98.6 to 99.8]% of procedures, with one in-hospital death. During median follow-up of 758 (Q1:Q3 527:968) days, 33 patients experienced a subsequent neurological event, 76% of which were ischaemic in origin. Neurological event rate was 2.7 [95%CI 1.6 to 3.9]% at 1-year (n = 751) and 4.1 [95% CI 2.6 to 5.5]% at 2-years (n = 463) using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Improvements in patient quality of life (utility and visual analogue scale) were observed at 6-weeks and 6-months follow-up.ConclusionOur observational study demonstrates that PFO closure for prevention of recurrent stroke is a relatively safe procedure but in routine clinical practice is associated with a slightly higher risk of recurrent neurological events than in randomised trials. We hypothesize that our study enrolled unselected patients with higher baseline risk, who were excluded from randomised trials, but who may benefit from a similar relative reduction in risk from the intervention.