Objective Systematic reviews suggest that patent foramen ovale closure (PFOc) is performed percutaneously with low complication rates. We did a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing devices for PFO closures, evaluating safety and efficacy of transcatheter PFOc in preventing neurological events in patients with stroke when compared with medical therapy (MT), and assessing risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods We searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR) identifying six randomized controlled trials from 2012 until December 2019. We performed a Bayesian NMA; number-needed-to-treat and number-needed-to-harm were derived by applying the estimated odds ratios (ORs). The likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) was evaluated to estimate the risk-effectiveness balance. Results The 3560 patients allocated to PFOc were less subject to a stroke than patients with MT. The overall ORs of PFOc versus MT were 0.41 with fixed-effects, and 0.22 with random-effects model. NMA proves that PFOc induces AF episodes significantly higher than MT, even when analysis is limited to only new episodes of “serious AF.” LHH (0.68 fixed-effects, 0.79 random-effects) showed that strokes saved are less than cases of AFs added. By considering only serious AF, strokes saved are higher than serious AFs induced by the PFOc (LHH was 3.46 and 4.00 respectively). Conclusions NMA supported PFOc in patients with cryptogenic stroke, confirming that devices are better than MT, but increase the risk of AF by over 2/4 times (serious or unserious AF). Considering serious AFs (real risky clinical condition), patients have more advantages in being treated, since LHH is ≥ 3–4.

Background: Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) reported a finding on the safety and efficacy of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to prevent stroke recurrence. It showed that the Amplatzer (AMP) device appears to be superior to medical therapy (MT) in preventing strokes and episodes of atrial fibrillation (AF), than other devices. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the closure of PFO in preventing subsequent neurological events while investigating the results obtained by specific devices. Methods: We searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR) and identified 6 RCTs until March 2019. We performed an NMA and used pooled ORs. Analyses were done in NetMetaXL1.6-WinBUGS1.4. Results: Six RCTs with 3,560 patients (mean age 45.2-46.2 years) were included in the present NMA. Depending on the device, 4 groups of pa-tients were compared with MT: 1,889 patients undergoing PFO closure were significantly less likely to experience a stroke than 1,671 patients treated with MT (ORs 0.41; 95% Cr.I. 0.27-0.60 with fixed-effects model and ORs 0.22; 95% Cr.I. 0.05-0.70 with random-effects model). The patients with AMP showed a similar risk than those treated with Helex/Cardioform (HLX/CF) or with a group of 11 multiple devices. This suggests the equality between the 2 most currently used devices. When assessing TIA and, for the safety analysis, major bleeding, both models confirm no significant difference between any devices and MT. PFO closure increased the risk of new-onset AF: MT induces AF significantly less than all the devices. In favor of the AMP, there is a reduced number of cases of AF versus MT; however, no device superiority has been established in comparing HLX/CF and other devices in a random effect model. Conclusions: Our NMA provides evidence in favor of PFO closure with all the devices currently in use. We can conclude that these devices are better than MT, but not that 1 device is better than the rest in reducing stroke recurrences and AF episodes in the follow-up.