Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a remnant of the fetal circulation exist in 20% of the general population. The purpose of our study was to compare of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and contrast-transcranial Doppler sonography (c-TCD) in the diagnosis and quantification of PFO with or without the Valsalva maneuver (VM).We studied 106 patients with a high clinical suspicion for PFO prospectively. Simultaneous c-TCD and TTE were conducted using agitated saline solution to detect right to left shunt (RLS). To classify RLS, mainly PFO, we applied a 4-level visual classification for c-TCD test: no occurrence of micro-embolic signals; grade I, 1 to 10 signals; grade II, 10 to 30 signals but not curtain; and grade III, curtain pattern. We used the number of micro-bubbles appeared in left atrium per frame image to define classification for TTE test: no occurrence of micro-bubbles; grade I, 1 to 10 micro-bubbles; grade II, 10 to 30 micro-bubbles; and grade III, more than 30 micro-bubbles or left atrium nearly filled with micro-bubbles or left atrial opacity. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Version 18.0.RLS was detected in 36.0% in c-TCD test and in 46% in TTE test at rest (P = 0.158). And during the VM, RLS was detected in 99.0% in c-TCD test and in 83.0% in TTE test (P < 0.001). Compared with the positive results of c-TCD and TTE at rest, the positive results of them with VM is more higher, respectively (all P < 0.001). The VM obviously increased the number of micro-bubbles shunting.Both c-TCD and TTE should used as initial screening tool for PFO. VM increases the size of shunt. VM resulted in detection of more RLS both in c-TCD and TTE tests.

Objectives. To access the distinct values of contrast transcranial Doppler (cTCD), contrast transthoracic echocardiography (cTTE), and contrast transesophageal echocardiography (cTEE) in the diagnosis of right-to-left shunt (RLS) due to patent foramen ovale (PFO) and to define the most practical strategy for the diagnosis of PFO. Methods. 102 patients with a high clinical suspicion for PFO had simultaneous cTCD, cTTE, and cTEE performed. The agitated saline mixed with blood was used to detect right-to-left shunt (RLS). Results. In all 102 patients, the shunt was detected at rest by cTCD in 60.78% of cases, by cTTE in 42.16%, and by cTEE in 47.06%. The positive results of all 3 techniques with Valsalva maneuver (VM) were significantly improved. cTCD showed higher pick-up rate than cTTE (98.04% vs. 89.22%; χ2=12.452, p<0.05) and the cTEE (98.04% vs. 96.08%; nonsignificant difference) in the diagnosis of PFO. Nevertheless, cTEE, compared with cTTE, underestimated shunting in 44% of patients. The diameter of both PFO entrance and exit was significantly greater in patients with a severe shunt compared with a mild shunt (2.8±1.0 mm vs. 2.0±0.7 mm, t=3.135, p<0.05; 2.2±0.7 mm vs. 1.6±0.4 mm, t=−2.582, p<0.05). There was a nonsignificant difference in tunnel length between patients with mild shunting and severe shunting(9.3±2.7 mm vs. 9.4±2.9 mm; t=1.358, p>0.05). Conclusions. The best method to diagnose PFO should be the combination of cTCD, cTTE, and cTEE. And cTCD should be applied as the first choice for screening RLS. Then, cTTE should be performed to quantify the severity of the shunt. Last but not least, cTEE should be performed to assess the morphologies of PFO when the closure is planned. The study provides for clinicians the most practical strategy for diagnosing PFO in the future. However, further trials with a large sample size are required to confirm this finding.