Patent foramen ovale closure with the Intrasept occluder: Complete 6–56 months follow‐up of 247 patients after presumed paradoxical embolism

Abstract

PFO closure with the Intrasept occluder is safe and efficient. Rates of residual shunt and recurrent TE compare favorably with other contemporary devices.

Recurrent events following patent foramen ovale closure in patients above 55 years of age with presumed paradoxical embolism

“…More recently, an association between those two entities has been documented in older patients, defined as over 55 years of age [2]. PFO closure following cryptogenic TE has been shown to be associated with low recurrence rates of strokes and transitory ischemic attacks (TIAs) [3][4][5][6][7]. However, most series of PFO closure evaluated younger patients and little is known about the recurrence rate of TE in patients over the age of 55 years undergoing PFO closure following cryptogenic TE [8].…”

Long-term outcome of transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure in patients with paradoxical embolism

“…Moreover, four randomized controlled trials will evaluate the effectiveness of transcatheter PFO closure in the management of migraine headache. Over the last 10 years, several reports, based upon single center experience, have appeared in the international literature concerning the use of percutaneous occluder devices for PFO closure in patients with TE, in the attempt to avoid the morbidity associated with surgical closure or lifelong anticoagulation therapy [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Despite the growing interest in interventional PFO closure, data from long-term studies on large patient populations are still lacking.…”

Early Experience with a Simplified Technique for Transcatheter Closure of the Patent Foramen Ovale

“…Whilst there continues to be an active debate surrounding the precise indications for transcatheter PFO closure, recent studies continue to support a role for this therapy in the treatment of paradoxical embolic neurological events [5,6,9]. With increasing performance of this procedure, the question becomes one of maximising safety whilst not sacrificing effectiveness.…”

“…Numerous subsequent reports have described the safety and efficacy of this procedure using a number of different devices and techniques [2][3][4][5][6]. Although reported complications associated with PFO closure are uncommon [2,3,7-9], serious complications such as the introduction of air or thrombus into the systemic circulation [10] and cardiac perforation [9,11] do occur.…”