Reviews
31 March 2026

Patent foramen ovale: when does it need closure?

Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
23
Views
10
Downloads

Authors

A patent foramen ovale (PFO) is present in approximately 25% of the general population. Its clinical significance is primarily in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Randomized trials have evaluated whether transcatheter PFO closure reduces recurrent stroke compared to medical therapy. Evidence outside stroke, including migraine, decompression illness, and platypneaorthodeoxia syndrome, is limited. We reviewed major randomized controlled trials and extended follow-up studies evaluating transcatheter PFO closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Key trials included RESPECT, REDUCE, CLOSE, DEFENSEPFO, and RESPECTLate. Study populations, procedural outcomes, and post-procedural management were summarized. Non-stroke indications were evaluated using available randomized and observational data. In the RESPECT trial (n=980; mean age 46±11 years; 38% female; median follow-up 5.9 years), recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of patients undergoing PFO closure vs 5.8% with medical therapy (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31–0.999; p=0.046). The REDUCE trial (n=664; mean age 45±10 years; 42% female) demonstrated a 77% relative risk reduction in recurrent stroke with closure vs antiplatelet therapy alone (1.4% vs 5.4%; p=0.002). The CLOSE trial (n=663; mean age 45±11 years; 40% female) reported no recurrent strokes in the closure group vs 14 events (6%) in the anti-platelet group over 5.3 years (p<0.001). DEFENSEPFO (n=120; mean age 52±12 years; 45% female) showed stroke in 0% vs 12.9% with medical therapy at 2 years (p=0.013). RESPECTLate demonstrated sustained benefit over 10 years (HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29–0.999; p=0.046). Pooled analysis across trials indicated a 59% lower risk of recurrent stroke with closure (HR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.200.83). The benefit was most pronounced in patients with large shunts or atrial septal aneurysms. Post-procedural atrial fibrillation occurred in 35% of patients; serious procedural complications were <2%. Dual antiplatelet therapy was administered for 3–6 months, and successful shunt elimination exceeded 90%. Evidence for PFO closure in migraine with aura or decompression illness remains limited; closure in platypneaorthodeoxia syndrome shows symptomatic improvement based on small case series. Transcatheter PFO closure significantly reduces recurrent stroke in adults aged 1860 years with cryptogenic stroke and highrisk anatomical features. The procedure is generally safe, with low rates of serious complications. Nonstroke indications remain investigational, and patient selection with multidisciplinary evaluation is essential to maximize benefit and minimize risk.

Altmetrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

1. Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD. Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clin Proc 1984;59:17-20.
2. Youssef AA, Al-Omani S, Alrefae MA, et al. New left ventricular thrombus and embolic events in left ventricular dysfunction postmyocardial infarction. Glob Cardiol 2024;2:43.
3. Yaghi S, Bernstein RA, Passman R. Cryptogenic stroke: research and practice. Circ Res 2017;120:527-40.
4. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, et al. Study design of the CLOSURE I trial: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the STARFlex septal closure system versus best medical therapy in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack due to presumed paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2010;41:2872-83.
5. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1092-100.
6. Søndergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1033-42.
7. Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Guillon B, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1011-21.
8. Lee PH, Song JK, Kim JS, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and high-risk patent foramen ovale: the DEFENSE-PFO trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:2335-42.
9. Saver JL, Carroll JD, Thaler DE, et al. Long-term outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy after stroke. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1022-32.
10. Garg A, Thawabi M, Rout A, et al. Recurrent stroke reduction with patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy based on patent foramen ovale characteristics: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiology 2019;144:40-9.
11. Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, et al. 2021 guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2021;52:e364-467.
12. Tobis J, Shenoda M. Percutaneous treatment of patent foramen ovale and atrial septal defects. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1722-32.
13. Dowson A, Mullen MJ, Peatfield R, et al. Migraine intervention with STARFlex technology (MIST) trial: a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure with STARFlex septal repair implant to resolve refractory migraine headache. Circulation 2008;117:1397-404.
14. Mattle HP, Evers S, Hildick-Smith D, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in migraine with aura: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2029-36.
15. PREMIUM Trial: PFO closure primarily benefits migraine patients with aura. TCTMD. Available from: https://www.tctmd.com/news/premium-trial-pfo-closure-primarily-benefits-migraine-patients-aura
16. Abdelfattah OM, Sayed A, Elgendy IY, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure and decompression sickness among divers. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2022;40:160-2.
17. Landzberg MJ, Sloss LJ, Faherty CE, et al. Orthodeoxia-platypnea due to intracardiac shunting relief with transcatheter double umbrella closure. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1995;36:247-50.
18. Henkin S, Negrotto S, Pollak PM, et al. Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome: diagnostic challenge and the importance of heightened clinical suspicion. Tex Heart Inst J 2015;42:498-501.
19. Taggart NW, Reeder GS, Lennon RJ, et al. Long-term follow-up after PFO device closure: outcomes and complications in a single-center experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;89:124-33.
20. Inglessis I, Elmariah S, Rengifo-Moreno PA, et al. Long-term experience and outcomes with transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:1176-83.
21. Hitzeroth J, van der Bijl P, Michel F, et al. SA Heart consensus statement on closure of patent foramen ovale 2021. Cardiovasc J Afr 2022;34:35.
22. Chopra V, Khan MS, Abdelhamid M, et al. iCARDIO Alliance Global Implementation Guidelines on Heart Failure 2025. Glob Cardiol 2025;3:70.

How to Cite



1.
Shafiq A, Krasuski RA. Patent foramen ovale: when does it need closure?. Global Cardiol [Internet]. 2026 Mar. 31 [cited 2026 Apr. 19];4(1). Available from: https://www.globalcardiology.info/site/article/view/98