Closure, Anticoagulation, or Antiplatelet Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke With Patent Foramen Ovale: Systematic Review of Randomized Trials, Sequential Meta-Analysis, and New Insights From the CLOSE Study

Guillaume Turc, David Calvet, Patrice Guérin, Marjorie Sroussi, Gilles Chatellier, Jean-Louis Mas, CLOSE Investigators, Guillaume Turc, David Calvet, Patrice Guérin, Marjorie Sroussi, Gilles Chatellier, Jean-Louis Mas, CLOSE Investigators

Abstract

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure, anticoagulation, and antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke recurrence in patients with PFO-associated cryptogenic stroke.

Methods and results: We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE through March 2018. The primary outcome was stroke recurrence. Pooled incidences, hazard ratios, and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated in random-effects meta-analyses. PFO closure was associated with a lower risk of recurrent stroke compared with antithrombotic therapy (antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation: 3560 patients from 6 RCTs; RR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.79; I2=59%). The effect of PFO closure on stroke recurrence was larger in patients with atrial septal aneurysm or large shunt (RR=0.27, 95% CI, 0.11-0.70; I2=42%) compared with patients without these anatomical features (RR=0.80, 95% CI, 0.43-1.47; I2=12%). Major complications occurred in 2.40% (95% CI, 1.03-4.25; I2=77%) of procedures. New-onset atrial fibrillation was more frequent in patients randomized to PFO closure versus antithrombotic therapy (RR=4.33, 95% CI, 2.37-7.89; I2=14%). One RCT compared PFO closure versus anticoagulation (353 patients; hazard ratio=0.14, 95% CI, 0.00-1.45) and 2 RCTs compared PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy (1137 patients; hazard ratio=0.18, 95% CI, 0.05-0.63; I2=12%). Three RCTs compared anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy, with none showing a significant difference.

Conclusions: PFO closure is superior to antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke recurrence after cryptogenic stroke. The annual absolute risk reduction of stroke was low, but it has to be tempered by a substantial time at risk (at least 5 years) in young and middle-aged patients. PFO closure was associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00562289.

Keywords: anticoagulation; patent foramen ovale; patent foramen ovale closure; stroke.

© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pooled risk ratio (A) and hazard ratio (B) of recurrent stroke in patients randomized to PFO closure vs antithrombotic therapy (random‐effects meta‐analysis). The closure and antithrombotic columns denote the number of events divided by the total number of patients in each treatment group. The DEFENSE‐PFO trial was not included in (B) because no HR was reported in the original publication. CI indicates confidence interval; CLOSE, Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulants versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence; CLOSURE I, STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients with a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism through a Patent Foramen Ovale; DEFENSE‐PFO, Device Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke Patients With High‐Risk Patent Foramen Ovale; Gore REDUCE, Gore Helex septal occluder and antiplatelet medical management for reduction of recurrent stroke or imaging‐confirmed transient ischemic attack in patients with patent foramen ovale; HR, hazard ratio; PC trial, Clinical Trial Comparing Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder with Medical Treatment in Patients with Cryptogenic Embolism; PFO, patent foramen ovale; RESPECT, Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment; RR, risk ratio.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trial sequential analysis of the risk of recurrent stroke in patients randomized to PFO closure vs antithrombotic therapy. The cumulative Z‐curve crosses the monitoring boundary (red dashed line) before reaching the required information size (RIS, red vertical line), providing evidence for the superiority of PFO closure over antithrombotic therapy to prevent recurrent stroke.26 CLOSE indicates Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulants versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence; CLOSURE I, STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients with a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism through a Patent Foramen Ovale; DEFENSE‐PFO, Device Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke Patients With High‐Risk Patent Foramen Ovale; Gore REDUCE, Gore Helex septal occluder and antiplatelet medical management for reduction of recurrent stroke or imaging‐confirmed transient ischemic attack in patients with patent foramen ovale; PC trial, Clinical Trial Comparing Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder with Medical Treatment in Patients with Cryptogenic Embolism; PFO, patent foramen ovale; RESPECT, Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pooled risk ratio of recurrent stroke in patients randomized to PFO closure vs antithrombotic therapy, according to PFO anatomical features (random‐effects meta‐analysis). For the present meta‐analysis, we defined higher‐risk anatomical features as follows (Table S4): For CLOSURE I, PC trial and RESPECT: presence of an atrial septal aneurysm (ASA), regardless of shunt size, For CLOSE and DEFENSE‐PFO: presence of an ASA and/or a large shunt (i.e., all included patients), For Gore REDUCE: moderate or large shunt (Nota bene: presence or absence of ASA could not be analyzed because it was not recorded in patients randomized to the antiplatelet group). Number of recurrent strokes in each group were extracted from the original publications of the randomized trials or calculated using published data by Kent et al.33 The Closure and Antithrombotic columns denote the number of events divided by the total number of patients in each treatment group. CI indicates confidence interval; CLOSE, Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulants versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence; CLOSURE I, STARFlex Septal Closure System in Patients with a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism through a Patent Foramen Ovale; DEFENSE‐PFO, Device Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke Patients With High‐Risk Patent Foramen Ovale; Gore REDUCE, Gore Helex septal occluder and antiplatelet medical management for reduction of recurrent stroke or imaging‐confirmed transient ischemic attack in patients with patent foramen ovale; PC trial, Clinical Trial Comparing Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder with Medical Treatment in Patients with Cryptogenic Embolism; PFO, patent foramen ovale; RESPECT, Randomized Evaluation of Recurrent Stroke Comparing PFO Closure to Established Current Standard of Care Treatment; RR, risk ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Kaplan–Meier cumulative estimates of the probability of recurrent stroke in patients randomized to PFO closure vs anticoagulation therapy in the CLOSE trial. This post hoc analysis was performed in the intention‐to‐treat cohort. The inset shows the same data on an enlarged y axis. CI indicates confidence interval; CLOSE, Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulants versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence; PFO, patent foramen ovale.

References

    1. Sacco RL, Ellenberg JH, Mohr JP, Tatemichi TK, Hier DB, Price TR, Wolf PA. Infarcts of undetermined cause: the NINCDS Stroke Data Bank. Ann Neurol. 1989;25:382–390.
    1. Hart RG, Diener HC, Coutts SB, Easton JD, Granger CB, O'Donnell MJ, Sacco RL, Connolly SJ; Cryptogenic Stroke EIWG . Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:429–438.
    1. Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, Loron P, Theard M, Klimczac M, Drobinski G, Thomas D, Grosgogeat Y. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1148–1152.
    1. Alsheikh‐Ali AA, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke. Incidental or Pathogenic? Stroke. 2009;40:2349–2355.
    1. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, Mas JL, Serena J, Homma S, Di Angelantonio E, Di Tullio MR, Lutz JS, Elkind MS, Griffith J, Jaigobin C, Mattle HP, Michel P, Mono ML, Nedeltchev K, Papetti F, Thaler DE. An index to identify stroke‐related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology. 2013;81:619–625.
    1. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, Zuber M, Cabanes L, Derumeaux G, Coste J; Patent Foramen O, Atrial Septal Aneurysm Study G . Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1740–1746.
    1. Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, Mauri L, Adams H, Albers GW, Felberg R, Herrmann H, Kar S, Landzberg M, Raizner A, Wechsler L; for the Closure I Investigators . Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:991–999.
    1. Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, Khattab AA, Hildick‐Smith D, Dudek D, Andersen G, Ibrahim R, Schuler G, Walton AS, Wahl A, Windecker S, Juni P; for the PC Trial Investigators . Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1083–1091.
    1. Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, Smalling RW, Berry S, MacDonald LA, Marks DS, Tirschwell DL; for the Respect Investigators . Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1092–1100.
    1. Saver JL, Carroll JD, Thaler DE, Smalling RW, MacDonald LA, Marks DS, Tirschwell DL; for the RESPECT Investigators . Long‐term outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1022–1032.
    1. Sondergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF, Andersen G, Iversen HK, Nielsen‐Kudsk JE, Settergren M, Sjostrand C, Roine RO, Hildick‐Smith D, Spence JD, Thomassen L; for the Gore REDUCE Investigators . Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1033–1042.
    1. Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Guillon B, Massardier E, Hosseini H, Mechtouff L, Arquizan C, Bejot Y, Vuillier F, Detante O, Guidoux C, Canaple S, Vaduva C, Dequatre‐Ponchelle N, Sibon I, Garnier P, Ferrier A, Timsit S, Robinet‐Borgomano E, Sablot D, Lacour JC, Zuber M, Favrole P, Pinel JF, Apoil M, Reiner P, Lefebvre C, Guerin P, Piot C, Rossi R, Dubois‐Rande JL, Eicher JC, Meneveau N, Lusson JR, Bertrand B, Schleich JM, Godart F, Thambo JB, Leborgne L, Michel P, Pierard L, Turc G, Barthelet M, Charles‐Nelson A, Weimar C, Moulin T, Juliard JM, Chatellier G; for the CLOSE Investigators . Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1011–1021.
    1. Lee PH, Song JK, Kim JS, Heo R, Lee S, Kim DH, Song JM, Kang DH, Kwon SU, Kang DW, Lee D, Kwon HS, Yun SC, Sun BJ, Park JH, Lee JH, Jeong HS, Song HJ, Kim J, Park SJ. Cryptogenic stroke and high‐risk patent foramen ovale: the DEFENSE‐PFO trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018. Available at: . Accessed May 9, 2018.
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta‐analyses may be inconclusive—trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta‐analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:287–298.
    1. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta‐analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:64–75.
    1. Wetterslev J, Jakobsen JC, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews with meta‐analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:39.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; Group P . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
    1. Easton JD, Saver JL, Albers GW, Alberts MJ, Chaturvedi S, Feldmann E, Hatsukami TS, Higashida RT, Johnston SC, Kidwell CS, Lutsep HL, Miller E, Sacco RL; American Heart Association, American Stroke Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery Anesthesia, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Nursing, Interdisciplinary Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease . Definition and evaluation of transient ischemic attack: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; and the Interdisciplinary Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. Stroke. 2009;40:2276–2293.
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA; Cochrane Bias Methods G, Cochrane Statistical Methods G . The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
    1. Badhiwala JH, Nassiri F, Alhazzani W, Selim MH, Farrokhyar F, Spears J, Kulkarni AV, Singh S, Alqahtani A, Rochwerg B, Alshahrani M, Murty NK, Alhazzani A, Yarascavitch B, Reddy K, Zaidat OO, Almenawer SA. Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a meta‐analysis. JAMA. 2015;314:1832–1843.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188.
    1. Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R. How does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta‐analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? J Stat Plan Inference. 2010;140:961–970.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at: . Accessed May 6, 2018.
    1. Goel SS, Tuzcu EM, Shishehbor MH, de Oliveira EI, Borek PP, Krasuski RA, Rodriguez LL, Kapadia SR. Morphology of the patent foramen ovale in asymptomatic versus symptomatic (stroke or transient ischemic attack) patients. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103:124–129.
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634.
    1. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta‐analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:763–769.
    1. Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1927;22:209–212.
    1. Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta‐analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health. 2014;72:39.
    1. Mendes D, Alves C, Batel‐Marques F. Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: an appraisal. BMC Med. 2017;15:112.
    1. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation. 2002;105:2625–2631.
    1. Shariat A, Yaghoubi E, Farazdaghi M, Aghasadeghi K, Borhani Haghighi A. Comparison of medical treatments in cryptogenic stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: a randomized clinical trial. J Res Med Sci. 2013;18:94–98.
    1. Li J, Liu J, Liu M, Zhang S, Hao Z, Zhang J, Zhang C. Closure versus medical therapy for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and a history of cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015:CD009938.
    1. Kent DM, Dahabreh IJ, Ruthazer R, Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Carroll JD, Saver JL, Smalling RW, Juni P, Mattle HP, Meier B, Thaler DE. Device closure of patent foramen ovale after stroke: pooled analysis of completed randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:907–917.
    1. Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Amarenco P, Arquizan C, Aubry P, Barthelet M, Bertrand B, Brochet E, Cabanes L, Donal E, Dubois‐Rande JL, Durand‐Zaleski I, Ernande L, Finet G, Fraisse A, Giroud M, Guerin P, Habib G, Juliard JM, Leys D, Lievre M, Lusson JR, Marcon F, Michel P, Moulin T, Mounier‐Vehier F, Pierard L, Piot C, Rey C, Rodier G, Roudaut R, Schleich JM, Teiger E, Turc G, Vuillier F, Weimar C, Woimant F, Chatellier G; CLOSE investigators . Close: closure of patent foramen ovale, oral anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke recurrence: study design. Int J Stroke. 2016;11:724–732.
    1. De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, Rasura M, Anzini A, Zanette EM, Beccia M, Colonnese C, Fedele F, Fieschi C, Pandian NG. Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke. 2000;31:2407–2413.
    1. Kitsios GD, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Potentially large yet uncertain benefits: a meta‐analysis of patent foramen ovale closure trials. Stroke. 2013;44:2640–2643.
    1. Merkler AE, Gialdini G, Yaghi S, Okin PM, Iadecola C, Navi BB, Kamel H. Safety outcomes after percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. Stroke. 2017;48:3073–3077.
    1. Chubb H, Whitaker J, Williams SE, Head CE, Chung NA, Wright MJ, O'Neill M. Pathophysiology and management of arrhythmias associated with atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2014;3:168–172.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere