About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Scientifica
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 129196, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/129196
Review Article

Patent Foramen Ovale and Closure Technique with the Amplatzer Occluder

Cardiovascular Department, Bern University Hospital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland

Received 27 March 2014; Accepted 14 May 2014; Published 25 June 2014

Academic Editor: Alexander Ghanem

Copyright © 2014 Bernhard Meier. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Proof that percutaneous closure of the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is superior to medical treatment is still incomplete. Paradoxical embolism is a rare event occurring over decades rather than years. None of the 4 randomized trials published carried enough patients or was followed up for long enough to reach superiority endpoints. All data, however, point to a benefit of PFO closure. Free wall erosion (exceedingly rare) and triggering of atrial fibrillation (in about 1% of patients) are the only noteworthy complications. They are outweighed by the supposedly prevented events of paradoxical embolisms, such as stroke, transient ischemic attacks, myocardial infarctions, or other systemic embolisms. Medical treatment with perhaps the exception of lifelong oral anticoagulation provides less protection. During a 10-year follow-up of a comparative study the annual mortality was significantly lower in the patients with PFO closure (0.4%) than in those with medical treatment (1.1%, ). PFO closure can be accomplished in less than 1 hour with immediate resumption of physical activity. It represents thus a kind of mechanical vaccination.