Recurrent Stroke after Transcatheter PFO Closure in Cryptogenic Stroke or Tia: Long-Term Follow-Up

Table 5

Patient characteristics of recurrent stroke group (n = 13).

	Age on recurrent event (years)	Timing of recurrent stroke (years)	Index event brain lesion topography	Recurrent brain lesion topography	Therapy on recurrent stroke	Basal RoPE score	RoPE score on recurrent stroke	No. of vascular risk factors	Residual shunt	Residual shunt grade	Stroke etiology
1	66	8.2	Single subcortical	Lacunar	Single antiplatelet	4	2	4	No	—	Not cardioembolic
2	47	13.3	None	Lacunar	None	7	6	0	No	—	Not cardioembolic
3	60	0.6	Multiple subcortical	Cortical	None	2	3	3	No	—	CS
4	49	2.2	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Lacunar	Single antiplatelet	7	5	3	Yes	Moderate	Not cardioembolic
5	46	5.1	Single cortico-subcortical	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Single antiplatelet	7	4	2	No	—	Atheroembolic (homolateral carotid stenosis)
6	54	3.0	Multiple subcortical	Lacunar	None	5	3	4	No	—	Not cardioembolic
7	72	6.2	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Lacunar	Single antiplatelet	5	3	2	Yes	Mild	Not cardioembolic
8	61	5.2	Single subcortical	Lacunar	Single antiplatelet	5	3	3	Yes	Mild	Not cardioembolic
9	22	0	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Single antiplatelet	10	9	0	No	—	Cardioembolic (presumed LA thrombosis)
10	62	2.3	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Single antiplatelet	4	4	3	No	—	Cardioembolic (AF)
11	75	1.5	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Lacunar	None	4	3	2	No	—	Not cardioembolic
12	60	1.6	Single cortico-subcortical	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Single antiplatelet	6	4	2	No	—	Atheroembolic (homolateral carotid stenosis)
13	71	2.0	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Multiple cortico-subcortical	Single antiplatelet	3	3	3	Yes	Mild	Cardioembolic (AF)

All patients with recurrent stroke returned to the clinic for examination, except one patient, for whom only brain imaging was available, and the etiology of recurrent stroke could not be investigated (patient number 3). Recurrent stroke was noncardioembolic (lacunar or atheroembolic) in 69% of patients, AF related in 15% of patients, device related in 1 patient, and possibly cryptogenic in 1 patient (patient number 3, who had no residual shunt, inadequate control of multiple vascular risk factors, and in whom AF was not investigated). Device-related stroke occurred in patient number 9 who stopped dual antiplatelet therapy the day after the procedure because of copious epistaxis. AF, atrial fibrillation; CS, cryptogenic stroke, LA, left atrium, N, number.