Niño-Campo D, Paniagua-Ramírez I

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page:
PDF size: 268.25 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a communication structure between the atria, which is normal during the fetal period and usually closes after birth in the majority of people. However, in about 25% of the adult population it remains patent. Most of these cases are asymptomatic and don´t have a higher risk of isquemic stroke, however there are some cases described with patients that present extracranial venous thrombosis plus PFO and subsequent systemic embolization; therefore, paradoxical embolization (across the PFO) could be an explanatory condition for embolization into the arterial system. There has been a plausible association between the presence of PFO and cryptogenic cerebral isquemic events. Here we present the case of a 26-year-old woman without previous medical conditions admitted to the neurology department due to a left partial anterior circulation infarct; Screening for etiology proved a PFO with concomitant popliteal vein thrombosis. This article analyzes the relationship between PFO and isquemic strokes and current evidence based therapeutic approaches.

REFERENCES

1. Abdelghani M, El-Shedoudy S, Nassif M, Bouma B, de Winter R. Management of Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke: An Update. Cardiology. 2019;143(1):62-72.

2. Carroll A, Carroll J. Device Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale for Cryptogenic Stroke: Patient Selection and Outcomes According to New Randomized Trials. Current Cardiology Reports. 2019;21(6).

3. Collado F, Poulin M, Murphy J, Jneid H, Kavinsky C. Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Stroke Prevention and Other Disorders. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2018;7(12).

4. Coughlan J, Daly A, Arnous S, Kiernan T. Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: contemporary evidence and treatment. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. 2018;16(1):27-37.

5. Miranda B, Fonseca A, Ferro J. Patent foramen ovale and stroke. Journal of Neurology. 2018;265(8):1943-1949.

6. Diener H, Gerloff C, Thaler D, Wöhrle J. Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke: Unresolved Issues. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports. 2018;18(12).

7. Saver J, Mattle H, Thaler D. Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. 2018;49(6):1541-1548.

8. Ha F, Adams H, Palmer S. Device closure for patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a paradigm in evidence. Medical Journal of Australia. 2019;211(8):343.

9. Piccolo R, Franzone A, Siontis G, Stortecky S, Pilgrim T, Meier B et al. Patent foramen ovale closure vs. medical therapy for recurrent stroke prevention: Evolution of treatment effect during follow-up. International Journal of Cardiology. 2018;255:29-31.

10. De Rosa S, Sievert H, Sabatino J, Polimeni A, Sorrentino S, Indolfi C. Percutaneous Closure Versus Medical Treatment in Stroke Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;168(5):343.

11. Hankey G, McQuillan B. Patent Foramen Ovale Closure. Circulation. 2018;137(19):1991-1993.

12. Sun Y, Homma S. Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke. Circulation Journal. 2016;80(8):1665- 1673.

13. Mas J. Closure of patent foramen ovale and “cryptogenic” stroke: What's new, what's next?. Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2019;112(3):145-149.