Download PDF
Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2018; 143(05): 354-356
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-121625
Standpunkt
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Offenes Foramen ovale: gute Gründe, es zu verschließen

Patent foramen ovele, good reasons to close it
Bernhard Meier
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A patent foramen ovale (PFO) is not to be considered a disease as it is present in about 25 % of people. Yet, it is the prime reason for paradoxical embolism that can cause serious problems, such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and peripheral ischemia. The frequency of such events is probably underestimated as other causes tend to be blamed for them. Device PFO closure can be easily accomplished as outpatient procedure with minimal discomfort and risk and it has been referred to as mechanical vaccination. Randomized trials have proved its value for reduction of recurrent stroke. There is also good evidence that PFO closure solves problems like platypnoea orthodeoxia and exercise desaturation, improves migraine, and is helpful in sleep apnoea. In addition, it renders diving and high altitude climbing safer. The absolute risk of a PFO is dependent on its size and its association with an atrial septal aneurysm, a Eustachian valve, or a Chiari network. The number needed to treat to prevent one stroke by PFO closure may be as low as 2 over lifetime in selected patients.

Das persistierende Foramen ovale (auch offenes oder permeables Foramen ovale genannt) ist kein Geburtsfehler: Bis zum 1. Atemzug ist es lebensnotwendig. Dennoch stellt es das häufigste Herzproblem dar – mit schwerwiegenden oder sogar tödlichen Folgen. Dieser Artikel diskutiert das Für und Wider des interventionellen PFO-Verschlusses aus der Sicht eines Kardiologen.

Schlüsselwörter

Foramen ovale - Herzinfarkt - Hirnschlag - Schirmverschluss

Key words

foramen ovale - device closure - myocardial infarction - stroke
 

  • Referenzen

  • 1 Billinger M, Schwerzmann M, Rutishauser W. et al. Patent foramen ovale screening by ear oximetry in divers. Am J Cardiol 2013; 111: 286-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nietlispach F, Meier B. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: an underutilized prevention?. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 2023-2028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP. et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 1083-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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: 1092-1100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Agarwal S, Bajaj NS, Kumbhani DJ. et al. Meta-analysis of transcatheter closure versus medical therapy for patent foramen ovale in prevention of recurrent neurological events after presumed paradoxical embolism. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 5: 777-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wahl A, Praz F, Tai T. et al. Improvement of migraine headaches after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of paradoxical embolism. Heart 2010; 96: 967-973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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: 1022-1032
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mas JL, Derumeaux G, Guillon B. et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1011-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sondergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF. et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 1033-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mattle H, 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: 2029-2036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tobis JM, Charles A, Silberstein SD. et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with migraine: The PREMIUM Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 2766-2774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wahl A, Jüni P, Mono ML. et al. Long-term propensity score-matched comparison of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale with medical treatment after paradoxical embolism. Circulation 2012; 125: 803-812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tanzi A, Onorato O, Casilli F. et al. Is the search for right-to-left shunt still worthwhile?. Acta Neurol Scand 2016; 133: 281-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sorensen HT, Horvath-Puho E, Pedersen L. et al. Venous thromboembolism and subsequent hospitalisation due to acute arterial cardiovascular events: a 20-year cohort study. Lancet 2007; 370: 1773-1779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jarral OA, Saso S, Vecht JA. et al. Does patent foramen ovale closure have an anti-arrhythmic effect? A meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2011; 153: 4-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar