Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulation vs. Antiplatelets after Stroke
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1705915
2019-10-03
Abstract:Background Trials of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to prevent recurrent stroke have been inconclusive. We investigated whether patients with cryptogenic stroke and echocardiographic features representing risk of stroke would benefit from PFO closure or anticoagulation, as compared with antiplatelet therapy. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients 16 to 60 years of age who had had a recent stroke attributed to PFO, with an associated atrial septal aneurysm or large interatrial shunt, to transcatheter PFO closure plus long-term antiplatelet therapy (PFO closure group), antiplatelet therapy alone (antiplatelet-only group), or oral anticoagulation (anticoagulation group) (randomization group 1). Patients with contraindications to anticoagulants or to PFO closure were randomly assigned to the alternative noncontraindicated treatment or to antiplatelet therapy (randomization groups 2 and 3). The primary outcome was occurrence of stroke. The comparison of PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy with antiplatelet therapy alone was performed with combined data from randomization groups 1 and 2, and the comparison of oral anticoagulation with antiplatelet therapy alone was performed with combined data from randomization groups 1 and 3. Results A total of 663 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a mean (±SD) of 5.3±2.0 years. In the analysis of randomization groups 1 and 2, no stroke occurred among the 238 patients in the PFO closure group, whereas stroke occurred in 14 of the 235 patients in the antiplatelet-only group (hazard ratio, 0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0 to 0.26; P<0.001). Procedural complications from PFO closure occurred in 14 patients (5.9%). The rate of atrial fibrillation was higher in the PFO closure group than in the antiplatelet-only group (4.6% vs. 0.9%, P=0.02). The number of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (P=0.56). In the analysis of randomization groups 1 and 3, stroke occurred in 3 of 187 patients assigned to oral anticoagulants and in 7 of 174 patients assigned to antiplatelet therapy alone. Conclusions Among patients who had had a recent cryptogenic stroke attributed to PFO with an associated atrial septal aneurysm or large interatrial shunt, the rate of stroke recurrence was lower among those assigned to PFO closure combined with antiplatelet therapy than among those assigned to antiplatelet therapy alone. PFO closure was associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; CLOSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00562289 .) Supported by a grant (P060406) the French Ministry of Health. Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Dr. Mas reports receiving advisory board fees and lecture fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo; Dr. Guillon, receiving advisory board fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer and lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Covidien; Dr. Massardier, receiving travel support from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer and advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb; Dr. Arquizan, receiving fees for serving on a scientific committee from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Covidien; Dr. Béjot, receiving grant support and fees for serving on a scientific board from AstraZeneca, lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, and Bayer, and fees for serving on a scientific board from Covidien, Daiichi Sankyo, and Boehringer Ingelheim; Dr. Canaple, receiving grant support and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and travel support from Bayer; Dr. Garnier, receiving lecture fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and advisory board fees from Daiichi Sankyo; Dr. Ferrier, receiving consulting fees and lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, advisory board fees from Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo, and lecture fees from Pfizer; Dr. Timsit, receiving lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo and grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Astra Zeneca; Dr. Zuber, receiving advisory board fees from -Abstract Truncated-