Abstract:It is well known that deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is one of the most relevant determinants of paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale (PFO). DVT was detected in nearly 10% of patients with PFO and paradoxical embolism as the sole identifiable cardiac risk factor: DVT is often clinically silent and frequently is not recognized at the first diagnosis of paradoxical embolism.1Schuchlenz H.W. Saurer G. Weihs W. Patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, and recurrent stroke.N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1331-1332Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar, 2Wu L.A. Malouf J.F. Dearani J.A. et al.Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke current understanding and management options.Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164: 950-956Crossref PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar, 3Stollberger C. Slany J. Schuster I. Leitner H. Winkler W.B. Karnik R. The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism.Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119: 461-465Crossref PubMed Scopus (192) Google Scholar Unfortunately, because PFO transcatheter closure is gaining a worldwide acceptance, the interest for paradoxical embolism pathophysiology seems to decrease in favor of technical and procedural issues. We sought to determine the incidence of asymptomatic DVT in patients who underwent PFO trascatheter closure at the moment of the procedure.In our institution, 21 patients (male/female 8/13; mean age 56 ± 22 years) with previous recurrent stroke due to a significant PFO (positive contrast transesophageal echocardiography with Valsalva maneuver; positive shower or curtain pattern on contrast transcranial Doppler echography) were referred to our center for transcatheter closure of PFO. Deep venous Doppler echography was negative at the moment of paradoxical embolism in 20 of 21 patients. All patients were on dicumarolic (16 patients) or aspirin (5 patients) medication before the procedure. The procedure was carried out after a mean interval of 2.1 ± 1.1 months from the diagnosis of paradoxical embolism. Although all patients were asymptomatic for DVT (no clinical signs and no elevation of fibrinogenous or D–dimer), venous Doppler ultrasound was repeated the same day of the procedure in 20 of 21 patients.In 3 patients (3 obese patients aged 71, 62, 47 years, 2 on warfarin therapy) a DVT was detected and the procedure was delayed until we obtained the warfarin–mediated resolution of the thrombus. In 1 patient (74 years, on aspirin) an invasive flebography for a difficult catheter advancement was performed, discovering a massive DVT of infrarenal portion of the vena cava and iliac veins, suggesting a preventive treatment with a venous filter rather than a PFO device (Figure).In conclusion, we would like to stress the concept that DVT, although not present at the first diagnosis, may have occurred in the interval between the diagnosis and the transcatheter closure procedure (4 of 21 patients, 19%); old age and obesity probably are strong predictors. In patients scheduled for PFO transcatheter closure, Doppler venous echography should be repeated the same day of the procedure even if there are no symptoms or clinical signs of DVT. It is well known that deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is one of the most relevant determinants of paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale (PFO). DVT was detected in nearly 10% of patients with PFO and paradoxical embolism as the sole identifiable cardiac risk factor: DVT is often clinically silent and frequently is not recognized at the first diagnosis of paradoxical embolism.1Schuchlenz H.W. Saurer G. Weihs W. Patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, and recurrent stroke.N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1331-1332Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar, 2Wu L.A. Malouf J.F. Dearani J.A. et al.Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke current understanding and management options.Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164: 950-956Crossref PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar, 3Stollberger C. Slany J. Schuster I. Leitner H. Winkler W.B. Karnik R. The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism.Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119: 461-465Crossref PubMed Scopus (192) Google Scholar Unfortunately, because PFO transcatheter closure is gaining a worldwide acceptance, the interest for paradoxical embolism pathophysiology seems to decrease in favor of technical and procedural issues. We sought to determine the incidence of asymptomatic DVT in patients who underwent PFO trascatheter closure at the moment of the procedure. In our institution, 21 patients (male/female 8/13; mean age 56 ± 22 years) with previous recurrent stroke due to a significant PFO (positive contrast transesophageal echocardiography with Valsalva maneuver; positive shower or curtain pattern on contrast transcranial Doppler echography) were referred to our center for transcatheter closure of PFO. Deep venous Doppler echography was negative at the moment of paradoxical embolism in 20 of 21 patients. All patients were on dicumarolic (16 patients) or aspirin (5 patients) medication before the procedure. The procedure was carried out after a mean interval of 2.1 ± 1.1 months from the diagnosis of paradoxical embolism. Although all patients were asymptomatic for DVT (no clinical signs and no elevation of fibrinogenous or D–dimer), venous Doppler ultrasound was repeated the same day of the procedure in 20 of 21 patients. In 3 patients (3 obese patients aged 71, 62, 47 years, 2 on warfarin therapy) a DVT was detected and the procedure was delayed until we obtained the warfarin–mediated resolution of the thrombus. In 1 patient (74 years, on aspirin) an invasive flebography for a difficult catheter advancement was performed, discovering a massive DVT of infrarenal portion of the vena cava and iliac veins, suggesting a preventive treatment with a venous filter rather than a PFO device (Figure). In conclusion, we would like to stress the concept that DVT, although not present at the first diagnosis, may have occurred in the interval between the diagnosis and the transcatheter closure procedure (4 of 21 patients, 19%); old age and obesity probably are strong predictors. In patients scheduled for PFO transcatheter closure, Doppler venous echography should be repeated the same day of the procedure even if there are no symptoms or clinical signs of DVT.

Thrombus Straddling a Patent Foramen Ovale: Also a Myocardial Infarction Matter?

Deep Venous Thrombosis Before Patent Foramen Ovale Closure

Permanent Right-to-left Shunt is the Key Factor in Managing Patent Foramen Ovale.

[Patent Foramen Ovale: a Benign Anatomical Variant That Can Become a Disease].

Closing Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke: the Underscored Importance of Other Interatrial Shunt Variants

Patent Foramen Ovale: a Comprehensive Review for Pulmonologists

Patent Foramen Ovale with Paradoxical Embolism: Mid‐Term Results of Transcatheter Closure in 256 Patients

Managing Patent Foramen Ovale in COVID-19 Patients During and after Viral Infection: an Unresolved Matter

Patent Foramen Ovale-Mania: an Unusual Case of Misdiagnosis.

Increased Blood Residence Time As Markers of High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale.

Embolic implications of combined risk factors in patients with patent foramen ovale (the CARPE criteria): consideration for primary prevention closure?

Transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure in spite of interatrial septum hypertrophy or lipomatosis: a case series.

Safety and Long-Term Results of Patent Foramen Ovale Transcatheter Closure in Patients with Thrombophilia.

Patent Foramen Ovale: the Evident Paradox Between the Apparently Simple Treatment and the Really Complex Pathophysiology

Anatomical Significance of the Patent Foramen Ovale by Real‐Time 3D TEE in Cryptogenic Stroke and Migraine

Patent Foramen Ovale As A Preferential Mechanism For Increasing The Likelihood Of Brain Tumor Metastasis

Patent foramen ovale-obstructive sleep apnea relationships: pro and cons.

Asymptomatic Significant Patent Foramen Ovale: Giving Patent Foramen Ovale Management Back to the Cardiologist

Management of Patients with Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke: a Collaborative, Multidisciplinary, Position Paper.

Migraine and Patent Foramen Ovale: Connecting Flight or One-Way Ticket?

Atrial septal aneurysm contribution to the risk of cryptogenic stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale: A brief updated systematic review and meta-analysis.