Abstract:Recent trials and metanalysis even not fully conclusive and still debated, at least suggested that mechanical device-based closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is more effective than medical therapy in prevent recurrence of stroke. In a proportion ranging from 20% to nearly 40% of patients in literature, PFO is associated to atrial septal aneurysm (ASA): ASA is a well-known entity often associated with additional fenestration. Additionally small atrial septal defects ("Flat ASD") can present with signs of paradoxical embolism and cannot be easily detected by transthoracic echocardiography or even by transesophageal echocardiography and are usually discovered by intracardiac echocardiography at the moment of transcatheter closure. This evidence might change potentially the anatomical diagnosis from PFO to fenestrated ASA or as we called it to "hybrid defect", being a bidirectional flow through a small ASD or/and an additional fenestration, often present. Despite the differences in anatomy, pathophysiology and haemodynamic paradoxical embolism may occur in both entities and also may be the first appearance of fenestrated ASA. Because some overlapping do really exist between PFO and hybrid defects, which are often not clearly differentiable by standard diagnostic tools, it is likely that a proportion of patients evaluated for potential transcatheter closure of PFO had actually a different anatomical substrate. These different anatomical and pathophysiologic entities have not been address in any of the previous trials, potentially having an impact on overall results despite the similar mechanical treatment. Neurologists and general cardiologists in charge of clinical management of PFO-related cryptogenic stroke should be aware of the role of hybrid defects in the pathophysiology of paradoxical embolism - mediated cerebral ischemic events in order to apply the correct decision - making process and avoid downgrading of patients with paradoxical embolism-related interatrial shunt variants different from PFO.

Transcatheter PFO closure for cryptogenic stroke: current approaches and future considerations

Transcatheters for Closure of Patent Foramen Ovales

Transcatheters for Closure of Patent Foramen Ovales.

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 Closure for Nonstroke Indications

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

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

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

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

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

Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Patients with Cryptogenic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Comprehensive Meta‐analysis of 5 Randomized Controlled Trials and 14 Observational Studies

Insights from a 23-Year Monocentric Analysis

Recent Advances in Catheter Devices for Patent Foramen Ovale Closure

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

Current status of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale

Drug therapy of patent foramen ovale with cryptogenic stroke

Cost effectiveness of percutaneous closure versus medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke in patients with a patent foramen ovale

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

Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke–Current Status

Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in Patients with Cryptogenic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: A Retrospective Study.