Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in Older Patients: A Collaborative Multicenter Retrospective Study

In patients with cryptogenic stroke, up to 4 randomized trials and subsequent meta-analyses have recently shown a significant reduction in recurrent ischemic stroke events following percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) . All randomized trials but one excluded patients older than 60 years, and a mean patient age of about 50 years was reported in the single randomized trial including older patients. Thus, whereas PFO closure has been established as the new gold-standard therapy in young patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, there are no definite recommendations on the management of patients older than 60 years. Some studies have shown that older patients with cryptogenic stroke exhibit a much higher prevalence of PFO (compared with patients with stroke of known cause), similar to that in younger populations, but scarce data exist on acute and mid-term clinical outcomes of older patients undergoing PFO closure.

The investigators have recently reported the results of study comparing the long-term clinical outcomes of patients older (vs. younger) than 60 years in our centre. A total of 475 consecutive patients (90 older than 60 years) were included, and the main results can be summarized as follows: 1) older patients with cryptogenic embolism and PFO exhibited a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors; 2) PFO closure was safe in older patients, with no differences in periprocedural complications compared with younger patients; 3) at long-term (median of 8 years) follow-up post-PFO closure, the global mortality rate was higher among older patients, but differences were driven by noncardiovascular mortality (mainly cancer), and 4) the rate of recurrent stroke/TIA was low (much lower than that predicted by the RoPE score), but there was a tendency toward a higher incidence of recurrent stroke/TIA among older patients, which appeared to be partially related to cardiovascular risk factor burden (no differences in recurrent ischemic event rate were observed after adjustment for baseline differences in cardiovascular risk factors between groups). The main limitation of this study was the relatively low number of patients older than 60 years, precluding an appropriate evaluation of the factors associated with poorer clinical outcomes in this population. Thus, the investigators are planning to confirm prior findings in a collaborative project including a much larger cohort of patients. Also, the results of this retrospective study would provide the rationale for a CIHR submission on a randomized trial targeting this group of patients.