These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A propensity score-matched comparison between Cardia and Amplatzer PFO closure devices - insights from the SOLUTION registry (Swiss percutaneOus patent foramen ovale cLosUre in recurrent clinical events prevenTION).
    Author: Puricel S, Arroyo D, Goy JJ, Praz F, Palhais N, Wahl A, Stauffer JC, Togni M, Berger A, Meier B, Cook S.
    Journal: EuroIntervention; 2015 Jun; 11(2):230-7. PubMed ID: 24830681.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To compare clinical outcome of Amplatzer PFO (APFO) to Cardia PFO (CPFO) occluder. Percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure prevents stroke recurrence in stroke due to paradoxical embolism. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism at follow-up. The secondary endpoint was residual shunt. Outcome was compared among 934 (APFO: 712; CPFO: 222) patients, and in 297 propensity score-matched patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 29 patients (0.71/100 patient-years): four (2%) with the CPFO (0.31/100 patient-years), and 25 (4%) with the APFO (0.89/100 patient-years) (p=0.20). Residual shunt at six months was more frequent with the CPFO (31% versus 9%, p<0.001). No differences in residual shunts were seen at the last available echocardiographic follow-up (9±18 months): APFO 11%, CPFO 14%, p=0.22. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that PFO closure with APFO or CPFO is equally effective for the prevention of recurrent events. Residual shunt was more frequent at six months with CPFO, but was similar to APFO at later follow-up.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]