P772 Percutaneous transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure: does size really matter?

Autor: C Mas Llado, P. Pericas, A. Rodriguez, M F Ramis Barcelo, R Gonzalez, I Valadron, J. Forteza, V Peral, L Pasamar, M Noris
Rok vydání: 2020
Předmět:
Zdroj: European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging. 21
ISSN: 2047-2412
2047-2404
DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jez319.432
Popis: Introduction Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been associated with cryptogenic stroke. Percutaneous transcatheter PFO closure has been in development for the last years. In recent studies, it has shown a reduction of recurrent ischemic stroke events. Several manufactures of PFO device closure have developed guidelines for selection of device size based on anatomic measurements obtained through echocardiography. A study showed that according to the guidelines few patients had adequate tissue rim to allow device implantation, and yet almost all the patients had an effective closure. Purpose and methods The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of PFO with transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) (size, distance between foramen ovale-superior vena cava (FO-SVC) and distance between FO-aortic annulus (FO-AoAn)) and to determinate the correlation between the size of PFO device implanted and the theoretical device size according to the guidelines. We performed a retrospective study among patients who underwent a PFO closure procedure between 2006 and 2018. Results 42 patients were included, 55% male, mean age 56 years and mean BSA 1,83 m². The PFO mean diameter and length were 3 and 13 mm respectively. The majority of PFO were complex: 91% of patients had defects larger than 8mm and 36% had atrial septum aneurism. Characteristic of PFO were measured (Table). In older patients the distance between PFO-SVC and PFO-AoAn was larger and the septum secundum was thicker (p 0.02). The right-to-left shunt was moderated or severe in most cases (75%). The PFO closure device was successfully implanted in all patients. The majority of them received an Amplatzer PFO device (45%) followed by an Hyperion PFO device. The size of the device was 25mm in half of the patients followed by 30mm device. According to the guidelines, in 67% of the cases the wrong size was chosen and the mean size of the device should had been 30mm (SD ±5,2). TEE examination during follow up showed no residual or mild residual shunt in 80% of the patients. Residual shunt was more prevalent with larger devices (p 0.008) Conclusions These results showed that the size of PFO closure device implanted in our population differed from the size recommended by guidelines. Smaller devices have been used. According to our results, larger devices are associated with more residual shunt, which suggests that a different approach may be necessary to establish new protocols for PFO device closure Table Minimal Maximal Mean SD SVC (mm) 10 30 17.55 ±3,7 AoAn (mm) 9 23 14.1 ±3,5 Minimal and maximal distance between PFO-SVC and AoAn
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: