Dynamics of residual shunt closure within one year after endovascular patent foramen ovale closure: a clinical study
https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2024-4040
Abstract
Aim. To study 12-month dynamics of residual shunt (RS) closure after endovascular patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure.
Material and methods. We analyzed the data of 80 patients who underwent endovascular PFO closure at the Chazov National Medical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in the period 2018-2023. All patients underwent a full range of examinations in accordance with current clinical guidelines. The severity of RS immediately after occluder implantation, as well as after 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention assessment was based on transesophageal echocardiogram bubble study at the control visit.
Results. In the postoperative period, RS was visualized in 17,5% (n=14) of patients. Discharge was significant in 7,5% (n=6) of patients. One month after the intervention, residual significant discharge persisted in 10,0% (n=8) of patients. After 6 months, RS was visualized in 2,5% (n=2) of patients, and after 12 months, only in one patient (1,3%). The proportion of patients with RS 1 month after the intervention decreased to 42,9%, after 6 months to 85,7%, and after 12 months to 92,9% (p<0,05).
Conclusion. Most patients with RS after endovascular intervention for PFO are characterized by complete endocardialization of the occluder and PFO closure within the first year.
About the Authors
A. S. Tereshchenko
Chazov National Medical Research Center of Cardiology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
E. V. Merkulov
Chazov National Medical Research Center of Cardiology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Komarov AL, Krivosheeva EN, Makeev MI, et al. Patent foramen ovale as the cause of recurrent embolic strokes. Case report. Terapevticheskii Arkhiv. 2022;94(9):1109-14. (In Russ.) doi:10.26442/00403660.2022.09.201842.
2. Kuzhel DA, Matyushin GV, Savchenko EA. Problems of diagnosis PFO. Siberian Medical Review. 2014;1(85):70-5. (In Russ.)
3. Igisheva LN, Knyazeva EV, Bolgova IV, et al. Patent foramen ovale in infants. Mother and Baby in Kuzbass. 2014;1(56):18- 23. (In Russ.)
4. King TD, Thompson SL, Steiner C, et al. Secundum atrial septal defect: nonoperative closure during cardiac catheterization. JAMA. 1976;235(23):2506-9. doi:10.1001/jama.1976.03260490024013.
5. Troshkinev NM, Tarasov RS. The problem of transcatheter closure of multiple atrial septal defects: interventional approaches and results. Literature review. Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases. 2023;12(4S):184-95. (In Russ.) doi:10.17802/2306-1278-2023-12-4S-184-195.
6. Sorensen SG, Spruance SL, Smout R, et al. Transcranial Doppler quantification of residual shunt after percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure: correlation of device efficacy with intracardiac anatomic measures. J Interv Cardiol. 2012;25(3): 304-12. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8183.2011.00714.x.
7. Diaz T, Cubeddu RJ, Rengifo‐Moreno PA, et al. Management of residual shunts after initial percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure: A single center experience with immediate and long‐ term follow‐up. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76(1):145-50. doi:10.1002/ccd.22475.
8. Cheli M, Canepa M, Brunelli C, et al. Recurrent and Residual Shunts After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure: Results From a Long‐Term Transcranial Doppler Study. J Interv Cardiol. 2015; 28(6):600-8. doi:10.1111/joic.12255.
9. Kulesh AA, Demin DA, Belopasova AV, et al. Cryptogenic stroke. Part 2: paradoxical embolism. Meditsinskiy sovet. 2021;(19):16- 33. (In Russ.) doi:10.21518/2079-701X2021-19-16-33.
10. Rybin SYu. Patent foramen ovale as a risk factor of stroke (a clinical case). Brain universe. 2019;1(3):31-4. (In Russ.)
11. Spies C, Strasheim R, Timmermanns I, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure in patients with cryptogenic thrombo-embolic events using the Cardia PFO occlude. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(3):365-71. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi617.
12. Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation. 2000;101(8):893-8. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.101.8.893.
13. Bokeriya LA, Arkhipov AN, Bolotova EV, еt аl. Clinical guidelines for the management of adult patients with congenital heart defects. M.: A.N. Bakulev Scientific Center for Cardiovascular Surgery of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, 2010. p. 358. (In Russ.) ISBN: 978-5-7982-0258-4.
14. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology. 2013;81(7):619-25. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a08d59.
15. Kuznetsov AN, Vinogradov OI, Rybalko NV. Etiopathogenesis of cardioembolic stroke. Clinical pathophysiology. 2014;2:3- 8. (In Russ.)
16. Bogdanov EI. Ischemic stroke in young patients. Neurology Bulletin. 2012;44(2):30-40. (In Russ.)
17. Hammerstingl C, Bauriedel G, Stüsser C, et al. Risk and fate of residual interatrial shunting after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale: a long term follow-up study. Eur J Med Research. 2011;16:13-9. doi:10.1186/2047-783X-16-1-13.
18. Taggart NW, Reeder GS, Lennon RJ, et al. Long‐term follow‐up after PFO device closure: outcomes and complications in a single‐ center experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89(1):124-33. doi:10.1002/ccd.26518.
19. Laissac Q, Levesque T, Bettinger N, et al. Incidence, predictive factors, and prognostic impact of residual shunt after percutenous patent foramen ovale closure. Arch Cardiovasc Dis Suppl. 2023;15(1):63-4. doi:10.1016/j.acvdsp.2022.10.118.
20. Gaspardone A, Sgueglia GA, De Santis A, et al. Predictors of residual right-to-left shunt after percutaneous suture-mediated patent fossa ovalis closure. Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(18):2112- 20. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2020.06.004.
21. Nakayama R, Takaya Y, Akagi T, et al. Relationship between patent foramen ovale anatomical features and residual shunt after patent foramen ovale closure. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2024;39:200-6. doi:10.1007/s12928-023-00979-y
Supplementary files
What is already known about the subject?
- Residual shunt after occluder implantation is associated with recurrent brain ischemic events.
- In 29% of patients with residual shunt (RS), occluder endocardialization occurs within 6 months after endovascular closure of the patent foramen ovale.
What might this study add?
- One month after endovascular closure of the patent foramen ovale, the proportion of patients with RS decreased by half.
- In 85,7% of patients, RS was not visualized 6 months after the intervention.
- For most patients with RS, after implantation of an occluder, complete closure is reached within the first year.
Review
For citations:
Tereshchenko A.S., Merkulov E.V. Dynamics of residual shunt closure within one year after endovascular patent foramen ovale closure: a clinical study. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2024;23(8):4040. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2024-4040
Views:
585
Email this article 
