Skip Navigation

European Journal of Echocardiography 2005 6(6):393-395; doi:10.1016/j.euje.2005.09.007
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Eur J Echocardiogr
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwerzmann, M.
Right arrow Articles by Salehian, O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schwerzmann, M.
Right arrow Articles by Salehian, O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2005, The European Society of Cardiology

Hazards of percutaneous PFO closure

Markus Schwerzmanna,* and Omid Salehianb

aAdult Congenital Heart Disease Program, Swiss Cardiovascular Center Bern, University Hospital Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
bAdult Congenital Cardiology Clinic, McMaster University Medical Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Received 21 September 2005; .

markus.schwerzmann{at}insel.ch

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 31 632 96 54; fax: +41 31 432 42 99.

Please see the article by Christen et al. (doi: 10.1016/j.euje.2005.08.002) to which this editorial pertains.

In 2004, an estimated 2000–3000 patients underwent percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO). Given the range of potential indications (such as prevention of cryptogenic stroke, decompression illness in divers, platypnea–orthodeoxia syndrome, and migraine headaches) and the perception of PFO closure being an easy and safe procedure,1 the number of patients with percutaneously implanted PFO closure devices will continue to grow.

The first attempt to percutaneously close an interatrial defect was undertaken in 1974 and reported by King and colleagues in 1976.2 In the following years, several different devices were developed and re-modified to facilitate this technique. It began with the Clamshell occluder from Rashkind,3 later modified into the CardioSEAL and then the StarFLEX device. Other models soon followed including the Buttoned device,4 the ASDOS device,5 the Monodisk,6 the Angel-Wings device,7 the Amplatzer ASD occluder8 and the Helex device.9 Although these devices were initially intended for atrial septal defect closure, they could also be used for closure of PFO, an idea first evoked by Bridges in 1992.10 Soon thereafter, devices dedicated exclusively for percutaneous PFO closure entered the market, namely the Amplatzer PFO occluder and the PFOStar (now Cardiastar) device.

Part of the reasoning to favour percutaneous PFO closure over open heart surgery promises a safer and of course, less invasive and painful procedure than surgery. The latter argument can be intuitively accepted, but what about the safety of the procedure and implanted devices? In 2003, Landzberg and colleagues reviewed the complication rate of percutaneous PFO closure subsuming 10 studies with overall 1355 patients and different closure devices.11 Major periprocedural complications (i.e. death, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, cardiac tamponade, need for surgical intervention, and fatal pulmonary emboli) occurred in 1.5% of patients, and minor complications (bleeding not requiring transfusion, transient atrial arrhythmias, device embolization with successful catheter retrieval, device arm fracture, symptomatic air embolism including transient ST-segment elevation, arteriovenous fistula formation and femoral hematoma at the entry side) occurred in 7.9% of the cases. This review included studies with "first generation" closure devices, requiring complex multistep implantation. Some of these earlier devices were not repositionable or retrievable and hence harbouring additional complications. With contemporary devices, the periprocedural complication rates are close to 1%.12–14 Hence, the periprocedural safety of percutaneous PFO closure seems to be acceptable.

However, one of the unknown issues using intracardiac devices is their long term risk. There are reports about thrombus formation, late embolization and erosion of cardiac structures leading to aorto-atrial fistulas or pericardial tamponade – as illustrated in the present article of Christen et al. Thrombus formation after device implantation has been extensively investigated and its prevalence has been reported to be around 2%.15 Most thrombi were detected within the first month after device implantation. These "early" thrombi were usually observed on transesophageal echo studies, but not on transthoracic imaging. The majority of these clots was seen on devices with uncoated metal arms (like the CardioSEAL and StarFLEX devices or the PFOStar device), but very rarely on the Amplatzer occluder with nitinol wire frame filled with polyester fabric or the Helex device, made of a nitinol wire frame covered with a membrane of polytetrafluoroethylene.15–17 Most of these small thrombi did not cause symptoms at the time of diagnosis and were only detected due to routine echocardiographic studies. Nevertheless, clinically important thrombi do occur with patients presenting with recurrent embolic events up to 6 years after the procedure.18 In cases of recurrent stroke or peripheral embolization after PFO closure, transesophageal echocardiography is necessary to visualize the device and its proper positioning as well as rule out thrombi adherent to the left atrial disk. In our personal experience, thrombi are seen more frequently in patients on oral anticoagulation during the first few months after device closure than in those on dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) giving rise to a potential role for platelet adhesion as the triggering signal for thrombus formation in such scenarios.

Late dislodgement (i.e. after 4 weeks) of the PFO closure device is very uncommon. A correctly placed PFO closure device will straddle the thick muscular septum secundum with its two disks and have a stable position. Endothelium will overgrow the device and glue it to the interatrial septum. For the 2004–2005 period, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports so far only one case of embolization of an Amplatzer PFO occluder on its online information database,19 compared with more than 30 cases of embolized Amplatzer ASD occluders (used for atrial septal defect device closure).

Equally, erosion of cardiac structures has mainly been reported for ASD closure devices, especially the Amplatzer ASD occluder.20 The Amplatzer occluder with its nitinol wire frame is a relatively rigid device. This facilitates positioning and keeps it stable once implanted. The downside of this stability, however, is a potential for eroding and finally penetrating cardiac structures if the rim of one of its disks is rubbing against the atrial or aortic wall. The "culprit lesion" is usually created by the anterior–superior border of the device leading to right or left atrial perforation or aortic wall erosion – in cases were the device is splayed over the aortic root. It is obvious that patients with a deficient superior atrial septal rim or deficient aortic rim are at higher risk for cardiac perforation. Two out of every three patients with cardiac perforation due to device erosion will present within the first 3 days.21 In patients undergoing PFO closure, these issues fortunately seldom arise.22 However, in patients with a large atrial septal aneurysm, there is a tendency to use larger devices to "stabilize" the atrial septum and to assure that the whole PFO tunnel is covered by the closure disk – hence the risk of cardiac perforation might increase. The present report by Christen et al. nicely illustrates that cardiac perforation is not restricted to Amplatzer PFO occluders and can occur in an unpredictable manner. Fortunately, this is a very rare complication with an incidence of less than 0.1%.21 However, as the PFO device closure procedures rise so will likely the complication rates.

What is the echocardiographer's role in the care of patients after percutaneous PFO closure? Because complications are rare, it is difficult to establish an evidence-based follow-up protocol. Taking into account that our interventional cardiologists mainly use the Amplatzer PFO occluder, transthoracic echocardiography is performed the day after the procedure or just prior to discharge to document proper device position and rule out early perforation. Transesophageal echocardiography is repeated 4–6 months after device implantation to exclude residual shunting (by colour Doppler and intravenous bubble contrast) and device adherent thrombi.23 Finally it is important to remember that complication can occur at any time and with any device. A high index of suspicion is necessary for early detection of both early and late complications of PFO device closures.


   References
Top
 References
 

  1. Meier B. PFO closure, when the going gets tough. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv (2005) 64:345–347.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  2. King T.D., Thompson S.L., Steiner C., Mills N.L. Secundum atrial septal defect. Nonoperative closure during cardiac catheterization. JAMA (1976) 235:2506–2509.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Rashkind W.J. Transcatheter treatment of congenital heart disease. Circulation (1983) 67:711–716.[Free Full Text]
  4. Sideris E.B., Sideris S.E., Fowlkes J.P., Ehly R.L., Smith J.E., Gulde R.E. Transvenous atrial septal defect occlusion in piglets with a "buttoned" double-disk device. Circulation (1990) 81:312–318.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Babic U.U., Grujicic S., Djurisic Z., Vucinic M. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects. Lancet (1990) 336:566–567.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Pavcnik D., Wright K.C., Wallace S. Monodisk: device for percutaneous transcatheter closure of cardiac septal defects. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol (1993) 16:308–312.[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Das G.S., Voss G., Jarvis G., Wyche K., Gunther R., Wilson R.F. Experimental atrial septal defect closure with a new, transcatheter, self-centering device. Circulation (1993) 88:1754–1764.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Sharafuddin M.J., Gu X., Titus J.L., Urness M., Cervera-Ceballos J.J., Amplatz K. Transvenous closure of secundum atrial septal defects: preliminary results with a new self-expanding nitinol prosthesis in a swine model. Circulation (1997) 95:2162–2168.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Dobrolet N.C., Iskowitz S., Lopez L., Whalen R., Zahn E.M. Sequential implantation of two Helex septal occluder devices in a patient with complex atrial septal anatomy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv (2001) 54:242–246.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Bridges N.D., Hellenbrand W., Latson L., Filiano J., Newburger J.W., Lock J.E. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale after presumed paradoxical embolism. Circulation (1992) 86:1902–1908.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Khairy P., O'Donnell C.P., Landzberg M.J. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med (2003) 139:753–760.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Varma C., Benson L.N., Warr M.R., Yeo E., Yip J., Jaigobin C.S., et al. Clinical outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure for paradoxical emboli without echocardiographic guidance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv (2004) 62:519–525.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Braun M., Gliech V., Boscheri A., Schoen S., Gahn G., Reichmann H., et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism: periprocedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems. Eur Heart J (2004) 25:424–430.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Windecker S., Wahl A., Chatterjee T., Garachemani A., Eberli F.R., Seiler C., et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation (2000) 101:893–898.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Krumsdorf U., Ostermayer S., Billinger K., Trepels T., Zadan E., Horvath K., et al. Incidence and clinical course of thrombus formation on atrial septal defect and patient foramen ovale closure devices in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol (2004) 43:302–309.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Anzai H., Child J., Natterson B., Krivokapich J., Fishbein M.C., Chan V.K., et al. Incidence of thrombus formation on the CardioSEAL and the Amplatzer interatrial closure devices. Am J Cardiol (2004) 93:426–431.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Brandt R.R., Neumann T., Neuzner J., Rau M., Faude I., Hamm C.W. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale in adult patients using the Amplatzer occlusion device: no evidence for thrombus deposition with antiplatelet agents. J Am Soc Echocardiogr (2002) 15:1094–1098.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Gaul C., Heckmann J.G., Bremer J., Wasmeier G., Huk W.J., Schrader R., et al. Thrombus attached to a Sideris septal occluder system 6 years later. Dtsch Med Wochenschr (2004) 129:87–90.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. FDA. Manufacturer and user facility device experience MAUDE database. Available from: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/search.cfm; 2005.
  20. Divekar A., Gaamangwe T., Shaikh N., Raabe M., Ducas J. Cardiac perforation after device closure of atrial septal defects with the Amplatzer septal occluder. J Am Coll Cardiol (2005) 45:1213–1218.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Amin Z., Hijazi Z.M., Bass J.L., Cheatham J.P., Hellenbrand W.E., Kleinman C.S. Erosion of Amplatzer septal occluder device after closure of secundum atrial septal defects: review of registry of complications and recommendations to minimize future risk. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv (2004) 63:496–502.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Trepels T., Zeplin H., Sievert H., Billinger K., Krumsdorf U., Zadan E., et al. Cardiac perforation following transcatheter PFO closure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv (2003) 58:111–113.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Meier B., Lock J.E. Contemporary management of patent foramen ovale. Circulation (2003) 107:5–9.[Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Eur J Echocardiogr:

Late cardiac tamponade after percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale
Thomas Christen, François Mach, Dominique Didier, Afksendyios Kalangos, Vitali Verin, and Pedro T. Trindade
Eur J Echocardiogr 2005 6: 465-469. [Abstract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CirculationHome page
S. R. Messe and S. E. Kasner
Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke: Not to Close
Circulation, November 4, 2008; 118(19): 1999 - 2004.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Eur J Echocardiogr
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwerzmann, M.
Right arrow Articles by Salehian, O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schwerzmann, M.
Right arrow Articles by Salehian, O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?