Stylized illustration of a heart with a closed gate (PFO), symbolizing reduced stroke risk.

Closing the Gate: How PFO Closure Can Prevent Future Strokes

Q: What exactly is a 'cryptogenic' stroke, and how does a patent foramen ovale (PFO) relate to it?

A cryptogenic stroke is a stroke where the cause cannot be determined despite thorough investigation. In the context of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), a cryptogenic stroke suggests that the PFO may be a contributing factor. The PFO is a small opening between the heart's upper chambers that usually closes after birth. If it remains open, it can allow blood clots to pass from the right to the left side of the heart, potentially traveling to the brain and causing a stroke. Further diagnostic testing, such as bubble echocardiography, is often needed to confirm the presence and significance of a PFO in cryptogenic stroke patients.

Q: What does percutaneous PFO closure involve, and what are the alternative treatments for managing a patent foramen ovale (PFO)?

Percutaneous PFO closure is a minimally invasive procedure designed to seal a patent foramen ovale (PFO). During the procedure, a catheter is inserted, typically through a vein in the groin, and guided to the heart. A specialized device is then deployed to close the PFO, preventing abnormal blood flow between the heart's chambers. This is done to reduce the risk of future strokes. Alternative treatments include medical therapies, such as antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, that aim to prevent blood clot formation and reduce the risk of stroke.

Q: How effective is PFO closure in preventing future strokes, and what patient characteristics might influence its success?

Research indicates that PFO closure is effective in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke compared to medical therapy alone, particularly in individuals with specific characteristics, such as the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) or a large shunt through the PFO. A key study showed a significant risk reduction with PFO closure (1.9% vs 4.6%, RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81, P = 0.01). The benefits may vary among patients, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment decisions based on factors like shunt size and presence of ASA.

Q: What are the risks and side effects associated with PFO closure, and how do they compare to medical therapy?

While PFO closure has benefits, the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a significant concern. Meta-analyses have shown an increased risk of AF following PFO closure. For example, one analysis reported AF occurred in 79 patients in the PFO closure group compared to 12 in the medical therapy group (RR 4.58, 95% CI: 2.47, 8.51,p < 0.0001). However, PFO closure does not appear to increase the risk of bleeding complications compared to medical therapy. Therefore, the decision to undergo PFO closure should involve a careful consideration of these potential risks and benefits.

Q: What is 'shared decision-making' in the context of PFO closure, and why is it so important for patients?

Shared decision-making is crucial when considering PFO closure. This approach involves a collaborative discussion between the patient and their healthcare provider, taking into account the patient's preferences, values, and individual risk factors. Given that PFO closure carries an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), patients should be fully informed about this risk and how it compares to the potential benefits of stroke prevention. Shared decision-making ensures that the treatment strategy aligns with the patient's overall health goals and priorities. Further research comparing PFO closure to oral anticoagulation is warranted to refine treatment guidelines.

Beau Callahan in Health & Wellness November 2025 • 4 min read.

"A deep dive into the benefits of PFO closure for cryptogenic stroke patients, balancing hope and realistic outcomes."

Stroke is a devastating condition that can significantly impact a person's quality of life. For some, the cause of their stroke remains a mystery, classified as 'cryptogenic' strokes. Among individuals with cryptogenic strokes, a patent foramen ovale (PFO)—a small opening between the heart's upper chambers that typically closes after birth—is often suspected as a potential culprit. When a PFO is present, there's a risk of blood clots traveling from the right side of the heart to the left, potentially leading to a stroke.

The idea of closing this opening to prevent future strokes has gained traction, leading to the development of percutaneous PFO closure—a minimally invasive procedure to seal the PFO. But how effective is this approach, and what are the potential benefits and risks compared to traditional medical therapies like blood thinners?

Recent research and meta-analyses have shed light on these questions, offering insights into the role of PFO closure in stroke prevention. This article delves into the findings of these studies, providing a balanced perspective on the benefits, limitations, and considerations surrounding PFO closure.

The Evidence for PFO Closure

Stylized illustration of a heart with a closed gate (PFO), symbolizing reduced stroke risk.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared PFO closure to medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Meta-analyses, which combine data from multiple studies, offer a comprehensive view of the evidence. These analyses generally suggest that PFO closure is more effective than medical therapy alone in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke. A key study highlighted in the research indicated a significant risk reduction with PFO closure (1.9% vs 4.6%, RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81, P = 0.01).

However, it's important to note that the benefits of PFO closure may not be uniform across all patients. Factors such as the size of the shunt through the PFO and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) can influence outcomes. Subgroup analyses have shown that patients with ASA or large shunts may derive greater benefit from PFO closure compared to those with smaller shunts or without ASA.

Key findings from the research suggest:

PFO closure significantly reduces the risk of recurrent stroke compared to medical therapy.
Patients with atrial septal aneurysms (ASA) may experience greater benefits from PFO closure.
The size of the atrial shunt may influence the effectiveness of PFO closure.

While PFO closure appears promising, it's essential to consider the potential risks and side effects. Studies have shown an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) following PFO closure. One meta-analysis reported that AF occurred in 79 patients in the PFO closure group compared to 12 in the medical therapy group (RR 4.58, 95% CI: 2.47, 8.51,p < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in bleeding rates between the two groups, suggesting that PFO closure does not increase the risk of bleeding complications compared to medical therapy.

Making Informed Decisions About PFO Closure

PFO closure represents a valuable option for stroke prevention in select patients with cryptogenic stroke, particularly those with ASA or large shunts. However, it is crucial to consider the increased risk of atrial fibrillation and weigh the benefits and risks in consultation with a healthcare professional. Shared decision-making, incorporating patient preferences and values, is essential in determining the most appropriate treatment strategy for each individual. Further research comparing PFO closure to oral anticoagulation is warranted to address the potential for bias and refine treatment guidelines.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What exactly is a 'cryptogenic' stroke, and how does a patent foramen ovale (PFO) relate to it?

A cryptogenic stroke is a stroke where the cause cannot be determined despite thorough investigation. In the context of a patent foramen ovale (PFO), a cryptogenic stroke suggests that the PFO may be a contributing factor. The PFO is a small opening between the heart's upper chambers that usually closes after birth. If it remains open, it can allow blood clots to pass from the right to the left side of the heart, potentially traveling to the brain and causing a stroke. Further diagnostic testing, such as bubble echocardiography, is often needed to confirm the presence and significance of a PFO in cryptogenic stroke patients.

What does percutaneous PFO closure involve, and what are the alternative treatments for managing a patent foramen ovale (PFO)?

Percutaneous PFO closure is a minimally invasive procedure designed to seal a patent foramen ovale (PFO). During the procedure, a catheter is inserted, typically through a vein in the groin, and guided to the heart. A specialized device is then deployed to close the PFO, preventing abnormal blood flow between the heart's chambers. This is done to reduce the risk of future strokes. Alternative treatments include medical therapies, such as antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, that aim to prevent blood clot formation and reduce the risk of stroke.

How effective is PFO closure in preventing future strokes, and what patient characteristics might influence its success?

Research indicates that PFO closure is effective in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke compared to medical therapy alone, particularly in individuals with specific characteristics, such as the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) or a large shunt through the PFO. A key study showed a significant risk reduction with PFO closure (1.9% vs 4.6%, RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81, P = 0.01). The benefits may vary among patients, highlighting the importance of individualized treatment decisions based on factors like shunt size and presence of ASA.

What are the risks and side effects associated with PFO closure, and how do they compare to medical therapy?

While PFO closure has benefits, the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a significant concern. Meta-analyses have shown an increased risk of AF following PFO closure. For example, one analysis reported AF occurred in 79 patients in the PFO closure group compared to 12 in the medical therapy group (RR 4.58, 95% CI: 2.47, 8.51,p < 0.0001). However, PFO closure does not appear to increase the risk of bleeding complications compared to medical therapy. Therefore, the decision to undergo PFO closure should involve a careful consideration of these potential risks and benefits.

What is 'shared decision-making' in the context of PFO closure, and why is it so important for patients?

Shared decision-making is crucial when considering PFO closure. This approach involves a collaborative discussion between the patient and their healthcare provider, taking into account the patient's preferences, values, and individual risk factors. Given that PFO closure carries an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), patients should be fully informed about this risk and how it compares to the potential benefits of stroke prevention. Shared decision-making ensures that the treatment strategy aligns with the patient's overall health goals and priorities. Further research comparing PFO closure to oral anticoagulation is warranted to refine treatment guidelines.