Patent foramen ovale closure, antiplatelet therapy or antocoagulation therapy alone for management of cryptogenic stroke? A clinical practice guideline

KEY TAKEAWAY: Strong clinical practice recommendations favour PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy over antiplatelets alone for eligible patients with cryptogenic stroke. Decision-making between closure versus anticoagulation should be individualized based on bleeding risks and patient preferences.

Options for the secondary prevention of stroke in patients younger than 60 years who have had a cryptogenic ischaemic stroke thought to be secondary to patent foramen ovale (PFO) include PFO closure (with antiplatelet therapy), antiplatelet therapy alone, or anticoagulants. International guidance and practice differ on which option is preferable.

The BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel used a linked systematic review triggered by three large randomised trials published in September 2017 that suggested PFO closure might reduce the risk of ischaemic stroke more than alternatives.The panel felt that the studies, when considered in the context of the full body of evidence, might change current clinical practice. The linked systematic review finds that PFO closure prevents recurrent stroke relative to antiplatelet therapy, but possibly not relative to anticoagulants, and is associated with procedural complications and persistent atrial fibrillation.1 The review also presents evidence regarding the role of anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy when PFO closure is not acceptable or is contraindicated.

This expert panel make a

1. Strong recommendation in favour of PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy compared with antiplatelet therapy alone

2. Weak recommendation in favour of PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy compared with anticoagulants

3. Weak recommendation in favour of anticoagulants compared with antiplatelet therapy.