Abstract
Secondary prevention of otherwise cryptogenic stroke in patients with patent foramen
ovale (PFO) has been a matter of debate over nearly three decades. Main issues were
that data essentially derived from case-control-studies for a long period and that
results from the randomized controlled trials CLOSURE-I, PC Trial and RESPECT, which
were published in 2012 and 2013, were interpreted in different ways. The likewise
not blinded randomized controlled trials REDUCE, CLOSE and DEFENSE-PFO, which were
published in 2017 and 2018, consistently demonstrated superiority of interventional
PFO closure compared to secondary stroke prevention with antiplatelet therapy in patients
18 to 60 years with cryptogenic stroke and moderate to severe atrial right-to-left
shunt. Consecutively, the German Society of Cardiology, the German Society of Neurology
and the German Stroke Society published joint recommendations strongly recommending
interventional PFO closure in these patients. This review article briefly summarizes
current scientific knowledge. Furthermore, open questions regarding secondary prevention
in otherwise cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO are discussed.
Die optimale Sekundärprävention des ischämischen Schlaganfalls bei Patienten mit persistierendem
Foramen ovale (PFO) wird seit etwa 30 Jahren kontrovers diskutiert: Katheter-basierter
Verschluss des PFO plus Thrombozytenaggregationshemmung oder nur Thrombozytenaggregationshemmung
oder orale Antikoagulation mittels eines Vitamin-K-Antagonisten? Die vorliegende
Übersicht erörtert neben einer kurzen Darstellung der Datenlage offene Fragen der
aktuellen Diskussion.
Schlüsselwörter
Schlaganfall - TIA - orale Antikoagulation - Thrombozytenaggregationshemmung - atrialer
Shunt
Key words
stroke - TIA - oral anticoagulation - antiplatelet therapy - atrial shunt