2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.10.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: Interventional PFO closure appears to be safe and a promising technique in symptomatic PFO patients with a low incidence of periinterventional complications and recurrent thromboembolic events using three different devices (PFO-Star, Amplatzer PFO occluder or the CardioSeal/Starflex).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
78
1
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 168 publications
(85 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(16 reference statements)
4
78
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The rate and time points of the re-events are in accord to previously published studies [17][18][19]21]. There is a higher rate of re-events in larger devices as five out of the seven patients received a 35 mm Amplatzer device.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The rate and time points of the re-events are in accord to previously published studies [17][18][19]21]. There is a higher rate of re-events in larger devices as five out of the seven patients received a 35 mm Amplatzer device.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Recent publications concerning device related closure of PFO reported re-event rates below 1% per year which were lower compared to studies with medical treatment [17][18][19]. Reports on the interventional closure of PFO in combination with ASA showed an increased risk for thrombus formation as well as for incomplete closure [19,20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The small number of patients makes a statistical differentiation, e.g., for different therapeutic arms, difficult. Because of the long follow-up period, the ''modern'' treatment, e.g., percutaneous PFO closure, which with modern technique has been shown as a safe and feasible procedure [21][22][23][24], was chosen in only a few patients. With respect to the long follow-up period, 11% of the patients were lost.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These cases could be called ''small ASD'' and might be distinguished from classical PFO. Like these ''small ASD'' interatrial communications, there are cases in which an ASO device might be even more suitable than other devices that are designed especially for PFO closure [15,16]. Interestingly, recent data from the United States have also reported Amplatzer ASD devices were commonly used (about 40% of the procedures) even for patients with PFO [17].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%