1 Incidental PFO: To close or not to close? Joseph P. Mathew, MD A patent foramen ovale (PFO) results from persistence of the interatrial communication at the site of the embryonic ostium secundum. In the fetus, blood from the inferior vena cava is directed toward the foramen ovale by the Eustachian valve, passing ultimately from the right atrium to the left atrium. The right atrial aspect of the foramen ovale is characterized by a muscular rim, whereas the left atrial aspect is flat with a crescent-shaped opening. At birth, as left atrial pressures increase, the overlap of the septum primum against this rim closes the foramen ovale. Over the next year of life, the flap of the septum primum and the rim become more adherent resulting in complete closure. However, autopsy findings have reported that the foramen ovale remains probe-patent in 25-35% of patients.1 Since the flap created by the ostium secundum is larger than the fossa, the length of the overlap can be substantial and result in a tunnel-like opening. In one small study, Ho et al2 demonstrated tunnel lengths of 1–6 mm and widths of 5–13 mm along the curve of the rim. Based on their experience with transcatheter closure of a PFO, Rana et al3 have proposed that PFOs can be categorized as either simple or complex. A simple PFO is a standard PFO with tunnel length <8 mm, without an atrial septal aneurysm, without a large Eustachian ridge or valve, without a thickened (< 10 mm) septum secundum, and without other defects of the fossa ovalis. A complex PFO, on the other hand, is one that has any of the following characteristics: 1) PFO with a long tunnel length (>8 mm) 2) Multiple openings of the PFO on the left atrial side 3) Atrial septal aneurysm defined as mobility of the septum > 10 mm in either direction 4) Hybrid defect - the concomitant occurrence of a PFO with additional defects on the fossa ovalis 5) Excessive thickening (> 10 mm) of septum secundum 6) Presence of Eustachian ridge 7) Presence of Eustachian valve (or Chiari network). Detection of an intra-atrial shunt is a prerequisite for the diagnosis of a PFO. While different imaging modalities including transcranial Doppler, intracardiac echocardiography, and transthoracic echocardiography have been used to detect a right-toleft shunt, a transesophageal echo (TEE) bubble study remains the gold standard for diagnosing PFO. In one meta-analysis that included 164 patients, TEE had a sensitivity of 89.2% (95% CI: 81.1-94.7%) and specificity of 91.4% (95% CI: 82.3-96.8%) to detect PFO.4 TEE evaluation of the foramen ovale should include two-dimensional assessment for flap movement and color-flow Doppler assessment, optimized for measurement of lower velocity flow. Injection of agitated saline (a “bubble study”) along with a Valsalva maneuver is typically used to provoke right to left shunting. In such a study, the bubbles should be injected after the Valsalva maneuver produces a decrease in right atrial volume, and the Valsalva should be released (so as to transiently increase right trial pressure over left atrial pressure) when the microbubbles are first seen to enter the right atrium. Admixture of agitated saline with small quantities of blood has been reported to improve the acoustic signal of the microbubbles. The bubble study is positive if bubbles appear in the left atrium within five cardiac cycles. Multiple complications have been associated with a PFO.5 Of these, the increased incidence of PFO in younger patients with cryptogenic stroke has garnered the greatest attention. In a meta-analysis of 1024 patients, the odds ratio for the presence of a PFO in cryptogenic stroke in individuals < 55 years of age was 3.1 (95% CI 2.3–4.2).6 On the 2 basis of multiple reports demonstrating a thrombus in transit between the right and left atrium through a PFO, it is commonly assumed that paradoxical embolization is the cause of the increased incidence of cryptogenic stroke.5 However, other mechanisms of embolic stroke in association with a PFO have been proposed including alterations in atrial function similar to those in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. 7 These abnormalities were more pronounced in those with moderate to large atrial septal aneurysms who in turn were noted to be more likely to have coagulation abnormalities and spontaneous left atrial contrast. Furthermore in patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke, the incidence of atrial fibrillation (a risk factor for stroke) ranges from 8–15%.8 An association between PFO and migraine was highlighted when patients who had a PFO closed for other reasons reported an improvement in the frequency and severity of migraine headaches.9 A meta-analysis of 2636 subjects reported an odds ratio of 5.13 (95% CI 4.7–5.6) but concluded that there was only low grade evidence to support the association between migraine and PFO.10 The only randomized trial of device closure in patients with migraine failed to demonstrate a clear benefit.11,12 Decompression illness in scuba divers is another arena where a PFO may play a critical role. Torti et al13 investigated 230 scuba divers and reported that PFO was present in 23% and was associated with an increased risk of a significant decompression event. The platypnea–orthodeoxia syndrome is characterized by dyspnea and hypoxemia upon standing up. The symptoms are thought to occur because standing upright causes inferior vena cava inflow redirection towards the inter-atrial septum and therefore, increased shunting through a PFO. The syndrome is typically seen after a right pneumonectomy where the cardiac position is shifted in a manner that increases flow toward the PFO.14 Redirection of inferior vena caval flow towards the inter-atrial septum has also been reported in patients with an enlarged or “horizontalized” aortic root. In this case, the flow alteration is a consequence of the cardiac rotation that distorts atrial septal position.15 Perioperatively, in addition to the reports of systemic embolism, hypoxemia due to shunting through a PFO has been described,16 particularly in those with elevated right atrial pressures (e.g. pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular failure) and/or reduced left atrial pressures (e.g. left ventricular assist device). The intraoperative detection of a previously undiagnosed PFO creates a quandary for the surgical and anesthesia care teams. Sukernik and Bennett-Guerrero concluded that “there is general agreement that a PFO should be closed when development of a significant right-toleft shunt after surgery is highly likely”.17 Two instances where closure is strongly recommended are with the insertion of a left ventricular assist device (unloaded left ventricle lowers right atrial to left atrial pressure gradient and can increase shunting) and with heart transplantation (elevated pulmonary vascular resistance increases right atrial pressures). Surgical closure was also recommended when atriotomies were planned as part of the scheduled surgical procedure although there is no data to specifically support such a strategy. In all other cases, the authors recommended that closure be considered when the risk was increased as defined by a large PFO, a history of paradoxical embolization, interatrial septal aneurysm, history of professional diving, or a right to left shunt (including from luxation of the heart during off-pump surgery).17,18 The rationale here is that the risk of an altered cannulation scheme and prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time is minimal.19 On the other hand, the typical cardiac surgery patient is elderly and 3 atherosclerosis and atrial fibrillation are more likely sources of embolism. Thus, an argument can be made that there would be minimal benefit to routinely closing the PFO in older patients without right ventricular overload.18 Furthermore, instituting cardiopulmonary bypass in an off-pump procedure could substantially increase patient risk. In a survey of national surgical practice conducted in 2002, the majority of surgeons decided to close an incidental PFO if the PFO was large, if right atrial pressure was elevated or if there was a history of paradoxical embolism.20 Interestingly, during surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, 28% always closed the PFO while 10% never chose to close the PFO. In off-pump surgery, 28% never altered the surgical plan while 11% always converted to on-pump surgery in order to repair the PFO. A large majority (73%) reported never experiencing a PFO-related complication in the immediate postoperative period that then required additional intervention. To address the impact on PFO repair upon outcomes, Krasuski et al21 evaluated 13,092 cardiac surgical patients without a history of PFO or atrial septal aneurysm. An incidental PFO was diagnosed intraoperatively in 17% and after propensity matching, postoperative stroke or mortality was not different in patients with and without a PFO. Twenty eight percent of the PFO patients had their PFO closed as part of the surgical procedure with closure more likely in younger patients, those undergoing mitral or tricuspid valve surgery, and those with a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke. PFO repair did not offer a long-term survival advantage but was associated with a 2.5 times greater odds of postoperative stroke. This increased risk of stroke is not readily explained since the cardiopulmonary bypass time increased only by a mean of 6 minutes. In addition to primary surgical closure, medical management with anticoagulation/ antiplatelet medications and percutaneous closure may also be considered. In a recent systematic review, the risk of recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke with device closure was 1.3% compared to 5.2% with medical treatment.22 Although the rate of major complications with percutaneous closure is low at 1.5-2.3%, death, hemorrhage, emergency surgery, tamponade, and pulmonary embolism are possibilities. Other complications include atrial fibrillation which is higher following device closure and may be related to the size of the device. Incomplete PFO closure has also been reported in 20% undergoing device closure with 14% demonstrating large residual shunts.5 The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has published guidelines that support the use of antiplatelet or warfarin therapy for high-risk patients with other indications such as hypercoagulable state or venous thrombosis.23 Evidence to recommend device closure for a first stroke is insufficient but PFO closure may be considered for recurrent cryptogenic stroke on optimal medical treatment. Although management strategies for an incidental PFO discovered during surgery are not addressed by these guidelines, closure is recommended during heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device placement. It is also reasonable to consider closure in patients with a large PFO, a history of paradoxical embolization, interatrial septal aneurysm, history of professional diving, or a right to left shunt. However, the increased risk of postoperative stroke with no clear survival advantage of repair should be considered in the risk-benefit analysis. 4 References: 1. Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD. Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clinic proceedings. Jan 1984;59(1):17-20. 2. Ho SY, McCarthy KP, Rigby ML. Morphological features pertinent to interventional closure of patent oval foramen. Journal of interventional cardiology. Feb 2003;16(1):33-38. 3. Rana BS, Shapiro LM, McCarthy KP, Ho SY. Three-dimensional imaging of the atrial septum and patent foramen ovale anatomy: defining the morphological phenotypes of patent foramen ovale. European journal of echocardiography : the journal of the Working Group on Echocardiography of the European Society of Cardiology. Dec 2010;11(10):i19-25. 4. Mojadidi MK, Bogush N, Caceres JD, Msaouel P, Tobis J. Diagnostic Accuracy of Transesophageal Echocardiogram for the Detection of Patent Foramen Ovale: A Meta-Analysis. Echocardiography. Dec 23 2013. 5. Irwin B, Ray S. Patent foramen ovale--assessment and treatment. Cardiovascular therapeutics. Jun 2012;30(3):e128-135. 6. Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a metaanalysis of case-control studies. Neurology. Oct 24 2000;55(8):1172-1179. 7. Rigatelli G, Aggio S, Cardaioli P, et al. Left atrial dysfunction in patients with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm: an alternative concurrent mechanism for arterial embolism? JACC. Cardiovascular interventions. Jul 2009;2(7):655-662. 8. Bonvini RF, Sztajzel R, Dorsaz PA, et al. Incidence of atrial fibrillation after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale and small atrial septal defects in patients presenting with cryptogenic stroke. International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society. Feb 2010;5(1):4-9. 9. Wilmshurst PT, Nightingale S, Walsh KP, Morrison WL. Effect on migraine of closure of cardiac right-to-left shunts to prevent recurrence of decompression illness or stroke or for haemodynamic reasons. Lancet. Nov 11 2000;356(9242):1648-1651. 10. Schwedt TJ, Demaerschalk BM, Dodick DW. Patent foramen ovale and migraine: a quantitative systematic review. Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache. May 2008;28(5):531-540. 11. Carroll JD. Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology trial: a controversial trial of migraine and patent foramen ovale closure. Circulation. Mar 18 2008;117(11):1358-1360. 12. Dowson A, Mullen MJ, Peatfield R, et al. Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology (MIST) trial: a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure with STARFlex septal repair implant to resolve refractory migraine headache. Circulation. Mar 18 2008;117(11):1397-1404. 13. Torti SR, Billinger M, Schwerzmann M, et al. Risk of decompression illness among 230 divers in relation to the presence and size of patent foramen ovale. European heart journal. Jun 2004;25(12):1014-1020. 14. Aigner C, Lang G, Taghavi S, et al. Haemodynamic complications after pneumonectomy: atrial inflow obstruction and reopening of the foramen ovale. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. Feb 2008;33(2):268-271. 5 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Eicher JC, Bonniaud P, Baudouin N, et al. Hypoxaemia associated with an enlarged aortic root: a new syndrome? Heart. Aug 2005;91(8):1030-1035. Tabry I, Villanueva L, Walker E. Patent foramen ovale causing refractory hypoxemia after off-pump coronary artery bypass: a case report. The heart surgery forum. 2003;6(4):E74-76. Sukernik MR, Bennett-Guerrero E. The incidental finding of a patent foramen ovale during cardiac surgery: should it always be repaired? A core review. Anesthesia and analgesia. Sep 2007;105(3):602-610. Flachskampf FA. CON: The incidental finding of a patent foramen ovale during cardiac surgery: should it always be repaired? Anesthesia and analgesia. Sep 2007;105(3):613-614. Argenziano M. PRO: The incidental finding of a patent foramen ovale during cardiac surgery: should it always be repaired? Anesthesia and analgesia. Sep 2007;105(3):611-612. Sukernik MR, Goswami S, Frumento RJ, Oz MC, Bennett-Guerrero E. National survey regarding the management of an intraoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale during coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. Apr 2005;19(2):150-154. Krasuski RA, Hart SA, Allen D, et al. Prevalence and repair of intraoperatively diagnosed patent foramen ovale and association with perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. Jul 15 2009;302(3):290-297. Wohrle J. Closure of patent foramen ovale after cryptogenic stroke. Lancet. Jul 29 2006;368(9533):350-352. O'Gara PT, Messe SR, Tuzcu EM, et al. Percutaneous device closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary stroke prevention: a call for completion of randomized clinical trials. A science advisory from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. May 26 2009;53(21):2014-2018.