The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2022
Outcomes Following Patent Foramen Ovale Percutaneous Closure According to the Delay From Last Ischemic Event.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guedeney Paul, Mesnier Jules, Zeitouni Michel, Hauguel-Moreau Marie, Silvain Johanne, Houde Christine, Alperi Alberto, Panagides Vassili, Collet Jean-Philippe, Wallet Thomas, Rouanet Stéphanie, Hammoudi Nadjib, Rodés-Cabau Josep, Montalescot Gilles, AIR-FORCE Task Force
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials evaluating percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) have included only patients with a recent embolic event. We aimed to evaluate outcomes after percutaneous PFO closure according to the delay from the last embolic episode.
METHODS: This international ambispective cohort included consecutive patients from 2 centres in France and Canada undergoing PFO closure for secondary prevention of a paradoxical embolic event. The primary end point was the composite of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). A logistic regression model was used to evaluate determinants of late PFO closure procedures.
RESULTS: A total of 1179 patients (mean age 49 ± 12.7 years; 44.4% female) underwent PFO closure from 2001 to 2021. The median delay from last embolic event to procedure was 6.0 (interquartile range 3.4-11.2) months. The determinants of late PFO closure procedure were the centre (France vs Canada; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.19), year of procedure (since 2018 vs before 2018; aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.08-1.90), female sex (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.28-2.07), and lower risk of paradoxical embolism score (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.19). After a median follow-up of 2.61 (1.13-7.25) years, the incidence rate of first stroke or TIA did not differ between early and late PFO procedures, with 0.51 vs 0.29 events per 100 patient-years, respectively (incidence rate ratio 1.74, 95% CI 0.66-5.08; P = 0.24), and the timing of PFO closure was not associated with the occurrence of stroke or TIA in univariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.22-1.34) for late vs early closure).
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides indirect evidence that the delay from the last ischemic event does not affect outcomes after PFO closure for secondary prevention.
METHODS: This international ambispective cohort included consecutive patients from 2 centres in France and Canada undergoing PFO closure for secondary prevention of a paradoxical embolic event. The primary end point was the composite of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). A logistic regression model was used to evaluate determinants of late PFO closure procedures.
RESULTS: A total of 1179 patients (mean age 49 ± 12.7 years; 44.4% female) underwent PFO closure from 2001 to 2021. The median delay from last embolic event to procedure was 6.0 (interquartile range 3.4-11.2) months. The determinants of late PFO closure procedure were the centre (France vs Canada; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-2.19), year of procedure (since 2018 vs before 2018; aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.08-1.90), female sex (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.28-2.07), and lower risk of paradoxical embolism score (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.19). After a median follow-up of 2.61 (1.13-7.25) years, the incidence rate of first stroke or TIA did not differ between early and late PFO procedures, with 0.51 vs 0.29 events per 100 patient-years, respectively (incidence rate ratio 1.74, 95% CI 0.66-5.08; P = 0.24), and the timing of PFO closure was not associated with the occurrence of stroke or TIA in univariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.22-1.34) for late vs early closure).
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides indirect evidence that the delay from the last ischemic event does not affect outcomes after PFO closure for secondary prevention.