Ravichandran, Soumya

Background: In younger patients (<60 years) with cryptogenic stroke presumed to be patent foramen ovale (PFO)-related, the standard approach involves transcatheter PFO closure combined with antithrombotic therapy (ATA). However, due to their exclusion from randomized clinical trials, no formal recommendations exist for patients ≥60 years. This study investigates whether PFO closure benefits patients ≥60 years with prior cryptogenic stroke or if ATA remains the preferred option. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases to obtain articles in all languages from January 2004 until July 2025. The primary outcome was a risk of recurrent stroke during follow-up and secondary outcomes were risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), all-cause mortality and in-hospital complications. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD420250652870. Results: One post hoc evaluation of the DEFENSE-PFO trial and eleven observational studies were included. Compared to ATA, PFO closure was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke (HR=0.60; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.80, p<.001) and mortality (HR=0.41; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, p=.02; I2 = 43.8%) with no difference in risk of new-onset AF (HR=1.13, 95%CI: 0.53 to 2.44, p=.74). When compared with patients <60 years, individuals ≥60 years had a higher risk of recurrent stroke (HR = 2.68; 95% CI 1.40–5.13; p=.002), new-onset AF (HR = 4.12; 95% CI 1.90–8.95; p<0.001) and mortality during follow-up (HR = 8.24; 95% CI 3.49–19.46; p<.0001). In-hospital complications after PFO closure were comparable between two age groups. Conclusion: While PFO closure may reduce ischemic stroke risk in older patients with cryptogenic stroke, this benefit is offset by higher absolute risks for recurrent stroke, new-onset AF, and mortality. Therefore, highly individualized patient selection and age-specific risk tools are crucial. Further long-term randomized trials are essential to optimize PFO closure in this population.

Background: In younger patients (<60 years) with cryptogenic stroke (CS) presumed to be patent foramen ovale (PFO)-related, the standard approach involves transcatheter PFO closure combined with antithrombotic therapy. However, due to their exclusion from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), no formal recommendations exist for patients ⩾60 years. This study had two objectives (1) to compare the efficacy and safety of PFO closure versus antithrombotic therapy alone (ATA) exclusively in older patients (⩾60 years) and (2) to assess the outcomes of PFO closure in patients ⩾ 60 years versus < 60 years. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases to obtain articles in all languages from January 2004 until July 2025. The primary outcome was risk of recurrent stroke during follow-up. Secondary outcomes were risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), all-cause mortality, and in-hospital complications. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD420250652870. Results: Only one RCT (post hoc evaluation of the DEFENSE-PFO trial) and 11 observational studies were included. In patients aged ⩾ 60 years, risk of recurrent stroke was lower when PFO was closed compared with ATA (5.48% vs 10.05%, respectively, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45–0.80, p < 0.001, I 2 = 45.6%). All-cause mortality was also lower for PFO closure versus ATA (1.73% vs 7.59%, respectively, HR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19–0.90, p = 0.02; I 2 = 43.8%). There was no difference between PFO closure and ATA in risk of new-onset AF (HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.53–2.44, p = 0.74). Compared with patients < 60 years, individuals ⩾ 60 years who underwent PFO closure had a higher risk of recurrent stroke (2.94% vs 1.04%, respectively, HR = 3.47; 95% CI = 1.61–7.48; p = 0.001), new-onset AF (4.86% vs 1.01%, respectively, HR = 4.12; 95% CI = 1.90–8.95; p < 0.001), and all-cause mortality during follow-up (8.32% vs 0.39%, respectively, HR = 8.24; 95% CI = 3.49–19.46; p < 0.0001). In-hospital complications after PFO closure were comparable between two age groups. Due to insufficient data, we were not able to perform a subgroup analysis based on anatomic features of PFO, antithrombotic regimen, or occluder devices. Conclusion: Based on available data, which is predominantly derived from observational studies, PFO closure is associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke compared to ATA in patients over 60 years. However, these findings are subjected to limitations, including the potential for selection bias, unmeasured confounding, and insufficient long-term follow-up. Furthermore, long-term randomized trials are essential to definitively confirm efficacy and establish clinical guidelines for PFO closure in this older population.