Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Cardiol. Apr 26, 2019; 11(4): 126-136
Published online Apr 26, 2019. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v11.i4.126
Table 1 Study characteristics
Study name,yearCountry of originStudy designIndication of PFOCTotal Patients (PFOC + medical therapy), nMedical therapyType of deviceFollow-up, in years (mean)
CLOSE[6], 2017France and GermanyMulticenter, randomized, open-label, superiority trialRecent stroke due to PFO with atrial septal aneurysm or substantial right-to-left intra-atrial shunt6631 (238 + 235)Antiplatelet therapy (aspirin + clopidogrel)111 different devices5.4 PFOC, 5.2 AC-AP
CLOSURE I[11], 2012United States and CanadaMulticenter, randomized, open-label trialStroke or TIA within 6 mo909 (447 + 462)Warfarin, aspirin or bothSTARFlex device2
PC Trial[9], 2013Europe, Canada, Brazil, and AustraliaMulticenter, randomized, superiority trialStroke, TIA or systemic thromboembolism414 (204 + 210)Aspirin+ ticlopidine/clopidogrelAmplatzer PFO occluder4.1 PFOC, 4.0 AC/AP
REDUCE[8], 2017Europe and United StatesMultinational, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label trialStroke within 180 d664 (441 + 223)Aspirin, aspirin + dipyridamole, or clopidogrelHelex or Cardioform Septal Occluder3.2
RESPECT[7], 2017United States and CanadaMulticenter, randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trialStroke within 270 d980 (499 + 481)Aspirin + clopidogrelAmplatzer PFO occluder5.9
DEFENCE PFO[14], 2018South KoreaMulticenter, randomized, open-label, superiorityIschemic stroke in past 6 mos120 (60 + 60)Aspirin, aspirin + clopidogrel, aspirin + cilostazol, or warfarinAmplatzer PFO occluder2.8