Risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack and patent foramen ovale: the FORI (Foramen Ovale Registro Italiano) study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke found to have a patent foramen ovale (PFO) at diagnostic workup remains unclear. The aims of this observational multicenter study were to evaluate: (1) the risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with cryptogenic minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and PFO who either underwent percutaneous PFO closure or received only medical treatment, and (2) the risk factors associated with recurrent events. METHODS: Consecutive patients (aged 55 years or less) with first-ever cryptogenic minor ischemic stroke or TIA and PFO were recruited in 13 Italian hospitals between January 2006 and September 2007 and followed up for 2 years. RESULTS: 238 patients were included in the study (mean age 42.2 ± 10.0 years; 118 males); 117 patients (49.2%) received only antithrombotic therapy while 121 patients underwent percutaneous PFO closure (50.8%). Stroke as the qualifying event was more common in the medical treatment group (p = 0.01). The presence of atrial septal aneurysm and evidence of 20 bubbles or more on transcranial Doppler were more common in the PFO closure group (p = 0.002 and 0.02). Eight patients (6.6%) experienced a nonfatal complication during PFO closure. At the 2-year follow-up, 17 recurrent events (TIA or stroke; 3.6% per year) were observed; 7 of these events (2.9% per year) occurred in the percutaneous PFO closure group and 10 events (4.2% per year) in the medical treatment group. The rate of recurrent stroke was 0.4% per year in patients who underwent percutaneous closure (1 event) and 3.4% per year in patients who received medical treatment (8 events). On multivariate analysis, percutaneous closure was not protective in preventing recurrent TIA or stroke (OR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.02-1.5, p = 0.1), while it was barely protective in preventing recurrent stroke (OR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.0-1.0, p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this observational, nonrandomized study suggest that PFO closure might be superior to medical therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke. Periprocedural complications were the trade-off for this clinical benefit. Controlled randomized clinical trials comparing percutaneous closure with medical management are required.

Pembrolizumab-Induced Isolated Cranial Neuropathy: A Rare Case Report and Review of Literature.

Introduction: Anti-PD1 agents are widely used in the treatment of solid tumors. This has prompted the recognition of a class of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), due to the activation of autoimmune T-cells. Pembrolizumab is an anti-PD1 agent, which has been related to an increased risk of various neurological irAE (n-irAEs). Here, we present a rare case of pembrolizumab-induced neuropathy of cranial nerves. Case Report: A 72-year-old patient was diagnosed with a lung adenocarcinoma in February 2018 (EGFR-, ALK-, and PDL1 90%). According to the molecular profile, pembrolizumab was started. After three administrations, the patient developed facial paresis, ptosis, ophthalmoplegia, and dysphonia. As brain metastases and paraneoplastic markers were excluded, a drug-related disorder was suspected and pembrolizumab was discontinued. A nerve conduction study and electromyography excluded signs of neuropathy and myopathy at four limbs, and repetitive nerve stimulation was negative. However, altered blink reflex and nerve facial conduction were consistent with an acute neuropathy of the cranial district. Thus, the patient was treated with two cycles of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg), which rapidly allowed improvement of both symptoms and neurophysiological parameters. However, the patient died in October 2018 for a progression of lung tumor. Discussion: Only 16 cases of pembrolizumab-related neuropathies have been described so far. Our case is of particular interest for the isolated involvement of cranial nerves and the prompt response to IVIg. Conclusion: N-irAEs are insidious conditions that require solid knowledge of onco-immunotherapy complications: it is mandatory not to delay any treatment that would potentially modify the course of a neurological complication.