In young patients with stroke of undetermined etiology, large vessel occlusions are less frequent in the group with high-risk patent foramen ovale.

INTRODUCTION: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is present in a significant proportion of young patients with stroke of undetermined etiology, but is not always causal. Therefore, classifications (RoPE, PASCAL) have been developed to determine the probability that PFO is the stroke cause. However, the presence of an initial arterial occlusion as a prediction factor was not studied when these classifications were built. Our aim was to evaluate the presence of arterial occlusion in young patients with stroke of undetermined etiology with/without high-risk PFO. METHODS: From a prospectively-built monocentric database, we identified patients aged≥18 to<60-years with strokes of undetermined etiology and complete etiological work-up, including transesophageal echocardiography. We divided patients in two groups: (i) with high-risk PFO [i.e. PFO with large interatrial shunt (>30 microbubbles) or associated with atrial septal aneurysm] and (ii) with low-risk/without PFO. We recorded the presence of arterial occlusion and large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the acute phase. RESULTS: We included 96 patients; 55 (57%) had high-risk PFO. Their median age was 48 (40-52) years, and 28 (29%) were women. The percentages of patients with arterial occlusion and with LVO were lower in the high-risk PFO group than in the low-risk/without PFO group: 11 (20%) versus 19 (46%) (P=0.008), and 5 (9%) versus 15 (37%) (P=0.002), respectively. There was no difference in the median RoPE score between groups (P=0.30). CONCLUSION: The presence of LVO could represent a "red flag" of PFO causality in stroke of undetermined etiology, and could be implemented in future PFO-related stroke classifications.

The Management of Persistent Distal Occlusions after Mechanical Thrombectomy and Thrombolysis: An Inter- and Intrarater Agreement Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The best management of patients with persistent distal occlusion after mechanical thrombectomy with or without IV thrombolysis remains unknown. We sought to evaluate the variability and agreement in decision-making for persistent distal occlusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A portfolio of 60 cases was sent to clinicians with varying backgrounds and experience. Responders were asked whether they considered conservative management or rescue therapy (stent retriever, aspiration, or intra-arterial thrombolytics) a treatment option as well as their willingness to enroll patients in a randomized trial. Agreement was assessed using κ statistics. RESULTS: The electronic survey was answered by 31 physicians (8 vascular neurologists and 23 interventional neuroradiologists). Decisions for rescue therapies were more frequent (n = 1116/1860, 60%) than for conservative management (n = 744/1860, 40%; P < .001). Interrater agreement regarding the final management decision was "slight" (κ = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.14) and did not improve when subgroups of clinicians were studied according to background, experience, and specialty or when cases were grouped according to the level of occlusion. On delayed re-questioning, 23 of 29 respondents (79.3%) disagreed with themselves on at least 20% of cases. Respondents were willing to offer trial participation in 1295 of 1860 (69.6%) cases. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals did not agree regarding the best management of patients with persistent distal occlusion after mechanical thrombectomy and IV thrombolysis. There is sufficient uncertainty to justify a dedicated randomized trial.