PFO closure with only fluoroscopic guidance: 7 years real-world single centre experience.

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To evaluate the safety and the efficacy of fluoroscopy-guided only (Fluo-G) and of echocardiography-guided (Echo-G; trans-esophageal echocardiography-TEE-or intracardiac echocardiography-ICE) percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO). METHODS AND RESULTS: Single center retrospective registry enrolling 368 consecutive patients (mean age 50.5 years) who underwent PFO closure between June 2004 and December 2011. Most patients had prior cryptogenic stroke (n = 126; 34.2%), TIA (n = 218; 51.1%); some of these had recurrent neurological events [multiple strokes n = 28 (7.8%); multiple TIAs n = 72 (18.6%)]. All the patients underwent a preprocedure TEE. PFO closure was performed with Echo-G in 187 patients (50.8%) (TEE n = 69, 36.8% and ICE n = 124, 66.3%). In Fluo-G cases, PFO with atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) was significantly less present (P < 0.005) and smaller devices (<25 mm) were implanted more frequently (P < 0.001). Both fluoroscopy and total procedural time were lower in the Fluo-G group (P < 0.0001). No differences were found in terms of successful device deployment (98.3% Fluo-G vs. 98.3% Echo-G) and RtL-shunt at follow-up (11.7% Fluo-G vs. 7.6% Echo-G). The rate of conversion from Fluoro-G to Echo-G procedure was 4.4% (n = 8). At a median follow-up of 4 years, freedom from recurrent embolic events rate was similar between the two groups (Echo-G 94.5 vs. Fluo-G 95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience Fluoro-G PFO closure was performed mainly in cases of simple anatomy, with similar results in terms of safety and efficacy compared to Echo-G cases. Both fluoroscopy and total procedural times were lower in the Fluo-G cases.