Dataset Information

Practice advisory: Recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale (update of practice parameter): Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology guideline for patients with stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO) by addressing whether (1) percutaneous closure of PFO is superior to medical therapy alone and (2) anticoagulation is superior to antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke.

Methods

Systematic review of the literature and structured formulation of recommendations.

Conclusions

Percutaneous PFO closure with the STARFlex device possibly does not provide a benefit in preventing stroke vs medical therapy alone (risk difference [RD] 0.13%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.2% to 2.0%). Percutaneous PFO closure with the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder possibly decreases the risk of recurrent stroke (RD -1.68%, 95% CI -3.18% to -0.19%), possibly increases the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) (RD 1.64%, 95% CI 0.07%-3.2%), and is highly likely to be associated with a procedural complication risk of 3.4% (95% CI 2.3%-5%). There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of anticoagulation compared with antiplatelet therapy in preventing recurrent stroke (RD 2%, 95% CI -21% to 25%).

Recommendations

Clinicians should not routinely offer percutaneous PFO closure to patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke outside of a research setting (Level R). In rare circumstances, such as recurrent strokes despite adequate medical therapy with no other mechanism identified, clinicians may offer the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder if it is available (Level C). In the absence of another indication for anticoagulation, clinicians may routinely offer antiplatelet medications instead of anticoagulation to patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO (Level C).

SUBMITTER: Messe SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4999319 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patent foramen ovale (PFO)-related stroke is increasingly recognized as an important etiology of ischemic embolic stroke-accounting for up to 50% of strokes previously considered 'cryptogenic' or with an unknown mechanism. As a 'back door to the brain,' PFO can allow venous clots to enter arterial circulation via interatrial right-to-left shunting, potentially resulting in ischemic stroke. We observe that clinically, PFO-related stroke affects women of childbearing age, and that pregnancy-owing to major changes in hemocoagulative, hormonal, and cardiovascular parameters-can enhance stroke risks. However, no systematic study has been performed and little is known regarding complications, pregnancy outcomes and treatment for PFO-related stroke during pregnancy. To identify and characterize the complications and clinical outcomes related to PFOs during pregnancy, we performed a literature review and analysis from all reported cases of pregnancy with PFO-related complications in the medical literature from 1970 to 2015. We find that during pregnancy and post-partum, PFO is associated with complications affecting multiple organs, including the brain, heart and lung. The three principal complications reported are stroke, pulmonary emboli and myocardial infarction. In contrast to other pregnancy-related stroke etiologies, which peak during later pregnancy and postpartum, PFO-related stroke peaks during early pregnancy (first and second trimester-60%), and most patients had good neurological outcome (77%). In patients with PFO with recurrent stroke during pregnancy, additional key factors include high-risk PFO morphology (atrial septal aneurysm), larger right-to-left shunt, multiple gestation and concurrent hypercoagulability. Compared to strokes of other etiologies during pregnancy, most PFO stroke patients experienced uneventful delivery (93%) of healthy babies with a good clinical outcome. We conclude with recommended clinical treatment strategies for pregnant patients with PFO suggested by the data from these cases, and the clinical experience of our Cardio-Neurology Clinic.

Project description:ObjectiveTo make evidence-based recommendations concerning the evaluation of the child with microcephaly.MethodsRelevant literature was reviewed, abstracted, and classified. RECOMMENDATIONS were based on a 4-tiered scheme of evidence classification.ResultsMicrocephaly is an important neurologic sign but there is nonuniformity in its definition and evaluation. Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth and can be seen in association with hundreds of genetic syndromes. Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly (head circumference <-2 SD). Few data are available to inform evidence-based recommendations regarding diagnostic testing. The yield of neuroimaging ranges from 43% to 80%. Genetic etiologies have been reported in 15.5% to 53.3%. The prevalence of metabolic disorders is unknown but is estimated to be 1%. Children with severe microcephaly (head circumference <-3 SD) are more likely ( approximately 80%) to have imaging abnormalities and more severe developmental impairments than those with milder microcephaly (-2 to -3 SD; approximately 40%). Coexistent conditions include epilepsy ( approximately 40%), cerebral palsy ( approximately 20%), mental retardation ( approximately 50%), and ophthalmologic disorders ( approximately 20% to approximately 50%).RecommendationsNeuroimaging may be considered useful in identifying structural causes in the evaluation of the child with microcephaly (Level C). Targeted and specific genetic testing may be considered in the evaluation of the child with microcephaly who has clinical or imaging abnormalities that suggest a specific diagnosis or who shows no evidence of an acquired or environmental etiology (Level C). Screening for coexistent conditions such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and sensory deficits may also be considered (Level C). Further study is needed regarding the yield of diagnostic testing in children with microcephaly.

Project description:ObjectiveTo make evidence-based recommendations regarding restless legs syndrome (RLS) management in adults.MethodsArticles were classified per the 2004 American Academy of Neurology evidence rating scheme. Recommendations were tied to evidence strength.Results and recommendationsIn moderate to severe primary RLS, clinicians should consider prescribing medication to reduce RLS symptoms. Strong evidence supports pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, and gabapentin enacarbil use (Level A); moderate evidence supports ropinirole, pregabalin, and IV ferric carboxymaltose use (Level B). Clinicians may consider prescribing levodopa (Level C). Few head-to-head comparisons exist to suggest agents preferentially. Cabergoline is rarely used (cardiac valvulopathy risks). Augmentation risks with dopaminergic agents should be considered. When treating periodic limb movements of sleep, clinicians should consider prescribing ropinirole (Level A) or pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, or pregabalin (Level B). For subjective sleep measures, clinicians should consider prescribing cabergoline or gabapentin enacarbil (Level A), or ropinirole, pramipexole, rotigotine, or pregabalin (Level B). For patients failing other treatments for RLS symptoms, clinicians may consider prescribing prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone where available (Level C). In patients with RLS with ferritin ≤75 μg/L, clinicians should consider prescribing ferrous sulfate with vitamin C (Level B). When nonpharmacologic approaches are desired, clinicians should consider prescribing pneumatic compression (Level B) and may consider prescribing near-infrared spectroscopy or transcranial magnetic stimulation (Level C). Clinicians may consider prescribing vibrating pads to improve subjective sleep (Level C). In patients on hemodialysis with secondary RLS, clinicians should consider prescribing vitamin C and E supplementation (Level B) and may consider prescribing ropinirole, levodopa, or exercise (Level C).