7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate Official reprint from UpToDate www.uptodate.com 2023 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation : Steven R Mess , MD, Stephen JD Brecker, MD, FRCP, FESC, FACC : Scott E Kasner, MD, Heidi M Connolly, MD, FACC, FASE : John F Dashe, MD, PhD, Susan B Yeon, MD, JD, FACC All topics are updated as new evidence becomes available and our peer review process is complete. Literature review current through: Jun 2023. This topic last updated: Feb 28, 2023. INTRODUCTION When embolic ischemic stroke occurs in an individual with a patent foramen ovale (PFO), the PFO may or may not be causally related to the stroke. This topic will review the approach to the evaluation of patients who have an ischemic stroke in the setting of a PFO. The management of PFO-associated stroke is reviewed elsewhere. (See "Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Management".) Cryptogenic stroke is reviewed in detail separately. (See "Cryptogenic stroke and embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS)".) The risk of stroke related to atrial septal abnormalities and indications for treating atrial septal defects in adults are also discussed elsewhere. (See "Atrial septal abnormalities (PFO, ASD, and ASA) and risk of cerebral emboli in adults" and "Management of atrial septal defects in adults".) COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION Goals and approach Determining whether a PFO is incidental or pathogenic in relation to an ischemic stroke is essential to guide decisions about PFO management and secondary stroke prevention. The approach incorporates an evaluation for other possible causes of ischemic stroke, PFO features, and methods (ie, the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism [RoPE] score and PFO- https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 1/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate associated stroke causal likelihood [PASCAL] classification) that estimate the likelihood of paradoxical embolism through a PFO as the mechanism of the stroke. Clues from the history The history should include specific questions that define the circumstances immediately preceding the event. Was the patient doing something that might increase right-to-left shunt flow through a PFO, such as straining, coughing vigorously, or lifting or pushing a heavy object? Was there any risk for deep venous thrombosis (DVT), such as prolonged immobility (eg, postoperative status, sitting in a cramped airline seat with legs dependent and knees flexed), dehydration, or venous hypercoagulability? The presence of the above historical features raise concern for paradoxical embolism. However, absence of these features does not exclude paradoxical embolism. Is the stroke embolic? By definition, PFO-associated stroke is embolic. On evaluation, an embolic mechanism is especially likely when neuroimaging reveals infarcts in multiple vascular territories or a single wedge-shaped infarct involving cortex and the underlying subcortical white matter. With embolic stroke, the neurologic deficit is typically maximal from the onset, with a possibility of rapid improvement if there is spontaneous recanalization. (See "Overview of the evaluation of stroke", section on 'Determining a presumptive diagnosis of stroke subtype'.) Whether or not an embolic stroke is related to PFO or to another mechanism cannot be determined reliably based upon neuroimaging features alone. However, certain findings may be more suggestive of PFO. In an analysis of data from subjects with cryptogenic stroke and PFO (n = 1141) or no PFO (n = 1539) in the RoPE study database, characteristics associated with a significantly higher prevalence of PFO were a large index stroke (odds ratio [OR] 1.36), index stroke seen on imaging (OR 1.53), and superficial (ie, involving the cerebral or cerebellar cortex) stroke location (OR 1.54) [1]. The last of these characteristics is included in the RoPE score. Exclusion of other sources of ischemic stroke Patients with an ischemic stroke and a PFO should undergo a comprehensive evaluation by both a stroke neurologist and a cardiologist to ensure that other causes of ischemic stroke are excluded and that PFO-associated stroke (ie, paradoxical embolism through a PFO) is the most likely mechanism [2]. (See "Cryptogenic stroke and embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS)", section on 'Evaluation and diagnosis'.) PFO-associated stroke Patients with an embolic-appearing ischemic stroke who have a medium- or high-risk PFO (see 'PFO assessment' below) and who have no other identified stroke etiology should be recognized as having a PFO-associated stroke [3]. Findings The evaluation of a PFO-associated stroke is characterized by the following findings [4]: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 2/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate No large vessel stenosis ( 50 percent) or occlusion in the territory of the infarct. Intracranial and extracranial neurovascular imaging should be performed to exclude vascular causes of stroke, including large artery atherosclerosis, dissection, and other vasculopathy. (See "Neuroimaging of acute stroke".) No radiographic acute lacunar infarction (ie, a small [ 1.5 cm] deep perforator infarct) and no clinical lacunar stroke syndrome (ie, hemiparesis/plegia, hemianesthesia without cortical signs) if imaging shows no infarct. (See "Lacunar infarcts", section on 'Clinical features'.) No evidence of occult atrial fibrillation or other high-risk cardioembolic source ( table 1) on cardiac monitoring and echocardiography. Screening for atrial fibrillation should include a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and 24-hour cardiac monitoring (ambulatory or by telemetry). Adults over age 40 years with cryptogenic ischemic stroke or cryptogenic transient ischemic attack (TIA) with no atrial fibrillation detected on 12-lead ECG and 24-hour monitoring should undergo extended ambulatory monitoring, as discussed elsewhere. (See "Cryptogenic stroke and embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS)", section on 'Advanced evaluation'.) Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) not only enable identification and characterization of PFOs but also enable identification of relevant structural findings including atrial septal aneurysms and other potential embolic sources such as high-risk valve lesions (eg, mitral stenosis), cardiac tumors (eg, myxoma), intracardiac thrombus, fibroelastomas, and other valvular vegetations. Test selection is discussed below and reviewed separately. (See 'PFO assessment' below and "Echocardiography in detection of cardiac and aortic sources of systemic embolism".) No hypercoagulable condition with a high risk for arterial thrombotic events, such as the antiphospholipid syndrome. (See "Clinical manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome" and "Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome" and "Management of antiphospholipid syndrome".) PFO assessment Methods to detect a right-to-left shunt associated with a PFO include TTE, TEE, and transcranial Doppler (TCD), in conjunction with agitated saline contrast (a "bubble study")Among these methods, TCD cannot confirm intracardiac shunting or relevant structural findings (e.g., atrial septal aneurysm), and generally only TEE enables visualization of the type https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 3/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate (eg, PFO, atrial septal defect [ASD]), site, and size of the shunt. (See "Cryptogenic stroke and embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS)", section on 'Cardiac and aortic evaluation'.) While cardiac CT and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging have been used to identify PFO, they are less sensitive than TEE [5-7]. Identification of PFO The diagnostic evaluation of PFO is reviewed here briefly and discussed in detail separately. (See "Patent foramen ovale", section on 'Diagnosis and evaluation'.) TTE or TEE These tests are performed with intravenous injection of agitated saline contrast at rest, with Valsalva, and with cough; the study is considered positive if microbubbles (typically three or more) appear in the left heart within three cardiac cycles of bubbles filling the right atrium [8]. Multiple agitated saline contrast injections with provocative maneuvers may be required to enhance sensitivity for identification of a shunt via the PFO [9]. In some cases, intermittent flow through the PFO is also visualized by color Doppler. (See "Patent foramen ovale", section on 'Diagnosis and evaluation'.) TTE is often used as the initial study because it is better tolerated than TEE and is more widely available than TEE or TCD. Also, TTE provides a better assessment (with a microbubble ultrasound-enhancing agent) for left ventricular thrombus (particularly apical), which is an important component of the evaluation in patients who may have ischemic heart disease or cardiomyopathy. In addition, some patients are better able to perform the Valsalva maneuver and cough during TTE than during TEE (due to the effects of sedation and/or discomfort during TEE). Thus, in some cases, TTE may be more sensitive than TEE for PFO shunt detection [10]. However, TEE is the reference standard for the detection of PFO [9], is generally more sensitive than TTE [11], and better demonstrates its anatomic features. Therefore, patients who are candidates for PFO closure (ie, those 60 years of age with an embolic-appearing stroke or a TIA who have no evident source of stroke or TIA other than a PFO, despite a comprehensive evaluation) should undergo TEE as either the initial study or as a follow-up study to TTE or TCD, even when a preceding TTE is negative or nondiagnostic for PFO. (See "Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Management", section on 'Patient selection for PFO closure'.) For patients who do not meet selection criteria for PFO closure, a follow-up TEE may still be indicated to identify a stroke etiology but is not required to assess for PFO. Note that all patients who are candidates for PFO closure should have preprocedural imaging with TEE, including those with features suggesting PFO detected by TTE or TCD. (See "Stroke https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 4/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Management", section on 'Preprocedural imaging'.) TCD Insonating the middle cerebral artery through the temporal bone window, TCD is performed with intravenous injection of agitated saline contrast at rest, with Valsalva, and with cough; the study is considered positive for a right-to-left shunt if bubbles are detected in the middle cerebral artery. This approach is at least as sensitive as TEE to identify right- to-left shunt [12-15]; TCD also has advantages compared with TEE in being noninvasive and relatively easy to perform at the bedside. However, TCD cannot confirm the location of the shunt (which may be intracardiac or extracardiac), identify an atrial septal aneurysm, or rule out other cardioembolic sources. Thus, when TCD is positive, imaging (generally with TEE) is performed to identify shunt location [11]. PFO shunt size PFO size (small versus large) is a component of the PASCAL approach to risk classification. PFO size is generally inferred from the degree of right-to-left shunting apparent on echocardiography with agitated saline contrast, based on the number of microbubbles appearing in a single frame in the left atrium either spontaneously or after a provocative (Valsalva) maneuver within three cardiac cycles after opacification of the right atrium [16,17]. PFO size is categorized as small or large in the PASCAL classification described below. We use the following categories (based upon thresholds in four of six randomized trials in the meta-analysis discussed below [18]): Large: >20 microbubbles (which was the threshold used in four of the six included randomized trials) Small: 20 microbubbles Some trials have classified shunt size into small, moderate, and large categories [19]. In one small study, PFO measured ante mortem by assessment of jet size on color Doppler TEE and number of microbubbles on contrast TEE correlated well with autopsy finding; patients with a PFO >10 mm at autopsy had large shunts with >25 microbubbles on contrast TEE [20]. Among patients with an embolic stroke topography, a PFO, and no alternative cause, features associated with medium- to high-risk PFO include factors that increase right-to-left shunt flow (eg, large PFO size, chronic right atrial hypertension, or a Valsalva maneuver at onset of stroke) and concomitant pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis preceding the ischemic stroke [3]. Individual patient characteristics (age and vascular risk factors) are also important in the assessment of PFO risk. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 5/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate Atrial septal aneurysm An atrial septal aneurysm (ASA) is defined as redundant and mobile interatrial septal tissue in the region of the fossa ovalis with phasic oscillation (intrusion) of at least 10 to 15 mm into the left or right atrium during the cardiorespiratory cycle and is most commonly identified on TEE (with lower sensitivity of detection by TTE). Although not a consistent finding across all studies, the risk of stroke is likely increased when a PFO is associated with an ASA. (See "Atrial septal abnormalities (PFO, ASD, and ASA) and risk of cerebral emboli in adults", section on 'ASA' and "Patent foramen ovale", section on 'Atrial septal aneurysm'.) Straddling thrombus Thrombus trapped in a PFO is rarely encountered [21-24], but this finding confirms paradoxical embolus in transit via a very high-risk PFO, which may in some cases warrant surgical treatment to remove the clot and repair the PFO [3]. Search for venous thromboembolism We suggest performing a standard evaluation for DVT with D-dimer level and/or ultrasonography of the lower extremities for patients with a PFO- associated embolic infarct and no other evident source of stroke; additional investigations such as CT or MRI venography are generally not warranted. Details of the evaluation are discussed separately. (See "Clinical presentation and diagnosis of the nonpregnant adult with suspected deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity".) Identification of DVT or other evidence of venous thromboembolism can help strengthen the clinical inference of paradoxical embolism and also has important implications for therapy (including identifying an indication for anticoagulation, which impacts the timing and need for PFO device closure). Ideally, the evaluation should be done within two to three days of stroke onset, before venous thrombosis develops secondary to stroke-related immobility [3]. Studies using radiograph venography or magnetic resonance venography to examine patients with ischemic cerebral events or other suspected embolic events have found variable rates of proximal leg or pelvic deep venous thrombosis (10 to 22 percent) [25-27]. Among those with documented DVT, most had no symptoms or signs of venous thrombosis. There are several potential explanations for the low rates of proximal DVT in patients with PFO-associated embolic infarct and no other evident source of stroke: Evaluation for DVT was incomplete in these studies since venography evaluated either the lower extremities or pelvic veins, but not both. The emboli consist of platelet fibrin particles that normally circulate in the systemic venous bed and are too small to be seen with conventional testing. These particles are removed by the efficient lytic system of the lungs; however, when shunted across a PFO or ASD, they may travel unlysed into the cerebral circulation [28]. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 6/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate The clot forms in the heart at the edges or in the tunnel of the PFO, or in an ASA. The embolic source is in the systemic arterial circulation. (See "Atrial septal abnormalities (PFO, ASD, and ASA) and risk of cerebral emboli in adults", section on 'Left-sided sources'.) DVTs have resolved (lysed, completely embolized, or recanalized) during the delay between onset of the embolic event and venography. Proximal DVTs may be lysed in some patients treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy [27]. Hypercoagulable evaluation Hematologic testing to exclude hypercoagulable states (eg, antiphospholipid syndrome and hyperhomocysteinemia) is indicated for patients with stroke being considered for PFO closure. (See "Diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome".) LIKELIHOOD OF A PFO-ASSOCIATED STROKE RoPE score The Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score, as shown in the table ( table 2) and calculator (calculator 1), estimates the probability that a PFO is incidental or pathogenic in a patient with a seemingly cryptogenic stroke [29]. The PFO-attributable fraction of stroke derived from the RoPE score ( table 3) varies widely and decreases with age and the presence of vascular risk factors. High RoPE scores, as found in younger patients who lack vascular risk factors and have a cortical infarct on neuroimaging, suggest pathogenic, higher risk PFOs. By contrast, low RoPE scores, as found in older patients with vascular risk factors, suggest incidental, lower-risk PFOs. The RoPE score is a major component of the PFO-associated stroke causal likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which provides additional discrimination, as described below. PASCAL classification The PASCAL classification system ( table 4) estimates the probability that stroke is associated with a PFO in patients with embolic infarct topography and without other major sources of ischemic stroke [3]. The classification is based upon the RoPE score combined with anatomic and clinical factors (see 'PFO assessment' above) including shunt size, presence or absence of atrial septal aneurysm, and/or venous thromboembolism; PASCAL categorizes the likelihood that the stroke is caused by a PFO as unlikely, possible, probable, highly probable, or definite, as shown in the table ( table 4). Given the high prevalence of PFO in the general population and the low risk of stroke related to PFO, there is always some degree of uncertainty about the causal relationship between PFO and an embolic-appearing ischemic stroke with no other evident stroke mechanism despite a https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 7/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate comprehensive evaluation [30]. The possibility that the PFO is an "innocent bystander" and that another mechanism is responsible for the stroke is particularly applicable to older patients and to those with known risk factors for stroke (eg, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking) [31-33]. Causality can best be inferred in younger patients with no other apparent etiology for stroke [34], particularly if DVT is present (as a potential source for paradoxical emboli). MANAGEMENT The management of PFO-associated stroke, including selection of appropriate candidates for PFO closure ( algorithm 1), is reviewed separately. (See "Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Management".) SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Stroke in adults".) INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." th th The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5 to 6 grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more th th sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10 to 12 grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon. Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.) Basics topic (see "Patient education: Patent foramen ovale (The Basics)") SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 8/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate Is the PFO incidental or pathogenic? Determining whether a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is incidental or pathogenic in relation to an ischemic stroke is essential to guide decisions about PFO management and secondary stroke prevention. This determination incorporates an evaluation for other possible causes of ischemic stroke, PFO features, and methods (ie, the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism [RoPE] score and PFO-associated stroke causal likelihood [PASCAL] classification) that estimate the likelihood of paradoxical embolism through a PFO as the mechanism of the stroke. (See 'Goals and approach' above.) Is the stroke embolic? By definition, PFO-associated stroke is embolic. Neuroimaging features that suggest embolism include infarcts in multiple vascular territories or a single wedge-shaped infarct involving cortex and the underlying subcortical white matter. (See 'Is the stroke embolic?' above.) Exclusion of other sources of ischemic stroke A PFO-associated embolic infarct requires that other causes of ischemic stroke are excluded by the following (see 'Exclusion of other sources of ischemic stroke' above): No large vessel stenosis in the territory of the infarct by neurovascular imaging No evidence of atrial fibrillation on telemetry and 30-day ambulatory cardiac monitoring A PFO but no other high-risk source of cardiogenic embolism identified on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) No hypercoagulable condition with a high risk for arterial thrombotic events, such as the antiphospholipid syndrome PFO assessment The diagnostic evaluation of PFO should assess for the presence and size of a right-to-left shunting and other features suggestive of high risk for paradoxical embolism (eg, an atrial septal aneurysm or [rarely] a straddling thrombus). (See 'PFO assessment' above.) Evaluation for venous thromboembolism and hypercoagulable state We evaluate for these in all patients with a PFO-associated embolic infarct and no other evident source of stroke. (See 'Search for venous thromboembolism' above and 'Hypercoagulable evaluation' above.) Likelihood of a PFO-associated stroke The RoPE score ( table 2) and the PASCAL classification system ( table 4) are useful to estimate the probability that stroke is associated with a PFO in patients with embolic infarct topography and without other major sources of ischemic stroke ( algorithm 1). (See 'Likelihood of a PFO-associated stroke' above.) https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 9/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate ACKNOWLEDGMENT The UpToDate editorial staff acknowledges Naser M Ammash, MD, and Robert S Schwartz, MD, and Joseph K Perloff, MD who contributed to earlier versions of this topic review. Use of UpToDate is subject to the Terms of Use. REFERENCES 1. Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Neuroimaging findings in cryptogenic stroke patients with and without patent foramen ovale. Stroke 2013; 44:675. 2. Farb A, Ibrahim NG, Zuckerman BD. Patent Foramen Ovale after Cryptogenic Stroke - Assessing the Evidence for Closure. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1006. 3. Elgendy AY, Saver JL, Amin Z, et al. Proposal for Updated Nomenclature and Classification of Potential Causative Mechanism in Patent Foramen Ovale-Associated Stroke. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77:878. 4. Hart RG, Diener HC, Coutts SB, et al. Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13:429. 5. Lou J, Bao Y, Lv T, Yang Y. Computed Tomography for Detecting Patent Foramen Ovale: A Meta-Analysis. Heart Surg Forum 2022; 25:E849. 6. Hamilton-Craig C, Sestito A, Natale L, et al. Contrast transoesophageal echocardiography remains superior to contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of patent foramen ovale. Eur J Echocardiogr 2011; 12:222. 7. Zahuranec DB, Mueller GC, Bach DS, et al. Pilot study of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for detection of embolic source after ischemic stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2012; 21:794. 8. Rana BS, Thomas MR, Calvert PA, et al. Echocardiographic evaluation of patent foramen ovale prior to device closure. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 3:749. 9. Silvestry FE, Cohen MS, Armsby LB, et al. Guidelines for the Echocardiographic Assessment of Atrial Septal Defect and Patent Foramen Ovale: From the American Society of Echocardiography and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015; 28:910. 10. Rodrigues AC, Picard MH, Carbone A, et al. Importance of adequately performed Valsalva maneuver to detect patent foramen ovale during transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013; 26:1337. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 10/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate 11. Pristipino C, Sievert H, D'Ascenzo F, et al. European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. General approach and left circulation thromboembolism. Eur Heart J 2019; 40:3182. 12. Park S, Oh JK, Song JK, et al. Transcranial Doppler as a Screening Tool for High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke. J Neuroimaging 2021; 31:165. 13. Jauss M, Zanette E. Detection of right-to-left shunt with ultrasound contrast agent and transcranial Doppler sonography. Cerebrovasc Dis 2000; 10:490. 14. Spencer MP, Moehring MA, Jesurum J, et al. Power m-mode transcranial Doppler for diagnosis of patent foramen ovale and assessing transcatheter closure. J Neuroimaging 2004; 14:342. 15. Palazzo P, Ingrand P, Agius P, et al. Transcranial Doppler to detect right-to-left shunt in cryptogenic acute ischemic stroke. Brain Behav 2019; 9:e01091. 16. Webster MW, Chancellor AM, Smith HJ, et al. Patent foramen ovale in young stroke patients. Lancet 1988; 2:11. 17. Kerut EK, Norfleet WT, Plotnick GD, Giles TD. Patent foramen ovale: a review of associated conditions and the impact of physiological size. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38:613. 18. Kent DM, Saver JL, Kasner SE, et al. Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in an Analysis of Pooled Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials of Device Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale After Stroke. JAMA 2021; 326:2277. 19. S ndergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF, et al. Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Antiplatelet Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1033. 20. Schneider B, Zienkiewicz T, Jansen V, et al. Diagnosis of patent foramen ovale by transesophageal echocardiography and correlation with autopsy findings. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77:1202. 21. Acikel S, Ertem AG, Kiziltepe U, et al. Double-edged sword in the heart: trapped deep venous thrombus in a patent foramen ovale. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2012; 23:673. 22. Rajani R, Mirza F, Teoh Y, Gandhi S. Entrapment: thrombus within a patent foramen ovale. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 2009; 10:576. 23. Ozdogru I, Kaya MG, Dogan A, et al. Thrombus crossing through a patent foramen ovale. Int J Cardiol 2009; 133:e55. 24. Mirode A, Tribouilloy C, Adam MC, et al. [Echocardiographic diagnosis of a thrombus trapped in a patent foramen ovale. Apropos of a case]. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 1993; 86:1065. 25. Lethen H, Flachskampf FA, Schneider R, et al. Frequency of deep vein thrombosis in patients with patent foramen ovale and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Am J Cardiol https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 11/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate 1997; 80:1066. 26. St llberger C, Slany J, Schuster I, et al. The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119:461. 27. Cramer SC, Rordorf G, Maki JH, et al. Increased pelvic vein thrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the Paradoxical Emboli from Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study. Stroke 2004; 35:46. 28. Meier B, Lock JE. Contemporary management of patent foramen ovale. Circulation 2003; 107:5. 29. Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013; 81:619. 30. Kasner SE, Lattanzi S, Fonseca AC, Elgendy AY. Uncertainties and Controversies in the Management of Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale. Stroke 2021; 52:e806. 31. Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, et al. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke 1997; 28:2376. 32. Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988; 318:1148. 33. Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology 2000; 55:1172. 34. Holmes DR Jr, Cabalka A. Was your mother right do we always need to close the door? Circulation 2002; 106:1034. Topic 1100 Version 51.0 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 12/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate GRAPHICS Cardioaortic sources of cerebral embolism Sources with high primary risk for Sources with low or uncertain primary ischemic stroke risk for ischemic stroke Atrial fibrillation Cardiac sources of embolism: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation Mitral annular calcification Left atrial thrombus Patent foramen ovale Left ventricular thrombus Atrial septal aneurysm Sick sinus syndrome Atrial septal aneurysm and patent foramen ovale Atrial flutter Left ventricular aneurysm without thrombus Recent myocardial infarction (within one month Left atrial spontaneous echo contrast prior to stroke) ("smoke") Mitral stenosis or rheumatic valve disease Congestive heart failure with ejection fraction <30% Mechanical heart valves Bioprosthetic heart valves Chronic myocardial infarction together with low ejection fraction (<28%) Apical akinesia Dilated cardiomyopathy (prior established Wall motion abnormalities (hypokinesia, diagnosis or left ventricular dilatation with an ejection fraction of <40% or fractional shortening of <25%) akinesia, dyskinesia) other than apical akinesia Nonbacterial thrombotic endocarditis Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Infective endocarditis Left ventricular hypertrophy Papillary fibroelastoma Left ventricular hypertrabeculation/non- compaction Left atrial myxoma Recent aortic valve replacement or coronary artery bypass graft surgery Presence of left ventricular assist device Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia Aortic sources of embolism: Complex atheroma in the ascending aorta or proximal arch (protruding with >4 mm thickness, or mobile debris, or plaque ulceration) https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 13/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate The high- and low-risk cardioaortic sources in this table are separated using an arbitrary 2% annual or one-time primary stroke risk threshold. Data from: 1. Ay H, Benner T, Arsava EM, et al. A computerized algorithm for etiologic classi cation of ischemic stroke: the Causative Classi cation of Stroke System. Stroke 2007; 38:2979. 2. Ay H, Furie KL, Singhal A, et al. An evidence-based causative classi cation system for acute ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol 2005; 58:688. 3. Arsava EM, Ballabio E, Benner T, et al. The Causative Classi cation of Stroke system: an international reliability and optimization study. Neurology 2010; 75:1277. 4. Kamel H, Elkind MS, Bhave PD, et al. Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia and the risk of ischemic stroke. Stroke 2013; 44:1550. 5. Kirklin JK, Pagani FD, Kormos RL, et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: Special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017; 36:1080. Reproduced and modi ed with permission from: Ay H, Furie KL, Singhal A, et al. An evidence-based causative classi cation system for acute ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol 2005; 58:688. Copyright 2005 American Neurological Association. Graphic 60843 Version 11.0 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 14/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score RoPE Characteristic Points score No history of hypertension 1 No history of diabetes 1 No history of stroke or TIA 1 Nonsmoker 1 Cortical infarct on imaging 1 Age, years 18 to 29 5 30 to 39 4 40 to 49 3 50 to 59 2 60 to 69 1 70 0 Total score (sum of individual points) Maximum score (a patient <30 years with no hypertension, no 10 diabetes, no history of stroke or TIA, nonsmoker, and cortical infarct) Minimum score (a patient 70 years with hypertension, diabetes, prior stroke, current smoker, and no cortical infarct) 0 TIA: transient ischemic attack. From: Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013; 81:619. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a08d59. Reproduced with permission from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Copyright 2013 American Academy of Neurology. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is prohibited. Graphic 97895 Version 5.0 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 15/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate PFO prevalence, attributable fraction, and estimated two-year risk of stroke/TIA CS patients with PFO (n = Cryptogenic stroke (n = 3023) 1324) Estimated two-year stroke/TIA Prevalence of PFO- RoPE patients with a PFO, attributable fraction, Number of CS patients with score Number of patients recurrence rate (Kaplan- percent (95% CI)* percent (95% CI)* PFO* Meier), percent (95% CI) 0 to 3 613 23 (19 to 26) 0 (0 to 4) 108 20 (12 to 28) 4 511 35 (31 to 39) 38 (25 to 48) 148 12 (6 to 18) 5 516 34 (30 to 38) 34 (21 to 45) 186 7 (3 to 11) 6 482 47 (42 to 51) 62 (54 to 68) 236 8 (4 to 12) 7 434 54 (49 to 59) 72 (66 to 76) 263 6 (2 to 10) 8 287 67 (62 to 73) 84 (79 to 87) 233 6 (2 to 10) 9 to 10 180 73 (66 to 79) 88 (83 to 91) 150 2 (0 to 4) CI: confidence interval; CS: cryptogenic stroke; PFO: patent foramen ovale; RoPE: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism; TIA: transient ischemic attack. NOTE: 95% CI for PFO prevalence and attributable fraction based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution. From: Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, et al. An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013; 81:619. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a08d59. Reproduced with permission from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Copyright 2013 American Academy of Neurology. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is prohibited. Graphic 97896 Version 5.0 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 16/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate Proposed flexible clinical practice approach to classifying patent foramen ovale causal association in patients with embolic infarct topography and without other major stroke sources* RoPE score Risk source Features Low High Very high A PFO and a straddling thrombus Definite Definite High (1) Concomitant pulmonary embolism Probable Highly probable or deep venous thrombosis preceding an index infarct combined with either (2a) a PFO and an atrial septal aneurysm or (2b) a large-shunt PFO Medium Either (1) a PFO and an atrial septal Possible Probable aneurysm or (2) a large-shunt PFO Low A small-shunt PFO without an atrial septal aneurysm Unlikely Possible RoPE: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism; PFO: patent foramen ovale. The algorithm in this table is proposed for use in flexible clinical practice when application of an entire formal classification system is not being conducted. The RoPE score includes points for 5 age categories, cortical infarct, absence of hypertension, diabetes, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, and smoking. A higher RoPE score ( 7 points) increases probability of causal association. Reproduced with permission from: Elgendy AY, Saver JL, Amin Z, et al. Proposal for updated nomenclature and classi cation of potential causative mechanism in patent foramen ovale-associated Stroke. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77:878. Copyright 2020 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Graphic 134674 Version 3.0 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/stroke-associated-with-patent-foramen-ovale-pfo-evaluation/print 17/20 7/5/23, 11:49 AM Stroke associated with patent foramen ovale (PFO): Evaluation - UpToDate Approach to management for a patient with PFO and embolic-appearing ischem without other identified cause This algorithm is intended to provide general guidance to PFO management in patients with a recent emboli ischemic stroke who have a PFO and no other identified cause of stroke. For most patients who are 60 year possible, probable, or definite likelihood by RoPE and PASCAL that the PFO was causally associated with the s percutaneous PFO device closure in addition to antiplatelet therapy. PFO device closure may be temporarily d patients with an indication for short-term anticoagulation. The benefit of PFO device closure is uncertain for of age and for patients with an indication for long-term anticoagulation; in such cases, an individualized app decision-making is appropriate. Patients with ischemic stroke should generally be treated with all available ri