|MP 2.02.09||Closure Devices for Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Defects|
|Original Policy Date
|Last Review Status/Date
Reviewed with literature search/9:2014
|Return to Medical Policy Index|
Our medical policies are designed for informational purposes only and are not an authorization, or an explanation of benefits, or a contract. Receipt of benefits is subject to satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the coverage. Medical technology is constantly changing, and we reserve the right to review and update our policies periodically.
Patent Foramen Ovale
The foramen ovale, a component of fetal cardiovascular circulation, consists of a communication between the right and left atrium that functions as a vascular bypass of the uninflated lungs. The ductus arteriosus is another feature of the fetal cardiovascular circulation, consisting of a connection between the pulmonary artery and the distal aorta. Prior to birth, the foramen ovale is held open by the large flow of blood into the left atrium from the inferior vena cava. Over a course of months after birth, an increase in left atrial pressure and a decrease in right atrial pressure result in the permanent closure of the foramen ovale in most individuals. However, a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a common finding in normal adults, detected in up to 25% of adults. (1) In some epidemiologic studies, PFO has been associated with cryptogenic stroke, a type of stroke defined as an ischemic stroke occurring in the absence of potential cardiac, pulmonary, vascular, or neurologic sources. Studies also show an association of PFO and migraine headache. There has been interest in either open surgery or transcatheter approaches to close the PFO in patients with a history of cryptogenic stroke in order to prevent recurrent stroke.
Atrial Septal Defect
In contrast to PFO, which represents the persistence of normal fetal cardiovascular physiology, atrial septal defects (ASDs) represent an abnormality in the development of the heart that results in free communication between the atria. ASDs are categorized according to their anatomy. For example, ostium secundum ASDs are the third most common form of congenital heart disorder and one of the most common congenital cardiac malformations in adults, accounting for 30–40% of these patients older than age 40 years. Ostium secundum describes defects that are located midseptally and are typically near the fossa ovalis. Ostium primum defects lie immediately adjacent to the atrioventricular valves and occur commonly in patients with Down's syndrome. Sinus venous defects occur high in the atrial septum and are frequently associated with anomalies of the pulmonary veins. The ASD often goes unnoticed for decades because the physical signs are subtle and the clinical sequelae are mild. However, virtually all patients who survive into their sixth decade are symptomatic; fewer than 50% of patients survive beyond age 40 to 50 years due to heart failure or pulmonary hypertension related to the left-to-right shunt. Patients with ASDs are also at risk for paradoxical emboli.
Repair of ASDs is recommended for those with a pulmonary to systemic flow ratio (Qp:Qs) exceeding 1.5:1.0. Despite the success of operative repair, there has been interest in developing a catheter-based approach to ASD repair to avoid the risks and morbidity of open heart surgery. A variety of devices have been researched over the past 20 years; technical challenges include minimizing the size of device so
that smaller catheters can be used, developing techniques to properly center the device across the ASD, and ensuring that the device can be easily retrieved or repositioned, if necessary.
Several devices have been developed to treat PFO via a transcatheter approach, including the CardioSEAL® STARFlex™ Septal Occlusion System (NMT Medical) and the Amplatzer® PFO Occluder (Amplatzer Inc., now St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN). The STARFlex system is no longer manufactured. Transcathether PFO occluders consist of a single or paired wire mesh discs that are covered or filled with polyester or polymer fabric that are placed over the septal defect. Over time, the occlusion system is epithelialized.
ASD occluder devices consist of flexible mesh disks that are passed via catheter to cover the ASD.
PFO Closure Devices
In 2002, 2 transcatheter devices received approval for marketing from FDA as a treatment for patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO: the CardioSEAL® Septal Occlusion System (no longer commercially available) and the Amplatzer® PFO Occluder. Both received approval by FDA through a Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE), a category of FDA approval that is applicable to devices that are designed to treat a patient population of fewer than 4000 patients per year. This approval process requires the manufacturer to submit data on the safety and the probable clinical benefit. Clinical trials validating the device effectiveness are not required. The labeled indications of both limited the use of these devices to closure of PFO in patients with recurrent cryptogenic stroke due to presumed paradoxical embolism through a PFO and who have failed conventional drug therapy.
Following this limited FDA approval, the use of PFO closure devices increased by more than 50-fold, well in excess of the 4000 per year threshold intended under the HDE.2 As a result, in 2006, FDA withdrew the HDE approval for these devices. At this time, FDA also reiterated the importance of RCTs of PFO closure devices versus medical therapy but noted that ongoing trials were hampered by slow enrollment. Withdrawal of the HDE approval was, in part, intended to spur greater enrollment in ongoing RCTs of these devices.2 Currently, all uses of closure devices to treat PFO are off-label uses.
ASD Closure Devices
At present, 2 devices are FDA-approved for ASD closure: the Amplatzer™ Septal Occluder (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN), and the GORE HELEX™ Septal Occluder (W.L. Gore & Associates Inc., Newark, DE). The Amplatzer Septal Occluder was approved through FDA’s premarket approval process in June 2002. The Amplatzer device is intended for the occlusion of ASDs in the secundum position or in patients who have undergone a fenestrated Fontan procedure who require closure of the fenestration. Patients indicated for ASD closure have echocardiographic evidence of ostium secundum ASD and clinical evidence of right ventricular volume overload.
The Gore Helix Septal Occluder was approved through the premarket approval process in August 2006. It is indicated for the percutaneous, transcatheter closure of ostium secundum ASDs. FDA product code: MLV.
Closure of patent foramen ovale using a transcatheter approach is considered investigational. (There are currently no transcatheter devices with FDA approval or clearance for this indication.)
Transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects may be considered medically necessary when using a device that has been FDA approved for that purpose and used according to the labeled indications.
At present, no PFO closure devices are FDA approved for patients with cryptogenic stroke. All uses of these PFO closure devices are currently off-label.
There are 2 FDA-approved devices for ASD closure: the AMPLATZER™ Septal Occluder and the GORE HELEX™ Septal Occluder.
The labeled indications for these devices are similar and include:
- Those with echocardiographic evidence of ostium secundum atrial septal defect; AND
- Clinical evidence of right ventricular volume overload (i.e., 1.5:1 degree of left-to-right shunt or right ventricular enlargement).
Generally recognized indications for closure include a pulmonary-to-systemic flow ratio of greater than 1.5, right atrial and right ventricular enlargement, and paradoxical embolism.
In 2003, CPT established a code for percutaneous transcatheter closure of congenital interatrial communication (i.e., Fontan fenestration, atrial septal defect) with implant (93580). CPT notes that 93580 includes a right heart catheterization procedure. Other heart catheterization procedures should not be reported separately in addition to 93580.
BlueCard/National Account Issues
In 1996, the FDA created a new category of approval for humanitarian use devices (HUDs). A HUD is a device that is intended to benefit patients by treating or diagnosing a disease or condition that affects fewer than 4,000 individuals in the U.S. per year. An approved HDE in 2002 authorized marketing of the CardioSeal device and the Amplatzer Patent Foramen Ovale Occluder for treatment of patent foramen ovale. However, following a large increase in use of these devices that exceeded the HDE threshold of 4,000 patients per year, the HDE approval was withdrawn in 2006. Currently, all use of PFO closure devices is off-label use.
FDA approval continues for 2 closure devices for ASD, which include the AMPLATZER™ Septal Occluder, and the GORE HELEX™ Septal Occluder.
This policy was created in July 1999 with periodic updates with literature review performed since that time. The most recent update with literature review covers the period from July 2013 through August 1,2014.
Transcathether Device Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Thromboembolism Prevention
Conventional therapy for cryptogenic stroke consists of either antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, or dipyridamole given alone or in combination) or oral anticoagulation with warfarin. In general, patients with a known clotting disorder or evidence of preexisting thromboembolism are treated with warfarin, and patients without these risk factors are treated with antiplatelet agents. Closure devices are nonpharmacologic alternatives to medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke in patients with a patent foramen ovale (PFO).
Evidence on the efficacy of PFO closure devices consists of 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a few nonrandomized, comparative studies, and numerous case series. Meta-analyses of the published studies have also been performed.
Randomized Controlled Trials
CLOSURE I Trial
The Evaluation of the STARflex Septal Closure System in Patients with a Stroke and/or Transient Ischemic Attack due to Presumed Paradoxical Embolism through a Patent Foramen Ovale (CLOSURE I) study was a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of percutaneous closure versus medical therapy.3 A total of 909 patients between the ages of 18 and 60 years, with cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and a PFO were enrolled. Patients in the closure group received treatment with the STARflex device and also received antiplatelet therapy. Patients in the medical therapy group were treated with aspirin, warfarin, or both at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary end point was a
composite of stroke/TIA at 2 years, death from any cause during the first 30 days after treatment, and death from neurologic causes at 2 years.
Of 405 patients in the closure group, 362 (89.4%) had successful implantation without procedural complications. At 6 months, echocardiography revealed effective closure in 315 of 366 patients (86.1%). The composite primary outcome was reached by 5.5% of patients in the closure group and 6.8% of patients in the medical therapy group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 1.35; p=0.37). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 2-year rate of stroke were 2.9% in the closure group and 3.1% in the medical therapy group (adjusted HR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.98). Serious adverse events were reported by16.9% of patients in the closure group versus 16.6% in the medical group. Adverse events that were increased in the closure group included vascular procedural complications (3.2% vs 0, p<0.001) and atrial fibrillation (5.7% vs 0.7%, p<0.001).
The RESPECT trial was a multicenter RCT comparing PFO closure with medical therapy in 980 patients between the ages of 18 and 60 years with a previous cryptogenic stroke and documented PFO.(4) The RESPECT trial was a multicenter RCT comparing PFO closure with medical therapy in 980 patients between ages 18 and 60 years with a previous cryptogenic stroke and documented PFO. Patients were randomly assigned to PFO closure with the Amplatzer Occluder, or to medical therapy. Medical therapy consisted of 1 of 4 regimens prescribed at the discretion of the treating physician: aspirin, aspirin plus dipyridamole, clopidogrel, or warfarin. The primary end point was a composite of fatal ischemic stroke, nonfatal ischemic stroke, or early death within 30 days of randomization. Mean follow-up for the entire group was 2.6±2.0 years.
A total of 9 events occurred in 499 patients assigned to closure, and 16 events occurred in 464 patients assigned to medical therapy. All of the events were nonfatal strokes. The HR for this outcome was 0.49, but this result did not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (95% CI, 0.22 to 1.11; p=0.08). On per-protocol analysis, there was a statistically significant effect, with a HR of 0.37 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.96; p=0.03). On subgroup analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes, although there were trends for better outcomes in the closure group for patients with a substantial right-to-left shunt (p=0.07) and for patients with an atrial septal aneurysm (p=0.10). The rate of serious adverse events did not differ between the closure and medical therapy groups (23.0% vs 21.6%, p=0.65). Major bleeding (n=2) and cardiac tamponade (n=2) were the most frequent procedure-related adverse events.
The PC trial was a multicenter RCT comparing PFO closure with medical therapy in 414 patients younger than 60 years of age with a prior cryptogenic stroke or peripheral embolization and a documented PFO.(5) Patients were recruited from 29 centers worldwide and randomly assigned to PFO closure with the Amplatzer device or medical therapy. Recommended antiplatelet therapy in the closure group was aspirin plus ticlopidine, or clopidogrel alone. Medical therapy in the control group was at the discretion of the treating physician, with the requirement that patients receive at least 1 appropriate medication. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism. The median duration of follow-up was 4.1 years in the closure group and 4.0 years in the medical therapy group.
The primary outcome, after independent adjudication, occurred in 9 of 204 patients (3.4%) in the closure group compared with 11 of 210 patients (5.7%) in the medical group. The HR for this outcome was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.24 to 1.62; p=0.34) on ITT analysis. On per-protocol analysis, results were similar with an HR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.27 to 1.85; p=0.48). There were no significant differences in the rate of the individual components of the primary outcome, and there were no significant differences in outcome on subgroup analyses. The adverse event rate was 34.8% in the closure group compared with 29.5% in the medical therapy group.
A large number of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the 3 available RCTs have been published; several representative studies are summarized here. Rengifo-Moreno et al(6) performed a combined analysis of the 3 RCTs previously discussed. The analysis included a total of 1150 patients randomized to PFO closure and 1153 patients randomized to medical therapy followed for a mean of 3.5 years. Two end points were included, recurrent vascular events and a combined end point of death plus recurrent vascular events. On combined analysis, there was a statistically significant reduction in recurrent vascular events with a pooled HR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.97; p=0.04). For the composite outcome of death plus recurrent vascular events, combined analysis revealed a reduction for the closure group of borderline statistical significance (HR=0.67; 95% CI, 0.12 to 1.03; p=0.05). On subgroup analysis, there was a trend for greater benefit in patients with a substantial right-to-left shunt, although this result did not reach statistical significance (HR=0.35; 95% CI, 0.12 to 1.03; p=0.06).
Another meta-analysis of the same 3 RCTs was reported by Kitsios et al.(7) This study used recurrent stroke as the primary outcome. The authors noted that the rates of recurrent stroke varied widely across the studies, thereby raising the possibility of ascertainment bias for this outcome. On combined analysis, the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance, with an HR of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.26 to 1.18). Combined analysis was also performed for the composite outcomes reported in the trials, even though the composite outcomes were not defined in the same way. The combined result for the composite outcome was of borderline statistical significance, with an HR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.00). There were no significant differences found on combined analysis of the subgroup analyses from the trials.
Meta-analyses of the same 3 RCTs were reported by Chen et al,(8) Hakeem et al,(9) Khan et al,(10) Kwong et al,(11) Nagaraja et al,(12) Ntaios et al,(13) Pandit et al,(14) and Pineda et al.(15) Results from these meta-analyses generally supported findings from previous meta-analyses. For the primary outcome of recurrent stroke or TIA, Chen et al found a pooled risk ratio with PFO device closure for recurrent stroke or TIA of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04; p=0.08). Hakeem et al reported a pooled risk ratio for a composite outcome of death or recurrent stroke or TIA of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.48 to 1.06; p=0.09). Neither the Chen et al nor the Hekeem et al meta-analyses found significant differences between PFO device closure and medical management for the risk of death or adverse events. Khan et al reported pooled analyses for the primary outcome of recurrent stroke, with a pooled effect-estimated HR for the primary outcome of recurrent stroke in patients treated with PFO device closure compared with medical management of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.00). In analysis of only the RESPECT and PC trials, which used the Amplatzer PFO occluder device, the HR for recurrent stroke in patients treated with PFO device closure was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.01). Similarly, Pandit et al reported sensitivity analyses including only the RESPECT and PC trials, and found that patients who received the Amplatzer PFO occluder device had a lower risk of recurrent strokes compared with medical therapy (HR=0.44; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.94; p=0.03). In addition to pooled estimates for the risk of the primary outcomes of recurrent stroke, TIA, or death, Kwong et al reported pooled outcomes for risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation and found that PFO closure was associated with a significantly higher incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation compared with medical therapy (OR=3.77; 95% CI, 1.44 to 9.87; p=0.007). In the analysis by Ntaios et al, the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation with device closure compared with medical therapy was not higher in patients who received the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device (1.28% vs 0.72%; OR=1.81; 95% CI, 0.60 to 5.42), but was higher in patients who received the STARFlex device (5.14% vs 0.64%; OR=8.30; 95% CI, 1.44 to 9.87).
Cappodano et al published an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared outcomes associated with medical management or PFO closure among patients with cryptogenic stroke.(16) This analysis included the 3 RCTs previously described, along with 11 observational studies. In the randomized trials, PFO closure was not associated with significantly lower rates of stroke than medical therapy (HR=0.62; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.11; p=0.10) or with lower rates of TIA (HR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.32; p=0.34). When the analysis was restricted to the RESPECT and PC trials, which used the Amplatzer PFO occluder device, PFO closure was significantly associated with lower recurrent stroke risk (HR=0.44; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.95; p=0.04). In the observational studies, which included 2231 patients, PFO closure was significantly associated with lower rates of stroke than medical therapy (HR=0.23; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.49; p<0.01).
Similarly, Wolfrum et al conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials that compared outcomes for PFO closure with medical management among patients with cryptogenic stroke, including 3 RCTs and 11 nonrandomized studies.(17) Again, among the RCTs, there was no significant improvement in stroke risk with PFO closure compared with medical management. However, among the non-RCT studies, PFO closure was associated with a reduced risk of stroke (RR=0.37; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67; p<0.001). In a time-to-stroke analysis that included 3 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs that had multivariable adjustments, PFO closure was associated with a borderline significant stroke risk reduction compared with medical therapy (HR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.99; p=0.047.)
A number of systematic reviews of the observational studies have also been published, comparing outcomes of PFO closure with medical therapy.(18-20) Similar to the findings reported by Cappodano et al, these reviews are consistent in reporting that the combined rate of recurrent stroke is lower for patients treated with a closure device compared with medical therapy.
Kitsios et al published a systematic review of observational studies and the single RCT in 2012.(19) This review included 52 single-arm studies, 7 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 1 RCT. The combined incident rate for recurrent stroke was lower for patients treated with PFO (0.36 events/100 patient-years;
95% CI, 0.24 to 0.56) compared with patients treated medically (2.53 events/100 patient-years; 95% CI, 1.91 to 3.35). The incident rate ratio was 0.19 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.98), which indicated an approximately 80% reduction in the rate of strokes for the closure group. This systematic review noted that the incident rate for recurrent strokes in patients treated with closure devices was much lower in the RCT compared with the observational studies, while the incident rate for recurrent stroke in patients treated medically was only slightly lower in the RCT compared with observational studies. This finding raises the possibility that ascertainment bias in the observational studies may have led to a spuriously low rate of recurrent stroke reported for patients treated with PFO closure.
Wohrle20 compared the results of 12 series of PFO closure (n=2016) with 8 series (n=998 patients) of medical therapy. At 2-year follow-up, the range of recurrent stroke was 0% to 1.6% for PFO closure and 1.8% to 9.0% for medical therapy. The combined annual incidence of stroke or TIA was 1.3% (95% CI, 1.0% to 1.8%) following PFO closure compared with 5.2% (95% CI, 4.4 to 6.2) for medical therapy. In an earlier review, Khairy et al18 analyzed 6 series of medical therapy (n=895 patients) and 10 series of PFO closure (n=1355 patients). These authors noted differences in key clinical characteristics among patients in the 2 treatment groups. Patients treated with medical therapy were older, had a greater proportion of men, and higher rates of smoking and diabetes. Patients treated with PFO closure were more likely to have had more than 1 cerebrovascular event. The recurrence rate at 1 year ranged from 0% to 4.9% with PFO closure, compared with 3.8% to 12.0% with medical therapy. There was an estimated major complication rate (death, hemorrhage requiring transfusion, tamponade, need for surgical intervention, pulmonary embolus) for PFO closure of 1.5%, and a minor complication rate of 7.9%.
Abaci et al conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of both PFO and ASD device closure procedures.(21) The authors reviewed 203 articles, 111 of which reported ASD closure, 61 of which reported PFO closure, and 31 of which reported both ASD and PFO closures. Among patients undergoing PFO closure, the pooled rate of major complications was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.9% to 1.3%), most commonly device embolization requiring surgery.
Nonrandomized Comparative Studies
A number of nonrandomized comparative studies of closure devices versus medical therapy have been published. Wahl et al performed a nonrandomized comparative study using propensity matching in 308 consecutive patients with stroke or TIA that was presumed due to a PFO.(22) A total of 103 pairs of matched patients were compared on the primary composite outcome of stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism. After a mean of 9 years of follow-up, the primary end point was reached by 11% of patients in
the closure group compared with 21% in the medical therapy group (HR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.94; p=0.039). The main difference in the outcome measure seemed to be driven by differences in TIA, which occurred in 5% of closure patients compared with 14% of medical therapy patients.
Windecker et al(23) compared 150 patients who underwent PFO closure between 1994 and 2000 with 158 medically treated patients over the same time period. The choice of therapy was based on clinician and/or patient preference. The patients who received closure differed from the medically treated patients on key clinical variables, including the percentage with more than 1 cerebrovascular event and the size of the PFO. At 4-year follow-up, there was a trend toward lower recurrence of stroke or TIA in the PFO group that did not reach statistical significance (7.8% vs 22.2%, p=0.08).
Harrer et al(24) reported on 124 patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO treated over a 10-year period. Eighty-three patients were treated with medical therapy, 34 were treated with percutaneous PFO closure, and 7 were treated with surgical closure. After a mean follow-up of 52±32 months, annual recurrence rates of stroke were not different between medical therapy and PFO closure (2.1% vs 2.9%, respectively, p=NS).
Paciaroni et al(25) performed a prospective observational study on 238 consecutive patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO treated at 13 Italian centers. A total of 117 patients were treated with antithrombotic therapy, and 121 patients were treated with a closure device, with the treatment decision made according to patient and physician preference. Procedure-related adverse events were reported in 8 of 121 (6.8%) patients treated with a closure device (4 patients with tachycardia, 2 patients with allergic reaction, 1 patient with atrial fibrillation, 1 patient with sepsis). After a 2-year follow-up, 10 of 117 patients (8.5%) in the medical therapy group had a recurrent neurologic event (stroke or TIA), compared with 7/121 patients (5.8%, p=0.28) in the closure device group. For recurrent stroke, the difference between the groups was statistically significant, with 8/117 (6.8%) in the medical therapy group compared with 1/121 (0.8%, p=0.018) in the closure device group. On multivariate analysis, treatment with a closure device was a significant predictor of a reduced stroke rate (OR=0.1; 95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0; p=0.05) but was not a significant predictor of the combined outcome of stroke or TIA (OR=0.1; 95% CI, 0.02 to 1.5; p=0.10).
Alushi et al reported results from a prospective, single-center study comparing outcomes after PFO device closure or medical management in 418 patients presenting with PFO and cryptogenic stroke or TIA.26 Two hundred sixty-two patients underwent percutaneous PFO closure, while 156 were treated medically. The choice of medical intervention versus device closure was determined by the treating physician and patient. Percutaneous device closure was preferably advised for patients younger than age 55 years, with recurrent cerebrovascular events, large interatrial right-to-left shunt, and nonlacunar ischemic events on neuroimaging. Patients undergoing percutaneous closure were younger and more frequently presented with a larger interatrial right-to-left shunt, previous venous thromboembolism, and hypercoagulability state. Patients treated medically presented more frequently with multiple cerebrovascular accident risk factors. In a multivariable model to predict the composite outcome of TIA, stroke, or all-cause mortality, treatment strategy (percutaneous closure vs medical management) was not significantly associated with the outcome (adjusted OR=1.1; 95% CI, 0.44 to 2.74; p=0.81), after controlling for age, multiple prior cerebrovascular events, and the presence of aspirin.
Single-Arm Case Series
Many case series report on outcomes of PFO closure in an uncontrolled fashion; some examples of these series are as follows. Cifarelli et al(27) reported on 202 consecutive patients treated with a closure device for secondary prevention of thromboembolism. They reported no periprocedural deaths or strokes, and 1 case of device migration 24 hours after placement. Recurrence-free survival was reported in 99% of patients 55 years of age or younger, and 84% in patients older than age 55 years. Recurrence of thromboembolism was associated with a septal aneurysm, with all patients who experienced recurrence of thromboembolism having a septal aneurysm. Onorato et al28 reported on 256 patients with paradoxical embolism who received transcatheter closure of PFO. The authors reported a 98.1% full closure rate of the PFO and no neurologic events at a mean follow-up of 19 months. Martin et al(29) also reported on a study of 110 patients with paradoxical embolism who received transcatheter closure of PFO. While the full closure rate of PFO was 71% at 2 years, only 2 patients had experienced a recurrent neurologic event. Windecker et al(30) reported on a case series of 80 patients with a history of at least 1 paradoxical embolic event and who underwent closure of a PFO with a variety of transcatheter devices. Patients were followed up for a mean of 1.6 years. During 5 years of follow-up, the risk of an embolic event (TIA, stroke, peripheral embolism) was 3.4%, considered comparable with either medical therapy with anticoagulation or open surgical approaches. The presence of a postprocedural shunt was a predictor of recurrent thromboembolic events, emphasizing the importance of complete closure. Butera et al reported results from a registry that included 122 consecutive patients who underwent PFO closure with the Gore Septal Occluder device, 110 of whom underwent closure for previous stroke or TIA, and 12 of whom underwent closure for a history of migraines.(31) During a median follow-up of 9 months (range, 1-18 months), 7 patients experienced atrial arrhythmias, 4 of whom required medical treatment. On chest radiograph, 2 patients were found to have evidence of wire fractures in the device; the devices were not removed and the patients had no evidence of further problems from the wire fractures at 12 months of follow up. Three patients experienced neurologic problems, 1 of which was recurrent migraines. None of these patients were found to have residual shunt or intracardiac or device thrombi.
Other single-arm studies of transcathether PFO closure in patients presenting with stroke or TIA and PFO generally report high rates of freedom from embolic events.(32-37)
No clinical trials focus specifically on patients who have failed medical therapy, as defined by recurrent stroke or TIA while on therapy. Many of the published studies include both patients with first cryptogenic stroke, as well as patients with recurrent stroke or TIA, and generally do not analyze these patient populations separately. As a result, it is not possible to determine from the evidence whether PFO closure in patients who have failed medical therapy reduces the risk of subsequent recurrences.
The results of 3 RCTs do not support the conclusion that closure devices improve outcomes for patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO. These trials, which included a total of 1108 patients who underwent PFO closure and 1178 patients who received medical management, did not report significant improvement in outcomes with PFO closure. These results contrast with the results of nonrandomized, comparative studies and systematic reviews of observational studies, which report lower rates of
recurrent events following closure of PFO. The discrepancy in these results may arise from selection bias, because selection for either closure devices or medical therapy may vary, resulting in populations that may have unequal distribution of confounders. Also, the rate of recurrent stroke for patients treated with closure devices in the RCT was much higher than combined estimates from observational studies. This raises the possibility that ascertainment bias in the observational studies may have resulted in a spuriously low stroke rate for patients treated with a closure device. Multiple meta-analyses of the 3 RCTs, with or without the addition of nonrandomized studies, have come to varied conclusions, with some reporting a statistically significant reduction in recurrent events on pooled analysis and others reporting a trend for benefit that does not reach statistical significance. While these results suggest that a benefit might be present, the evidence is not definitive and the risk-benefit ratio is not well-defined.
PFO Closure for Migraine
Noncontrolled observational studies have reported improvement in migraine headaches after PFO closure.
A sham-controlled randomized trial of PFO closure for the indication of refractory migraine headache was published in 2008.(38) Migraine headache is another condition that has been associated with PFO in epidemiologic studies. In this study, there was no significant difference observed in the primary end point of migraine headache cessation (3/74 in the implant group, 3 /73 in the sham group, p=0.51). The results of this study cast some doubt on the causal relationship between PFO and migraine.
In 2014, Lip et al published a primarily descriptive systematic review of studies that reported either the prevalence of PFO and migraine or the effects of PFO-related interventions on migraine attacks.(39) The authors included 20 studies that evaluated the prevalence of PFO in patients with migraines and 21 studies that presented data on the effects of PFO closure. In case series and cohort studies of patients with migraines, the prevalence of PFO in patients with migraines ranged from 14.6% to 66.5%. In case control studies, the prevalence of PFO in control patients ranged from 16.0% to 25.7%, while the prevalence of PFO in patients with migraine-with-aura or aura migraine-without-aura ranged from 26.8 to 96.0% and 22.6% to 72.4%, respectively. In the 18 case series that reported migraine outcomes after PFO closure, rates of resolution for migraine with aura and migraine without aura ranged from 28.6% to 92.3% and 13.6% to 82.9%, respectively. In 2 case-control studies that compared PFO closure and medication for migraines with intervention, improvement in migraine symptoms occurred in 83% to 87%, compared with 0% to 21% of those managed medically. The single RCT identified (Dowson et al(38)) did not identify significant improvements in migraine symptoms in the PFO closure group.
In a study not included in the Lip et al systematic review, Biasco et al retrospectively compared transcatheter PFO closure with medical therapy in terms of impact on daily activities.(40) The study included 217 patients with migraine and echocardiographic evidence of PFO, 89 of whom were managed with percutaneous PFO closure and 128, medically managed. PFO device closure was recommended for patients with migraine associated with previous suspected paradoxical embolic events, or for those
without a history of suspected embolic events only in the case of severely disabling symptoms not controlled by multiple therapies. At a mean follow up of 1299 days, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire (MIDAS). However, there were no significant differences in MIDAS score between groups (p=0.204). The degree of residual right-to-left shunt was not associated with symptom perception.
Although observational studies have shown a possible association between PFO closure and improvement in migraine symptoms, 1 sham-controlled RCT did not demonstrate significant improvements in migraine symptoms after PFO closure. Nonrandomized studies show highly variable rates of migraine improvement after PFO closure.
PFO Closure for Other Indications
Several other medical conditions have been reported to occur more frequently in patients with PFOs, including platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome, myocardial infarction with normal coronary arteries, decompression illness in response to change in environmental pressure, high altitude pulmonary edema, and obstructive sleep apnea.(41) Evidence about clinical outcomes related to these conditions after PFO closure is limited to case reports and case series.
Transcatheter Device Closure for ASDs
At present there are 2 FDA-approved devices for ASD closure: the Amplatzer™ Septal Occluder, and the GORE HELEX™ Septal Occluder.
Overview of the Evidence
Evidence supporting the efficacy of devices for closure of ASD consists of nonrandomized comparative studies and case series. However, in contrast to the situation of PFO and cryptogenic stroke, the relationship of closure of the ASD and improved clinical outcomes is direct and convincing, because the alternative treatment is open surgery. Results generally show a high success rate in achieving closure and low complication rates. FDA approval of the Amplatzer Septal Occluder was based on the results of a
multicenter, nonrandomized study comparing the device with surgical closure of ASDs; 423 patients received 433 devices.(42) This study was subsequently published with slightly different numbers but similar quantitative findings.(43) All patients had an ostium secundum atrial septal defect and clinical evidence of right ventricular volume overload. The results for the septal occluder group, showed comparably high success rates with surgery; the 24-month closure success rate was 96.7% in the septal occluder group compared with 100% in the surgical group. While the pattern of adverse events was different in the 2 groups, overall, those receiving a septal occluder had a significantly lower incidence of major adverse events (p=0.03). Similarly, there was a significantly lower incidence of minor adverse events in the septal occluder group (p<0.001). It should be noted that the mean age of patients of the 2 groups was significantly different; in the septal occluder group, the mean age was 18 years, compared with 6 years in the surgically treated group.
A systematic review of percutaneous closure versus surgical closure was published by Butera et al in 2011.(44) Thirteen nonrandomized comparative studies that enrolled at least 20 patients were included, with a total of 3082 patients. The rate of procedural complications was higher in the surgical group (31%; 95% CI, 21% to 41%) compared with the percutaneous group (6.6%; 95% CI, 3.9% to 9.2%), with an odds ratio for total procedural complications of 5.4 (95% CI, 2.96 to 9.84; p<0.000). There was also an increased rate of major complications for the surgical group (6.8%; 95% CI, 4% to 9.5%) compared with the percutaneous group (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 2.9%), for an odds ratio of 3.81 (95% CI, 2.7 to 5.36; p=0.006).
In the Abaci et al systematic review and meta-analysis of periprocedural complications after ASD/PFO device closures referenced earlier, for ASD closure, the pooled rate of major complications after ASD closures was 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4% to 1.8%).(21)
Nonrandomized Comparative Studies
Other nonrandomized studies comparing transcatheter closure with surgery show similar success rates. Suchon et al, in a study of 100 patients, had a 94% success rate in the transcatheter closure group compared with a 100% success rate in the surgical group.(45) A study by Berger et al showed identical 98% success rate in both treatment groups.(46) A nonrandomized comparative analysis by Kotowycz et al(47) reported that mortality rates at 5-year follow-up did not differ between transcatheter and surgical closure (5.3% vs 6.35% respectively, p=1.00), but that reintervention rates were higher for patients undergoing transcatheter closure (7.9% vs 0.3% respectively, p<0.004). Xu et al reported a retrospective analysis of transcathether (n=35) and surgical (n=43) closure of ASD in patients with ASD and pulmonary stenosis.(48) Complication rates were not significantly different between groups, and all patients in both groups were reported to have complete correction of their ASD.
Single-arm studies show high success rates of ASD closure. The FDA study discussed previously was the largest series, with an enrollment of 423 patients. Fischer et al reported on use of the Amplatzer device in 236 patients with secundum ASD.(49) In this evaluation study, closure was achieved in 84.7% of patients, and intermediate results were reported as excellent. Other smaller studies have reported favorable results for transcatheter closure of ASD. In Du et al, transcatheter closure of ASD in 23 patients with deficient ASD rims was compared with transcatheter closure of 48 patients with sufficient ASD rims.(50) The authors reported no significant differences in closure rates between the groups (91% for deficient rims, 94% for sufficient rims) along with no major complications at 24 hours and 6-month follow-up. Oho et al also reported a successful closure rate of 97% at 1-year follow-up in 35 patients receiving transcatheter closure of ASD, while only 1 patient complication of second-degree atrioventricular block was noted.(51) Brochu et al evaluated 37 New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II patients who underwent transcatheter closure of ASD.(52) At 6-month follow-up, maximal oxygen uptake improved significantly, and the dimensions of the right ventricle decreased significantly while 20 patients moved from NYHA class II to class I and improved exercise capacity. Numerous other small, single-arm studies report similar results, with procedural success approaching 100% and successful closure on follow-up reported in the 90% to 100% range.(3,5)
Single-Arm Studies in Pediatrics
Several single-arm studies have reported outcomes from transcathether ASD closure in children and adolescents. Grohmann et al reported outcome from a single-center series of children aged 3 to 17 years (median, 6) who were treated with the Gore Septal Occluder, with technical success in 41 of 45 patients in whom closure was attempted (91%).(53) Nyboe et al reported outcomes from 22 patients with secundum ASD who underwent ASD closure with the Gore Septal Occluder, 10 of whom were children younger than age 15, with technical success in all patients.(54) Yilmazer et al reported improvements in echocardiographic parameters in a series of 25 pediatric patients (mean age, 9.02) who underwent successful transcathether closure of secundum ASD.(55)
For patients with an SD, nonrandomized comparative studies and single-arm case series show high success rates of closure using closure devices approaching the high success rates of surgery. The percutaneous approach has a low complication rate and avoids the morbidity and complications of open surgery. If the percutaneous approach is unsuccessful, ASD closure can be achieved using surgery. Because of the advantages of percutaneous closure over open surgery, the use of percutaneous ASD
closure devices can be considered medically necessary.
Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials
An online search of ClinicalTrials.gov on August 6, 2014, identified the following interventional trials evaluating device closure for atrial septal defects and patent foramen ovale that are currently ongoing.
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulants Versus Antiplatelet Therapy to Prevent Stroke Recurrence (CLOSE) (NCT00562289) (NCT00562289): This is an RCT comparing PFO closure with medical therapy (vitamin K antagonists and antiplatelet drugs) in patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke. The primary end points are fatal and nonfatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and vascular death. Planned enrollment is for 900 patients with completion date estimated to be December 2016.
Device Closure Versus Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke Patients With High-Risk Patent Foramen Ovale (DEFENSE-PFO) (NCT01550588): This is an RCT comparing PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO occluder device with medical therapy. Primary end points are nonfatal stroke, vascular death, and major bleeding. Planned enrollment is for 210 patients with an estimated completion date of February 2017.
GORE® HELEX® Septal Occluder /GORE® Septal Occluder and Antiplatelet Medical Management for Reduction of Recurrent Stroke or Imaging-Confirmed TIA in Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) (NCT00738894): This is an RCT of PFO closure compared with medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke. The primary end point is freedom from recurrent stroke/TIA at 2 years. Planned enrollment is for 664 patients, with an estimated completion date of January 2018.
Prospective Single Center Pilot Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of an Intracardiac Septal Closure Device With Biodegradable Framework in Patients With Clinically Significant Atrial Septum Defect (ASD) or Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) (NCT01960491): This is a noncomparative pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a novel bioabsorbable intracardiac septal closure device in patients with isolated ASD or PFO. Enrollment is planned for 10 subjects; the estimated study completion date is July 2015.
Prospective, Randomized Investigation to Evaluate Incidence of Headache Reduction in Subjects With Migraine and PFO Using the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder to Medical Management (PREMIUM) (NCT00355056): PREMIUM is a randomized, double-blind sham-controlled trial to compare PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO Occluder device with medical management in patients with migraine. The primary outcome is reduction in migraine attacks. Enrollment is planned for 230 subjects; the estimated study completion date is listed as March 2014. No results have been posted.
Summary of Evidence
The evidence on the efficacy of closure devices for patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) and cryptogenic stroke does not permit conclusions on whether health outcomes are improved. Three randomized controlled trials have been completed that compare closure devices with medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO. None of the 3 trials reported statistically significant improvements on their main outcome using intention-to-treat analysis. In all 3 trials, low numbers of outcome events in both groups limited the power to detect differences between groups. One trial showed a significant benefit for the closure group on per-protocol analysis and another showed significant benefit on secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses of these trials have also come to different conclusions, with some reporting a statistically significant reduction in recurrent events on pooled analysis and others reporting a trend for benefit that does not reach statistical significance. While these results suggest that a benefit might be present, the evidence is not definitive and the risk-benefit ratio is not well defined.
PFO closure devices have been investigated as a treatment for refractory migraines and for other medical conditions. The evidence on the use of PFO device closure for the treatment of migraines is limited to nonrandomized studies and 1 RCT that showed no benefit to migraine symptoms from PFO device closure. The evidence for the use of PFO closure for conditions other than stroke prevention and refractory migraines is limited to case reports and case series.
In addition to the limitations in the evidence base, there are no PFO closure devices that are currently FDA-approved for use in the United States. Therefore closure devices are considered investigational for prevention of paradoxical emboli in patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke.
For patients with atrial septal defect (ASD) that require closure, nonrandomized comparative studies and single-arm case series show high success rates of closure using closure devices, approaching the high success rates of surgery. The percutaneous approach has a low complication rate and avoids the morbidity and complications of open surgery. Because the main alternative to percutaneous closure is open surgery, this evidence is sufficient to conclude that percutaneous closure achieves similar outcomes with less risk compared with the alternative. If the percutaneous approach is unsuccessful, ASD closure can be achieved using surgery. Because of the advantages of percutaneous closure over open surgery, the use of percutaneous ASD closure devices can be considered medically necessary for this purpose.
Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) published guidelines on antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy in 2012,(56) which were an update to previous guidelines published in 2008.(57) These guidelines contained the following statements about the treatment of patients with a PFO:
In patients with asymptomatic patent foramen ovale (PFO) or atrial septal aneurysm, we suggest against antithrombotic therapy (Grade 2C)
In patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO or atrial septal aneurysm, we recommend aspirin (50-100 mg/d) over no aspirin (Grade 1A).
In patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO or atrial septal aneurysm, who experience recurrent events despite aspirin therapy, we suggest treatment with (VKA [vitamin K antagonists] therapy (target INR, 2.5; range, 2.0-3.0) and consideration of device closure over aspirin therapy (Grade 2C).
In patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO, with evidence of DVT [deep vein thrombosis], we recommend VKA therapy for 3 months (target INR, 2.5; range, 2.0-3.0) (Grade 1B) and consideration of device closure over no VKA therapy or aspirin therapy (Grade 2C).
Closure devices are not discussed.
Previously published guidelines from ACCP (2008) compared outcomes from medical management and percutaneous closure in patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke and concluded that there was no difference in risk of death or between major adverse clinical events between patients with cryptogenic stroke who underwent medical management and those who underwent percutaneous closure procedures.(58)
The American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA)published guidelines on the prevention of stroke in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in 2006 that makes the following recommendations about the management of patients with a PFO59:
For patients with an ischemic stroke or TIA and a PFO, antiplatelet therapy is reasonable to prevent a recurrent event (Class IIa, Level of Evidence B). Warfarin is reasonable for high-risk patients who have other indications for oral anticoagulation such as those with an underlying hypercoagulable state or evidence of venous thrombosis (Class IIa, Level of Evidence C).
Insufficient data exist to make a recommendation about PFO closure in patients with a first stroke and a PFO. PFO closure may be considered for patients with recurrent cryptogenic stroke, despite optimal medical therapy (Class IIb, Level of Evidence C).
The American Academy of Neurology,60 published in 2004, states that the evidence is inconclusive regarding the comparative efficacy of PFO closure devices and medical therapy. These guidelines do not offer specific recommendations as to when PFO closure devices should be used.
AHA/ASA guidelines(59) published in 2006 offer somewhat more specific recommendations. These guidelines do not recommend PFO closure as initial therapy for patients with a first ischemic stroke and PFO, stating that, “Insufficient data exist to make a recommendation about PFO closure in patients with a first stroke and a PFO.” They also state that “…aspirin (50-325mg/d), aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole in combination, and clopidrogrel are all acceptable options for initial therapy (class IIa, level of evidence A),” and that “Warfarin is reasonable for high-risk patients who have other indications for oral anticoagulation, such as underlying hypercoagulable state or evidence of venous thrombosis (class IIa, level of evidence C).” For patients with stroke or TIA while on medical therapy, they state that, “PFO closure may be considered for patients with recurrent cryptogenic stroke despite optimal medical therapy (class IIB, level of evidence C).”
Guidelines issued by the American College of Cardiology and AHA in 2008 on the management of congenital heart disease recommend closure of an ASD by either percutaneous or surgical methods for several indications.(61) For sinus venosus, coronary sinus, or primum ASD, however, surgical rather than percutaneous closure is recommended.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations
Use of closure devices for PFO or ASDs is not a preventive service.
Medicare National Coverage
There is no national coverage determination (NCD). In the absence of an NCD, coverage decisions are left to the discretion of local Medicare carriers.
- Messe SR, Kasner SE. Is closure recommended for patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke? Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: not to close. Circulation 2008; 118(19):1999-2004.
- Slottow TL, Steinberg DH, Waksman R. Overview of the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel meeting on patent foramen ovale closure devices. Circulation 2007; 116(6):677-82.
- Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(11):991-9.
- Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013; 368(12):1092-100.
- Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 368(12):1083-91.
- Rengifo-Moreno P, Palacios IF, Junpaparp P et al. Patent foramen ovale transcatheter closure vs. medical therapy on recurrent vascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2013.
- Kitsios GD, Thaler DE, Kent DM. Potentially Large yet Uncertain Benefits: A Meta-analysis of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Trials. Stroke 2013; 44(9):2640-3.
- Chen L, Luo S, Yan L, et al. A systematic review of closure versus medical therapy for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack. J Neurol Sci. Feb 15 2014;337(1-2):3-7. PMID 24300230
- Hakeem A, Marmagkiolis K, Hacioglu Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of device closure for patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of neurological events: Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. Nov-Dec 2013;14(6):349-355. PMID 24080379
- Khan AR, Bin Abdulhak AA, Sheikh MA, et al. Device closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Dec 2013;6(12):1316-1323. PMID 24139929
- Kwong JS, Lam YY, Yu CM. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale for cryptogenic stroke: a meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. Oct 9 2013;168(4):4132-4138. PMID 23890879
- Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, et al. Is transcatheter closure better than medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale? A meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart Lung Circ. Nov 2013;22(11):903-909. PMID 24035325
- Ntaios G, Papavasileiou V, Makaritsis K, et al. PFO closure vs. medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. Oct 30 2013;169(2):101-105. PMID 24041984
- Pandit A, Aryal MR, Pandit AA, et al. Amplatzer PFO occluder device may prevent recurrent stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart Lung Circ. Apr 2014;23(4):303-308. PMID 24495944
- Pineda AM, Nascimento FO, Yang SC, et al. A meta-analysis of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy for prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Nov 15 2013;82(6):968-975. PMID 23832613
- Capodanno D, Milazzo G, Vitale L, et al. Updating the evidence on patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis of 2,303 patients from three randomised trials and 2,231 patients from 11 observational studies. EuroIntervention. Mar 20 2014;9(11):1342-1349. PMID 24240356
- Wolfrum M, Froehlich GM, Knapp G, et al. Stroke prevention by percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. Mar 2014;100(5):389-395. PMID 23793373
- Khairy P, O'Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. Nov 4 2003;139(9):753-760. PMID 14597460
- Kitsios GD, Dahabreh IJ, Abu Dabrh AM, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure and medical treatments for secondary stroke prevention: a systematic review of observational and randomized evidence. Stroke. Feb 2012;43(2):422-431. PMID 22180252
- Wohrle J. Closure of patent foramen ovale after cryptogenic stroke. Lancet. Jul 29 2006;368(9533):350-352. PMID 16876648
- Abaci A, Unlu S, Alsancak Y, et al. Short and long term complications of device closure of atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale: meta-analysis of 28,142 patients from 203 studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Dec 1 2013;82(7):1123-1138. PMID 3412921
- Wahl A, Juni P, Mono ML, et al. Long-term propensity score-matched comparison of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale with medical treatment after paradoxical embolism. Circulation. Feb 14 2012;125(6):803- 812. PMID 22238228
- Windecker S, Wahl A, Nedeltchev K, et al. Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. Aug 18 2004;44(4):750-758. PMID 15312853
- Harrer JU, Wessels T, Franke A, et al. Stroke recurrence and its prevention in patients with patent foramen ovale. Can J Neurol Sci. Feb 2006;33(1):39-47. PMID 16583720
- Paciaroni M, Agnelli G, Bertolini A, et al. 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. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;31(2):109-116. PMID 21088390
- Alushi B, Biasco L, Orzan F, et al. Patent foramen ovale treatment strategy: an Italian large prospective study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). Jun 27 2014. PMID 24978876
- Cifarelli A, Musto C, Parma A, et al. Long-term outcome of transcatheter patent foramen ovale closure in patients with paradoxical embolism. Int J Cardiol. Jun 11 2010;141(3):304-310. PMID 19178959
- Onorato E, Melzi G, Casilli F, et al. Patent foramen ovale with paradoxical embolism: mid-term results of transcatheter closure in 256 patients. J Interv Cardiol. Feb 2003;16(1):43-50. PMID 12664817
- Martin F, Sanchez PL, Doherty E, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation. Aug 27 2002;106(9):1121-1126. PMID 12196339
- Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation. Feb 29 2000;101(8):893-898. PMID 10694529
- Butera G, Saracino A, Danna P, et al. Transcatheter PFO closure with GORE((R)) septal occluder: early and mid-term clinical results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Nov 15 2013;82(6):944-949. PMID 23897659
- Eeckhout E, Martin S, Delabays A, et al. Very long-term follow-up after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale. EuroIntervention. Jan 17 2014. PMID 24429213
- Inglessis I, Elmariah S, Rengifo-Moreno PA, et al. Long-term experience and outcomes with transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Nov 2013;6(11):1176-1183. PMID 24262618
- Nagpal SV, Lerakis S, Flueckiger PB, et al. Long-term outcomes after percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure. Am J Med Sci. Sep 2013;346(3):181-186. PMID 23328836
- Rhodes JF, Jr., Goble J. Combined prospective United States clinical study data for the GORE((R)) HELEX((R)) septal occluder device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. May 1 2014;83(6):944-952. PMID 23674380
- Thomson JD, Hildick-Smith D, Clift P, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure with the gore septal occluder: initial UK experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Feb 15 2014;83(3):467-473. PMID 23766247
- Wallenborn J, Bertog SC, Franke J, et al. Recurrent events after percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Oct 1 2013;82(4):541-546. PMID 22707325
- Dowson A, Mullen MJ, Peatfield R, et al. Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology (MIST) trial: a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure with STARFlex septal repair implant to resolve refractory migraine headache. Circulation. Mar 18 2008;117(11):1397-1404. PMID 18316488
- Lip PZ, Lip GY. Patent foramen ovale and migraine attacks: a systematic review. Am J Med. May 2014;127(5):411-420. PMID 24355354
- Biasco L, Infantino V, Orzan F, et al. Impact of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in the evolution of migraine and role of residual shunt. J Cardiol. Apr 5 2014. PMID 24713153
- Tobis J, Shenoda M. Percutaneous Treatment of Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Defects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(18):1722-1732. PMID
- Instruction for Use: Amplatzer® Septal Occluder System. In: AGA Medical Corporation; Golden Valley M, ed.
- Du ZD, Hijazi ZM, Kleinman CS, et al. Comparison between transcatheter and surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defect in children and adults: results of a multicenter nonrandomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. Jun 5 2002;39(11):1836-1844. PMID 12039500
- Butera G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sangiorgi G, et al. Percutaneous versus surgical closure of secundum atrial septal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available clinical evidence. EuroIntervention. Jul 2011;7(3):377-385. PMID 21729841
- Suchon E, Pieculewicz M, Tracz W, et al. Transcatheter closure as an alternative and equivalent method to the surgical treatment of atrial septal defect in adults: comparison of early and late results. Med Sci Monit. Dec 2009;15(12):CR612-617. PMID 19946231
- Berger F, Vogel M, Alexi-Meskishvili V, et al. Comparison of results and complications of surgical and Amplatzer device closure of atrial septal defects. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. Oct 1999;118(4):674-678; discussion 678-680. PMID 10504632
- Kotowycz MA, Therrien J, Ionescu-Ittu R, et al. Long-term outcomes after surgical versus transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects in adults. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. May 2013;6(5):497-503. PMID 23602461
- Xu XD, Liu SX, Zhao XX, et al. Comparison of Medium-term Results of Transcatheter Correction Versus Surgical Treatment for Secundum Type Atrial Septal Defect Combined With Pulmonary Valve Stenosis. Int Heart J. Jul 10 2014;55(4):326-330. PMID 24898601
- Fischer G, Stieh J, Uebing A, et al. Experience with transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects using the Amplatzer septal occluder: a single centre study in 236 consecutive patients. Heart. Feb 2003;89(2):199-204. PMID 12527678
- Du ZD, Koenig P, Cao QL, et al. Comparison of transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defect using the Amplatzer septal occluder associated with deficient versus sufficient rims. Am J Cardiol. Oct 15 2002;90(8):865-869. PMID 12372575
- Oho S, Ishizawa A, Akagi T, et al. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects with the Amplatzer septal occluder--a Japanese clinical trial. Circ J. Sep 2002;66(9):791-794. PMID 12224813
- Brochu MC, Baril JF, Dore A, et al. Improvement in exercise capacity in asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic adults after atrial septal defect percutaneous closure. Circulation. Oct 1 2002;106(14):1821-1826. PMID 12356636
- Grohmann J, Hohn R, Fleck T, et al. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects in children and adolescents: Single-center experience with the GORE septal occluder. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Mar 24 2014. PMID 24664494
- Nyboe C, Hjortdal VE, Nielsen-Kudsk JE. First experiences with the GORE((R)) Septal Occluder in children and adults with atrial septal defects. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Nov 15 2013;82(6):929-934. PMID 23404677
- Yilmazer MM, Guven B, Vupa-Cilengiroglu O, et al. Improvement in cardiac structure and functions early after transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defect in children and adolescents. Turk J Pediatr. Jul-Aug 2013;55(4):401-410. PMID 24292034
- Whitlock RP, Sun JC, Fremes SE, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for valvular disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. Feb 2012;141(2 Suppl):e576S-600S. PMID 22315272
- Albers GW, Amarenco P, Easton JD, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest. Jun 2008;133(6 Suppl):630S-669S. PMID 18574275
- American College of Chest Physicians. Comparing outcomes of medical management and percutaneous closure in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke. Chest 2008; http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1094512&resultClick=3.
- Sacco RL, Adams R, Albers G, et al. Guidelines for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: Co-Sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline. Stroke. February 1, 2006 2006;37(2):577-617. PMID
- Messe SR, Silverman IE, Kizer JR, et al. Practice parameter: recurrent stroke with patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. Apr 13 2004;62(7):1042-1050. PMID 15078999
- Warnes CA, Williams RG, Bashore TM, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop guidelines on the management of adults with congenital heart disease). Circulation. Dec 2 2008;118(23):e714-833. PMID 18997169
Percutaneous transcatheter closure of congenital interatrial communication ( i.e., fontan fenestration, atrial septal defect) with implant.
Ostium secundum type atrial septal defect
Ostium primum type defect
Repair of atrial septal defect with prosthesis, closed technique
Other and unspecified repair of atrial septal defect (i.e., patent foramen ovale)
|ICD-10-CM (effective 10/01/15)||Q21.1||Atrial septal defect (includes ostium secundum defect)|
|Q21.2||Atrioventricular septal defect (includes ostium primum atrial septal defect)|
|ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/01/15)||02Q53ZZ||Atrial septum repair, percutaneous|
|02Q54ZZ||Atrial septum repair, percutaneous endoscopic|
|02U53JZ||Atrial septum repair, percutaneous, with device|
|02U54JZ||Atrial septum repair, percutaneous endoscopic, with device|
Type of Service
Place of Service
Angel wings device
Atrial septal defect, closure
Patent foramen ovale, repair
Sideris buttoned device
|07/16/99||Add to Medicine section||New policy|
|12/15/00||Replace policy||New information on Patent Foramen Ovale-rest unchanged|
|11/20/01||Replace policy||Revised; added requirement to policy statement that patients with patent foramen ovale must first fail a trial of oral anticoagulants.|
|07/12/02||Replace policy||Policy revised; changed policy statement regarding transcatheter device for treatment of ASD; now considered medically necessary.|
|12/18/02||Replace policy||Update CPT code only|
|10/9/03||Replace policy||Literature review update; policy statement unchanged|
|12/11/08||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search; policy rationale revised extensively. References 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, 18-22 added. Information on FDA status of devices updated. Policy statement unchanged, but withdrawal of FDA HDE status alters policy for PFO.|
|04/08/10||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search; references 14, 17–19, and 24 added. Policy statements unchanged|
|9/01/11||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search. Policy statements unchanged. References 5, 8, 15 and 25 added|
|09/13/12||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search. References 3, 6, 7, and 30 added. No change to policy statement.|
|9/12/13||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature search through July 31, 2013. References 4-7, and 25 added. No change to policy statement.|
|9/11/14||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature review through August 1, 2014. References 8-17, 21, 26, 33-37, 40, 48, 53-55, and 58-59 added. No changes to policy statement.|