system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, RESULTS. Meshes: Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cardiac Catheterization, Coronary Artery Disease, Embolism, Paradoxical, Female, Germany, Heart Septal Defects, Atrial, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Selection, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Recurrence, Treatment Outcome.
user
Does exclusion of patients with arteriosclerosis reduce long-term recurrence rate of presumed arterial embolism after PFO closure? Context: Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent interatrial communications after presumed paradoxical embolism is used as an alternative to surgery or long-term anticoagulation for the treatment of patients who are at risk for recurrent thromboembolism. To avoid atherosclerotic events to be judged as recurrent paradoxical embolism, we prospectively excluded all patients with detectable arteriosclerosis from our series and investigated long-term results. We report the outcome of 180 patients who underwent percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO), PFO like atrial septal defect (ASD), or an ASD because of paradoxical embolism. One hundred four patients had cerebral embolism, 57 had transient ischemic attacks, 16 coronary embolism, and 3 had peripheral embolism. Twenty-three patients experienced multilocal arterial embolism. One hundred twenty-five patients had a PFO, 63 of them with an atrial septal aneurysm (ASA), 24 a PFO-like ASD (7 of them with an ASA), and 31 had an ASD. After 18 months, only 5 patients (2.8%) showed a trivial residual shunt. At a mean follow-up of 40 months (range 4 to 88), resulting in 602 observed patient-years, only 1 patient experienced a presumed paradoxical (coronary) embolism (calculated annual risk to suffer a recurrent thromboembolic event: 0.16%).
assistant
Percutaneous transcatheter closure of PFO/ASD is a safe and effective therapeutic option for the secondary prevention of presumed paradoxical embolism. It is associated with a high success rate, low incidence of hospital complications, and very low frequency of recurrent systemic embolic events. Final Decision: yes