To the Editor: I wish to congratulate the authors of the current “Controversies in Stroke” on their critical discussion of secondary prevention in patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) and cryptogenic stroke.1–3 In the absence of definitive data in this scenario, they focus a large part of their discussion on the possible treatment options quoting the 2 most cited recently published prospective multicenter studies that evaluated the stroke recurrence risk in patients with PFO.4,5 I fully agree with the authors that the best medical therapy has not yet be determined; furthermore, there is no doubt that another trial randomizing patients <55 years of age either to device closure or medical therapy is necessary. More or less all authors accept that there is an association between the presence of PFO and stroke. Unfortunately, despite the controversy surrounding PFO identification/quantification, I am missing a critical …
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2004
- Venue
Stroke
- Publication date
2004-06-01
- Fields of study
Medicine
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar, PubMed
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-18 of 18 references · Page 1 of 1