Clinical InvestigationsPFO Closure and Heart FailureThe Risk of Heart Failure Progression in Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale: Differential Risk Associated With Device Closure
Introduction
Elevated left atrial (LA) pressure is a hallmark feature in patients with heart failure (HF).1 Increased LA pressure contributes to HF progression, with aggravated exertional symptoms and pulmonary congestions.2 Higher LA pressure is also reported to be associated with poor clinical outcomes in HF,3 where the appropriate control of LA pressure showed reductions in adverse events and improvements in functional status.4
The hemodynamic effect of interatrial shunt on relieving LA pressure has been suggested in previous studies. Surgical or device closure of interatrial shunt can aggravate LA pressure and pulmonary edema in patients presenting with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction.5 Recent studies have also introduced an interatrial shunt device for refractory HF, suggesting that it has an effect on reducing LA pressure and symptom improvement.6,7 Regarding long-term clinical events, the presence of an interatrial shunt was reported to be associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and HF over a 10-year period.8
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is one of the most common adult congenital heart diseases, observed in approximately 25% of the general population.9 The clinical significance of PFO as a source of paradoxical embolic events has been documented, leading to clinical trials demonstrating the preventive effect of device closure for PFO on recurrent stroke events.10 However, whether the risk of subsequent HF development differs according to device closure for PFO has not been evaluated in light of the potential role of PFO for relieving increased LA pressure via an interatrial shunt. Therefore, the current study investigated the association between device closure for PFO and subsequent HF risk. Additionally, the risk assessment was stratified according to the underlying structural heart disease or AF.
Section snippets
Study Population
In the current study, we screened 7,277 consecutive patients who underwent transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) between 2007 and 2019 at 2 tertiary medical centers (Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Chungnam National University Hospital) in Korea. The exclusion criteria were a history of significant valvular heart disease, chronic HF, infective endocarditis, open-heart surgery, septal puncture, pulmonary embolism or pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathies, and other critical
Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population
Table 1 summarizes the clinical features of the study population according to the presence of PFO and device closure among patients with PFO. Patients with PFO were younger (64 [53–76] vs 69 [58-80] years; P < .001) but had a higher proportion of male patients (66.5% vs 61.4%; P = .004) compared with those without PFO. The prevalence of clinical risk factors was relatively lower, with a significantly lower rate of AF (4.6% vs 12.6%; P < .001) in patients with PFO than in those without PFO. In
Discussion
In the current study, we evaluated the association of device closure for PFO with subsequent risk of HF hospitalization. The presence of PFO was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome. However, the device closure group showed a higher risk of the primary outcome than the no-closure group. A significant association between device closure and the primary outcome was observed in patients with underlying structural heart disease or AF, demonstrating an increasing trend in
Conclusion
The presence of PFO was associated with a lower risk of HF. Patients with underlying structural heart disease or AF may be predisposed to symptomatic HF progression after device closure for PFO. Therefore, careful medical surveillance for clinical symptoms with optimal risk factor management is needed in these patients.
References (21)
- et al.
Wedge pressure rather than left ventricular end-diastolic pressure predicts outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
JACC Heart Fail
(2017) - et al.
Effects of an interatrial shunt on rest and exercise hemodynamics: results of a computer simulation in heart failure
J Card Fail
(2014) - et al.
A transcatheter intracardiac shunt device for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (REDUCE LAP-HF): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1 trial
The Lancet
(2016) - et al.
Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging
J Am Soc Echocardiogr
(2015) - et al.
Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists
J Am Soc Echocardiogr
(2013) - et al.
Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the American Society of echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging
J Am Soc Echocardiogr
(2016) - et al.
2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American heart association Joint Committee on clinical Practice guidelines
Circulation
(2022) - et al.
Interatrial shunt device for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Front Cardiovasc Med
(2019) - et al.
Physician-directed patient self-management of left atrial pressure in advanced chronic heart failure
Circulation
(2010) - et al.
One-year outcomes after transcatheter Insertion of an interatrial shunt device for the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Circ Heart Fail
(2016)
Cited by (1)
The Intriguing Links Among Patent Foramen Ovale, Patent Foramen Ovale Closure, and the Risk for Heart Failure
2023, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography
Conflicts of Interest: None.
This research was supported by the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, South Korea Research Fund (grant no. 14-2021-0039). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.