Clinical predictors of prophylaxis use prior to the onset of acute venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER).

BACKGROUND: We investigated clinical predictors of appropriate prophylaxis prior to the onset of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: In 14 Swiss hospitals, 567 consecutive patients (306 medical, 261 surgical) with acute VTE and hospitalization < 30 days prior to the VTE event were enrolled. RESULTS: Prophylaxis was used in 329 (58%) patients within 30 days prior to the VTE event. Among the medical patients, 146 (48%) received prophylaxis, and among the surgical patients, 183 (70%) received prophylaxis (P < 0.001). The indication for prophylaxis was present in 262 (86%) medical patients and in 217 (83%) surgical patients. Among the patients with an indication for prophylaxis, 135 (52%) of the medical patients and 165 (76%) of the surgical patients received prophylaxis (P < 0.001). Admission to the intensive care unit [odds ratio (OR) 3.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.94-5.57], recent surgery (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.51-3.44), bed rest > 3 days (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.45-3.09), obesity (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.03-3.90), prior deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31-2.24) and prior pulmonary embolism (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.26) were independent predictors of prophylaxis. In contrast, cancer (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89-1.25), age (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.01), acute heart failure (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.79-1.63) and acute respiratory failure (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.89-1.59) were not predictive of prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Although an indication for prophylaxis was present in most patients who suffered acute VTE, almost half did not receive any form of prophylaxis. Future efforts should focus on the improvement of prophylaxis for hospitalized patients, particularly in patients with cancer, acute heart or respiratory failure, and in the elderly.

Lack of prophylaxis before the onset of acute venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients: the SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER).

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis remains underutilized, particularly in cancer patients. We explored clinical predictors of prophylaxis in hospitalized cancer patients before the onset of acute VTE. METHODS: In the SWiss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry, 257 cancer patients (61 +/- 15 years) with acute VTE and prior hospitalization for acute medical illness or surgery within 30 days (91% were at high risk with Geneva VTE risk score > or =3) were enrolled. RESULTS: Overall, 153 (60%) patients received prophylaxis (49% pharmacological and 21% mechanical) before the onset of acute VTE. Outpatient status at the time of VTE diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.53], ongoing chemotherapy (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.85), and recent chemotherapy (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.88) were univariately associated with the absence of VTE prophylaxis. In multivariate analysis, intensive care unit admission within 30 days (OR 7.02, 95% CI 2.38-20.64), prior deep vein thrombosis (OR 3.48, 95% CI 2.14-5.64), surgery within 30 days (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.19-4.99), bed rest >3 days (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.08-3.78), and outpatient status (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.76) remained the only independent predictors of thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Although most hospitalized cancer patients were at high risk, 40% did not receive any prophylaxis before the onset of acute VTE. There is a need to improve thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients, particularly in the presence of recent or ongoing chemotherapy.

Prévention du syndrome post-thrombotique [Prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome].

Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the most frequent chronic complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with an estimated prevalence of 30-50%. PTS is a significant cause of disability, especially when complicated by venous ulcers. Therefore, PTS has important socio-economic consequences for both the patient and the health care system. Actually, the efficacy of PTS treatment is very limited; therefore, best treatment remains prevention. Compression therapy, particularly by graduated compression stockings (GCS) has a pivotal role in PTS prophylaxis. Aim of this article is to resume state of the art literature on this subject. Recommendations on PTS prevention have even been reported.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSION: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

La thrombose veineuse profonde chez l'adolescent [Venous thromboembolic disease in adolescents]

Deep vein thrombosis in children and adolescents is a quite rare event. Risk factors most often associated with DVT in this particular population are: central vein catheters, neoplasia, vascular malformations and oral contraception. Diagnosis and management of DVT in adolescents does not differ greatly from that of adults. Compression ultrasound is the initial exam of choice. Hospitalization is often not necessary and treatment can be started by using low molecular weight heparin followed by oral anti-vitamin K antagonists. Thrombophilia screening is not routinely recommended and should be reserved for those patients for whom results would change therapeutical management.

Validation of a clinical algorithm to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism.

Summary Background: We previously derived a clinical prognostic algorithm to identify patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who are at low-risk of short-term mortality who could be safely discharged early or treated entirely in an outpatient setting. Objectives: To externally validate the clinical prognostic algorithm in an independent patient sample. Methods: We validated the algorithm in 983 consecutive patients prospectively diagnosed with PE at an emergency department of a university hospital. Patients with none of the algorithm's 10 prognostic variables (age >/= 70 years, cancer, heart failure, chronic lung disease, chronic renal disease, cerebrovascular disease, pulse >/= 110/min., systolic blood pressure < 100 mm Hg, oxygen saturation < 90%, and altered mental status) at baseline were defined as low-risk. We compared 30-day overall mortality among low-risk patients based on the algorithm between the validation and the original derivation sample. We also assessed the rate of PE-related and bleeding-related mortality among low-risk patients. Results: Overall, the algorithm classified 16.3% of patients with PE as low-risk. Mortality at 30 days was 1.9% among low-risk patients and did not differ between the validation and the original derivation sample. Among low-risk patients, only 0.6% died from definite or possible PE, and 0% died from bleeding. Conclusions: This study validates an easy-to-use, clinical prognostic algorithm for PE that accurately identifies patients with PE who are at low-risk of short-term mortality. Low-risk patients based on our algorithm are potential candidates for less costly outpatient treatment.

Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Whether the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban can be an alternative to warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism is unclear. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, we randomly assigned patients with acute venous thromboembolism, who had initially received heparin, to receive edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily, or 30 mg once daily (e.g., in the case of patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 50 ml per minute or a body weight below 60 kg), or to receive warfarin. Patients received the study drug for 3 to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4921 patients presented with deep-vein thrombosis, and 3319 with a pulmonary embolism. Among patients receiving warfarin, the time in the therapeutic range was 63.5%. Edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the primary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 130 patients in the edoxaban group (3.2%) and 146 patients in the warfarin group (3.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.13; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The safety outcome occurred in 349 patients (8.5%) in the edoxaban group and 423 patients (10.3%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P=0.004 for superiority). The rates of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. A total of 938 patients with pulmonary embolism had right ventricular dysfunction, as assessed by measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels; the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in this subgroup was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.2% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was noninferior to high-quality standard therapy and caused significantly less bleeding in a broad spectrum of patients with venous thromboembolism, including those with severe pulmonary embolism. (Funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; Hokusai-VTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00986154.).

Indications, management, and complications of temporary inferior vena cava filters

PURPOSE: We describe the results of a preliminary prospective study using different recently developed temporary and retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. METHODS: Fifty temporary IVC filters (Gunther, Gunther Tulip, Antheor) were inserted in 47 patients when the required period of protection against pulmonary embolism (PE) was estimated to be less than 2 weeks. The indications were documented deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and temporary contraindications for anticoagulation, a high risk for PE, and PE despite DVT prophylaxis. RESULTS: Filters were removed 1-12 days after placement and nine (18%) had captured thrombi. Complications were one PE during and after removal of a filter, two minor filter migrations, and one IVC thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Temporary filters are effective in trapping clots and protecting against PE, and the complication rate does not exceed that of permanent filters. They are an alternative when protection from PE is required temporarily, and should be considered in patients with a normal life expectancy.

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is traditionally treated in hospital. Growing evidence from non randomized prospective studies suggests that a substantial proportion of patients with non-massive PE might be safely treated in the outpatient setting using low molecular weight heparins. Based on this evidence, professional societies started to recommend outpatient care for selected patients with non-massive PE. Despite these recommendations, outpatient treatment of non-massive PE appears to be uncommon in clinical practice. The major barriers to PE outpatient care are, firstly, the uncertainty as how to identify low risk patients with PE who are candidates for outpatient care and secondly the lack of high quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating the safety of PE outpatient care compared to traditional inpatient management. Also, although clinical prognostic models, echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers accurately identify low risk patients with PE in prospective studies, the benefit of risk stratification strategies based on these instruments should be demonstrated in prospective management studies and clinical trials before they can be implemented as decision aids to guide PE outpatient treatment. Before high quality evidence documenting the safety of an outpatient treatment approach is published, outpatient management of non-massive PE cannot be generally recommended.

Cardiac re-synchronization therapy in a patient with isolated ventricular non-compaction: a case report.

Isolated ventricular non-compaction (IVNC) is a rare, congenital, unclassified cardiomyopathy characterized by prominent trabecular meshwork and deep recesses. Major clinical manifestations of IVNC are heart failure, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, and thrombo-embolic events. We describe a case of a 69-year-old woman in whom the diagnosis of IVNC was discovered late, whereas former echocardiographic examinations were considered normal. She was known for systolic left ventricular dysfunction for 3 years and then became symptomatic (NYHA III). In the past, she suffered from multiple episodes of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Electrocardiogram revealed a wide QRS complex, and transthoracic echocardiography showed typical apical thickening of the left and right ventricular myocardial wall with two distinct layers. The ratio of non-compacted to compacted myocardium was >2:1. Cardiac MRI confirmed the echocardiographic images. Cerebral MRI revealed multiple ischaemic sequellae. In view of the persistent refractory, heart failure in medical treatment of patients with classical criteria for cardiac re-synchronization therapy, as well as the ventricular arrhythmias, a biventricular automatic intracardiac defibrillator (biventricular ICD) was implanted. The 2-year follow-up period was characterized by improvement of NYHA functional class from III to I and increasing in left ventricular function. We hereby present a case of IVNC with favourable outcome after biventricular ICD implantation. Cardiac re-synchronization therapy could be considered in the management of this pathology.

Combinations of prognostic tools for identification of high-risk normotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.

Background: In haemodynamically stable patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), studies have not evaluated the usefulness of combining the measurement of cardiac troponin, transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), and lower extremity complete compression ultrasound (CCUS) testing for predicting the risk of PE-related death. Methods: The study assessed the ability of three diagnostic tests (cardiac troponin I (cTnI), echocardiogram, and CCUS) to prognosticate the primary outcome of PE-related mortality during 30 days of follow-up after a diagnosis of PE by objective testing. Results: Of 591 normotensive patients diagnosed with PE, the primary outcome occurred in 37 patients (6.3%; 95% CI 4.3% to 8.2%). Patients with right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) by TTE and concomitant deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by CCUS had a PE-related mortality of 19.6%, compared with 17.1% of patients with elevated cTnI and concomitant DVT and 15.2% of patients with elevated cTnI and RVD. The use of any two-test strategy had a higher specificity and positive predictive value compared with the use of any test by itself. A combined three-test strategy did not further improve prognostication. For a subgroup analysis of high-risk patients, according to the pulmonary embolism severity index (classes IV and V), positive predictive values of the two-test strategies for PE-related mortality were 25.0%, 24.4% and 20.7%, respectively. Conclusions: In haemodynamically stable patients with acute symptomatic PE, a combination of echocardiography (or troponin testing) and CCUS improved prognostication compared with the use of any test by itself for the identification of those at high risk of PE-related death.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of inpatients versus outpatients with venous thromboembolism: findings from the RIETE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) treated with anticoagulants are at risk of death from pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or bleeding. However, whether patients who develop VTE in hospital have a higher complication rate than those who develop VTE in an outpatient setting is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RIETE is an ongoing, prospective registry of consecutive patients with acute, objectively confirmed, symptomatic VTE. We compared the 3-month incidence of fatal PE and fatal bleeding in patients in whom the VTE had developed while in hospital for another medical condition (inpatients) with those who presented to the emergency ward because of VTE (outpatients). RESULTS: Up to April 2008, 22,133 patients with acute VTE were enrolled: 10,461 (47%) presented with PE, 11,672 with deep vein thrombosis. Overall, 6445 (29%) were inpatients. During the study period, those who developed VTE as inpatients had a significantly higher incidence of fatal PE (2.1% vs. 1.5%; odds ratio: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.7), overall death (7.0% vs. 5.4%; odds ratio: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.2-1.5), and major bleeding (2.9% vs. 2.1%; odds ratio: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) than outpatients. The incidence of fatal bleeding was not significantly increased (0.7% vs. 0.5%; odds ratio: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.9-1.8). In multivariable analysis, inpatient status was significantly associated with a higher risk for fatal PE (odds ratio: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). CONCLUSIONS: VTE occurring in hospitalized patients carries a significantly higher risk for death of PE than in outpatients, underscoring the importance of VTE prevention strategies in the hospital setting.

Should pulmonary embolism be suspected in exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?

BACKGROUND: The cause of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often difficult to determine. Pulmonary embolism may be a trigger of acute dyspnoea in patients with COPD. AIM: To determine the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD. METHODS: 123 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency departments of two academic teaching hospitals for acute exacerbation of moderate to very severe COPD were included. Pulmonary embolism was investigated in all patients (whether or not clinically suspected) following a standardised algorithm based on d-dimer testing, lower-limb venous ultrasonography and multidetector helical computed tomography scan. RESULTS: Pulmonary embolism was ruled out by a d-dimer value <500 microg/l in 28 (23%) patients and a by negative chest computed tomography scan in 91 (74%). Computed tomography scan showed pulmonary embolism in four patients (3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2% to 8%), including three lobar and one sub-segmental embolisms. The prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 6.2% (n = 3; 95% CI, 2.3% to 16.9%) in the 48 patients who had a clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism and 1.3% (n = 1; 95% CI, 0.3% to 7.1%) in those not suspected. In two cases with positive computed tomography scan, the venous ultrasonography also showed a proximal deep-vein thrombosis. No other patient was diagnosed with venous thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of unsuspected pulmonary embolism is very low in patients admitted in the emergency department for an acute exacerbation of their COPD. These results argue against a systematic examination for pulmonary embolism in this population.

Incidence and management of pulmonary embolism following spinal surgery occurring while under chemical thromboprophylaxis.

Patients undergoing spinal surgery are at risk of developing thromboembolic complications even though lower incidences have been reported as compared to joint arthroplasty surgery. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been studied extensively in the context of spinal surgery but symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) has engaged less attention. We prospectively followed a consecutive cohort of 270 patients undergoing spinal surgery at a single institution. From these patients, only 26 were simple discectomies, while the largest proportion (226) was fusions. All patients received both low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) initiated after surgery and compressive stockings. PE was diagnosed with spiral chest CT. Six patients developed symptomatic PE, five during their hospital stay. In three of the six patients the embolic event occurred during the first 3 postoperative days. They were managed by the temporary insertion of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter thus allowing for a delay in full-dose anticoagulation until removal of the filter. None of the PE patients suffered any bleeding complication as a result of the introduction of full anticoagulation. Two patients suffered postoperative haematomas, without development of neurological symptoms or signs, requiring emergency evacuation. The overall incidence of PE was 2.2% rising to 2.5% after exclusion of microdiscectomy cases. The incidence of PE was highest in anterior or combined thoracolumbar/lumbar procedures (4.2%). There is a large variation in the reported incidence of PE in the spinal literature. Results from the only study found in the literature specifically monitoring PE suggest an incidence of PE as high as 2.5%. Our study shows a similar incidence despite the use of LMWH. In the absence of randomized controlled trials (RCT) it is uncertain if this type of prophylaxis lowers the incidence of PE. However, other studies show that the morbidity of LMWH is very low. Since PE can be a life-threatening complication, LMWH may be a worthwhile option to consider for prophylaxis. RCTs are necessary in assessing the efficacy of DVT and PE prophylaxis in spinal patients.

Patent foramen ovale in patients with ischaemic stroke of unknown cause: to close? "pro closure" position

There is ample epidemiological and anecdotal evidence that a PFO increases the risk of stroke both in young and elderly patients, although only in a modest way: PFOs are more prevalent in patients with cryptogenic (unexplained) stroke than in healthy subjects, and are more prevalent in cryptogenic stroke than in strokes of other causes. Furthermore, multiple case series confirm an association of paradoxical embolism across a PFO in patients with deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary emboli.2. Is stroke recurrence risk in PFO-patients really not elevated when compared to PFO-free patients, as suggested by traditional observational studies? This finding is an epidemiological artifact called "the paradox of recurrence risk research" (Dahabreh & Kent, JAMA 2011) and is due to one (minor) risk factor, such as PFO, being wiped out by other, stronger risk factors in the control population.3. Having identified PFO as a risk factor for a first stroke and probably also for recurrences, we have to treat it, because treating risk factors always has paid off. No one would nowadays question the aggressive treatment of other risk factors of stroke such as hypertension, atrial fibrillation, smoking, or hyperlipidemia.4. In order to be effective, the preventive treatment has to control the risk factor (i.e. close effectively the PFO), and has to have little or no side effects. Both these conditions are now fulfilled thanks to increasing expertise of cardiologists with technically advanced closure devices and solid back up by multidisciplinary stroke teams.5. Closing a PFO does not dispense us from treating other stroke risk factors aggressively, given that these are cumulative with PFO.6. The most frequent reason why patients have a stroke recurrence after PFO closure is not that closure is ineffective, but that the initial stroke etiology is insufficiently investigated and not PFO related, and that the recurrence is due to another mechanism because of poor risk factor control.7. Similarly, the randomized CLOSURE study was negative because a) patients were included who had a low chance that their initial event was due to the PFO, b) patients were selected with a low chance that a PFO-related recurrence would occur, c) there was an unacceptable high rate of closure-related side effects, and d) the number of randomized patients was too small for a prevention trial.8. It is only a question of time until a sufficiently large randomized clinical trial with true PFO-related stroke patients and a high PFO-related recurrence risk will be performed and show the effectiveness of this closure9. PFO being a rather modest risk factor for stroke does not mean we should prevent our patients from getting the best available prevention by the best physicians in the best stroke centers Therefore, a PFO-closure performed by an excellent cardiologist following the recommendation of an expert neurovascular specialist after a thorough workup in a leading stroke center is one of the most effective stroke prevention treatments available in 2011.