{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017437452615617893, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0075815011372251705, 'mean_word_length': 5.111111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of device closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke

One of the most frequent causes of cardiac embolism in cryptogenic stroke is a paradoxical embolus, which originate from systemic venous source though an unidentified patent foramen ovale (PFO). PFO is a common finding in the general population with a prevalence of 25% to 30%. Transcatheter PFO device closure is known to be feasible and safety treatment for such patients. In recent years, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to address the superiority of PFO closure over medical therapy alone in the prevention of stroke recurrence in patients with PFO. In contrast to findings from early 3 RCTs, recent 4 RCTs could successfully show the benefits of PFO device closure compared with medical therapy, with less peri‐ and postprocedural complication. Based on these data, PFO device closure is recommended to carefully select cryptogenic stroke patients aged from 18 to 65 years, with a high probability of a causal role of the PFO in stroke events. However, it is still uncertain whether PFO closure is superior to oral anticoagulants therapy in these patients. Therefore, further prospective randomized trials are needed to address the efficacy of PFO device closure to oral anticoagulants therapy.