Abstract 4372903: Cortical Stroke from PFO in Malignancy-Associated Hypercoagulability: To Close or Not to Close? A Case Report and Narrative Literature Review

S Shreyas Nandyal (Cook County Health, Chicago , Illinois, United States) G Gedion Yilma Amdetison (Cook County Health, Chicago, Illinois, United States) R Rohan Gajjar (Cook County Health, Chicago, Illinois, United States) R Revati Varma (Department of Cardiovascular Medicine (Y.N.V.R., R.P.F., W.R.M., R.V., B.A.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.) S Sukriti Banthiya (Henry Ford Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan, United States) S Sanjay Kumar H Hasan Hammo (Cook County Health, Chicago , Illinois, United States)

Abstract

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a recognized contributor to embolic stroke, especially in hypercoagulable states (HCSs). However, patients with HCSs, including malignancy, were excluded from major PFO closure trials, creating a significant evidence gap. Objectives: This narrative review examines the role of PFO closure in secondary stroke prevention among patients with HCSs, including malignancy. We highlight key studies and current evidence in this understudied population. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed was conducted using pertinent MeSH terms. Due to limited data, a narrative synthesis of the literature was performed. Case Presentation and Narrative Review of Literature: A 43-year-old lady with a history of metastatic breast cancer and recent bilateral pulmonary emboli on anticoagulation (AC), presented with expressive aphasia. MRI brain confirmed a Broca-area infarct. Biopsy of an expansile pelvic mass yielded a diagnosis of ovarian mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. TEE demonstrated a PFO; an embolic stroke driven by hypercoagulability of malignancy was diagnosed. PFO closure was offered for secondary stroke prevention after risk-benefit discussion, as opposed to AC alone. While early trials (CLOSURE I, PC) showed no benefit of closure, subsequent studies (RESPECT, REDUCE, DEFENSE-PFO) favored it in selected patients, but notably, these trials excluded patients with HCSs and malignancy. The benefit of PFO closure in this population thus comes largely from observational data. Abrahamyan et al. found that PFO closure could be safely offered in patients with thrombophilia to prevent recurrent stroke. Liu et al., in their prospective study, noted that among patients with cryptogenic stroke and thrombophilia, PFO closure lowered the risk of recurrence. Similarly, a retrospective study from Greece found benefit from PFO closure in this population. Buber et al. found that among patients with HCSs and stroke, PFO closure offered a five-fold risk reduction from future CVA/TIA. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) guidelines recommend PFO closure in patients with thrombophilia for secondary stroke prevention (conditional recommendation- low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: Data on PFO closure for secondary stroke prevention in HCSs and malignancy are scant, necessitating individualized decision making. Current evidence supports PFO closure, but future studies are needed specifically in this vulnerable population.

Article Details

Journal Circulation
Volume / Issue Vol. 152, Issue Suppl_3
Published November 04, 2025
ISSN 0009-7322
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Circulation

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0009-7322 Health Sciences

Authors (7)

S

Shreyas Nandyal

Cook County Health, Chicago , Illinois, United States

G

Gedion Yilma Amdetison

Cook County Health, Chicago, Illinois, United States

R

Rohan Gajjar

Cook County Health, Chicago, Illinois, United States

R

Revati Varma

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine (Y.N.V.R., R.P.F., W.R.M., R.V., B.A.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

S

Sukriti Banthiya

Henry Ford Providence Hospital, Southfield, Michigan, United States

S

Sanjay Kumar

H

Hasan Hammo

Cook County Health, Chicago , Illinois, United States