What are the indications for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 18, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Indications for Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Closure

PFO closure is indicated for carefully selected patients aged 18-60 years with cryptogenic embolic stroke and high-risk PFO features (atrial septal aneurysm or moderate-to-large shunt), after excluding other stroke etiologies including atrial fibrillation, left-sided cardiac disease, and severe aortic atherosclerosis. 1

Primary Indication: Cryptogenic Stroke in Young Patients

The strongest evidence supports closure in patients ≤60 years with cryptogenic stroke and high-risk PFO anatomical features. 1 This recommendation carries a Class IIb designation from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, though Canadian guidelines have upgraded this to Level A for carefully-selected patients. 1

High-Risk PFO Features That Favor Closure:

  • Atrial septal aneurysm (increases stroke risk with OR 15.59 in patients ≤55 years) 1
  • Moderate shunt (6-25 microbubbles on bubble study) or large shunt (>25 microbubbles) 1
  • Young age (<45 years shows better outcomes with 0% recurrence vs 35% in those ≥45 years) 2
  • High RoPE score (9-10 indicates 77% likelihood PFO caused the stroke) 3

Expected Benefit:

Pooled trial data demonstrates closure reduces stroke recurrence from 5.8% to 3.6% (OR 0.62), with annualized stroke rates of 0.47% vs 1.09% over median 57-month follow-up. 1, 3 In PASCAL "probable" patients (younger, no vascular risk factors, high-risk PFO features), closure provides 90% relative risk reduction (absolute risk reduction 2.1%). 3

Absolute Contraindications to Closure:

Do not close PFO in patients with: 1

  • Indication for long-term anticoagulation (benefit unclear in this population)
  • Small deep infarcts/lacunar strokes (suggests small vessel disease, not paradoxical embolism)
  • Low-risk PFO (no atrial septal aneurysm, small shunt visible only with Valsalva in older patients)
  • Age >60 years (uncertain benefit, complications may outweigh benefits)

Critical Pre-Closure Diagnostic Requirements:

Before attributing stroke to PFO, you must exclude: 1

  • Atrial fibrillation (extended cardiac monitoring)
  • Left-sided cardiac disease (thrombus, valvular disease)
  • Severe atherosclerosis of thoracic aorta
  • Large artery atherosclerosis causing stroke

Ideally confirm: 1

  • Presence of venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (supports paradoxical embolism mechanism)
  • Cortical infarct pattern on imaging (not lacunar)

Special Populations Where Closure May Be Considered:

Decompression Sickness:

Consider closure only for multiple recurrences in individuals who must continue high-risk activities (high-volume divers, compressed-air tunnel workers, high-altitude aviators, astronauts). 1

Right-Sided Cardiac Disease:

Patients with elevated right atrial pressures causing right-to-left shunting may warrant closure, but this requires highly individualized assessment. 1

Insufficient Evidence/Not Recommended:

  • Migraine with aura: Insufficient evidence to recommend closure 1
  • Peripheral paradoxical embolism (MI, renal infarction, limb ischemia): No recommendations due to lack of evidence-based support 1
  • Small PFO visible only with Valsalva in patients >60 years: Uncertain benefit 1

Procedural Risks to Discuss:

Patients must understand: 1

  • Atrial fibrillation: 4.6-6.6% incidence
  • Serious device-related adverse events: 1.4-5.9%
  • Late complications: Pericardial effusion, device erosion, thrombus formation
  • Procedural success rate: 98.9%
  • Residual shunt: 5.7% at follow-up 4

Common Pitfalls to Avoid:

Do not close PFO without: 1

  • Thorough neurological evaluation excluding other stroke causes
  • Transesophageal echocardiography confirming PFO and assessing anatomical features
  • Consideration of patient age (benefit diminishes significantly after age 45-60) 2
  • Shared decision-making discussion about risks vs benefits

The PASCAL classification system (combining RoPE score with anatomical features) helps identify patients most likely to benefit: "probable" patients show substantial benefit, while "unlikely" patients have higher procedural risks without clear benefit. 3

References

Guideline

Indications for Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Closure

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Research

Complications and mid-term outcome after percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke.

Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2008

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.