Patent Foramen Ovale and Secondary Stroke Prevention
Summary of Recommendations
PFO is highly prevalent, found in approximately 25% of the general adult population on agitated-saline TEE and cadaveric studies. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (TCD) has been demonstrated to have similar sensitivity and specificity to TEE to detect right-to-left shunting, although TCD does not rule out other cardioembolic sources seen on TEE and cannot confirm that shunting is intracardiac or assess PFO morphology, including anatomic size, location, and length of the tunnel. Multiple studies have identified an association between PFO and otherwise cryptogenic stroke, with increasing PFO prevalence in younger patients with stroke and those lacking traditional vascular risk factors such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes.
The risk of stroke recurrence in patients with PFO and no other etiology identified is low, approximately 1% per year while individuals are treated with medication alone. This stroke risk is generally lower than the stroke risk caused by other possible common stroke mechanisms. Thus, if an alternative plausible higher risk mechanism of stroke is identified, it is likely that the PFO was an “innocent bystander.”
In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should ensure that an appropriately thorough evaluation has been performed to rule out alternative mechanisms of stroke, as was performed in all positive PFO closure trials (level B).
In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should obtain brain imaging to confirm stroke size and distribution, assessing for an embolic pattern or a lacunar infarct (typically involving a single deep perforator, <1.5 cm in diameter) (level B).
In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should obtain complete vascular imaging (MRA or CTA) of the cervical and intracranial vessels to look for dissection, vasculopathy, and atherosclerosis (level B).
In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians must perform a baseline ECG to look for atrial fibrillation (level A).
Select patients being considered for PFO closure thought to be at risk of atrial fibrillation should receive prolonged cardiac monitoring for at least 28 days (level B). Risk factors for atrial fibrillation include age ≥50 years, hypertension, obesity, sleep apnea, enlarged left atrium, elevated NT-proBNP, frequent premature atrial contractions, and increased P-wave dispersion. Recently published guidelines from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society recommend prolonged ECG monitoring following cryptogenic stroke for patients older than 40 years, although more research is needed to define the yield in unselected young patients and in patients with PFO.33
In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should assess for cardioembolic sources using TTE followed by TEE assessment if the first study does not identify a high-risk stroke mechanism. Studies should use bubble contrast, with and without Valsalva maneuver, to assess for right-to-left shunt and determine degree of shunting (level B).
In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians should perform hypercoagulable studies that would be considered a plausible high-risk stroke mechanism that would lead to a change in management such as requiring lifelong anticoagulation (e.g., persistent moderate- or high-titer antiphospholipid antibodies in a younger patient with cryptogenic stroke)34 (level B).
In patients being considered for PFO closure, clinicians may use TCD agitated saline contrast as a screening evaluation for right-to-left shunt, but this does not obviate the need for TTE and TEE to rule out alternative mechanisms of cardio embolism and confirm that right-to-left shunting is intracardiac and transseptal (level C).
Before undergoing PFO closure, patients should be assessed by a clinician with expertise in stroke to ensure that the PFO is the most plausible mechanism of stroke (level B).
If a higher risk alternative mechanism of stroke is identified, clinicians should not routinely recommend PFO closure (level B).
Before undergoing PFO closure, patients should be assessed by a clinician with expertise in assessing the degree of shunting and anatomic features of a PFO, and performing PFO closure, to assess whether the PFO is anatomically appropriate for closure, to ascertain whether other factors are present that could modify the risk of the procedure, and to address postprocedure management (level B).
In patients with a PFO detected after stroke and no other etiology identified after a thorough evaluation, clinicians should counsel that having a PFO is common; that it occurs in about 1 in 4 adults in the general population; that it is difficult to determine with certainty whether their PFO caused their stroke; and that PFO closure probably reduces recurrent stroke risk in select patients (level B).
In patients younger than 60 years with a PFO and an embolic-appearing infarct and no other mechanism of stroke identified, clinicians may recommend closure following a discussion of potential benefits (reduction of stroke recurrence) and risks (procedural complication and atrial fibrillation) (level C).
Clinicians may inform patients that presence of a large shunt probably is associated with benefit from closure. Conversely, there probably is less likelihood of benefit in patients with a small shunt or a non–embolic-appearing single, small, deep infarct, and it is uncertain whether atrial septal aneurysm in the absence of a large shunt influences the likelihood of benefitting from PFO closure (level C).
PFO closure may be offered in other populations, such as for a patient who is aged 60–65 years with a very limited degree of traditional vascular risk factors (i.e., hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or smoking) and no other mechanism of stroke detected following a thorough evaluation, including prolonged monitoring for atrial fibrillation (level C).
PFO closure may be offered to younger patients (e.g., <30 years) with a single, small, deep stroke (<1.5 cm), a large shunt, and absence of any vascular risk factors that would lead to intrinsic small-vessel disease such as hypertension, diabetes, or hyperlipidemia (level C).
In a patient for whom PFO closure is being considered, a shared decision-making approach between clinicians and the patient should be used, exploring how well the patient's attributes match those included in the positive PFO closure trials and the patient's preferences and concerns regarding risk of stroke recurrence and risk of adverse events (level B).
In patients who opt to receive medical therapy alone without PFO closure, clinicians may recommend either an antiplatelet medication such as aspirin or anticoagulation (using a vitamin K antagonist, a direct thrombin inhibitor, or a factor Xa inhibitor) (level C).
In patients who would otherwise be considered good candidates for PFO closure but require long-term anticoagulation because of suspected or proven hypercoagulability (defined thrombophilia, unprovoked deep venous thrombosis, or unprovoked pulmonary embolism), clinicians should counsel the patient that the efficacy of PFO closure in addition to anticoagulation cannot be confirmed or refuted (level B).
Patent Foramen Ovale and Secondary Stroke Prevention
April 29, 2020
Last Updated Month/Year
July 6, 2023
Supplemental Implementation Tools
External Publication Status
Country of Publication
To update the 2016 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice advisory for patients with stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO)
Target Patient Population
All adult patients being considered for PFO closure
Target Provider Population
Neurologists, cardiologists and internists who treat patients being considered for PFO closure
Male, Female, Adolescent, Adult, Child, Older adult
Health Care Settings
Ambulatory, Hospital, Operating and recovery room
Nurse, nurse practitioner, physician, physician assistant
D020521 - Stroke, D054092 - Foramen Ovale, Patent
stroke, Stroke Prevention, PFO, patent foramen ovale, PFO closure, cryptogenic stroke, stroke recurrence, cryptogenic ischemic stroke
Messé SR, Gronseth GS, Kent DM, Kizer JR, Homma S, Rosterman L, Carroll JD, Ishida K, Sangha N, Kasner SE. Practice advisory update summary: Patent foramen ovale and secondary stroke prevention: Report of the Guideline Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2020 May 19;94(20):876-885. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009443. Epub 2020 Apr 29. PMID: 32350058; PMCID: PMC7526671.