ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Frequency of Atrial Tachyarrhythmias following Transcatheter Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale

aJamshid Alaeddini, MD, bGeorges Feghali, MD, bStephen Jenkins, MD, bStephen Ramee, MD, bChristopher White, MD, bFreddy Abi-Samra, MD
aJamshid Alaeddini, MD, bGeorges Feghali, MD, bStephen Jenkins, MD, bStephen Ramee, MD, bChristopher White, MD, bFreddy Abi-Samra, MD
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a frequent finding in young patients with cryptogenic stroke.1–4 PFO has also been related to migraine,5 platypnea-orthodoxia syndrome (condition in which shortness of breath and hypoxemia occur when upright and resolve when prone),6 and decompression illness in divers.7 Long-term anticoagulation8 and surgical closure of PFO have been used as therapeutic options,9–12 however, their results have been mixed with respect to stroke prevention. Recently, percutaneous transcatheter PFO closure techniques have been used more frequently as a therapeutic option in these patients.13–20 Several studies have also reported varying frequencies of ATs following transcatheter closure of PFO.15–20 However, the effect of percutaneous transcatheter PFO closure techniques on ATs is not well studied. We report the frequency of ATs in patients who underwent transcatheter closure of PFO at our institution. Methods Patient population. The patient population included 71 patients with PFO and ? 1 cryptogenic stroke or orthodoxia between February 2001 and March 2004. All patients underwent complete neurological evaluation prior to the procedure. Patients’ evaluation included 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), Holter monitoring, two-dimensional (2-D) echocardiography, extracranial Doppler ultrasound, brain computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging. Patients with other identifiable etiologies for the stroke were excluded. All patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) (Hewlett-Packard ultrasound machine, Palo Alto, California) with microbubble injection with or without the Valsalva maneuver prior to the procedure to diagnose PFO. The shunt was defined as small when 3 to 20 bubbles crossed to the left atrium, and as large when there were > 20 bubbles in left atrium. Large shunts defined by this categorization have been shown to be associated with a significant risk of stroke compared to small shunts.21 Procedure. Closure of the PFO was performed by using a CardioSEAL device (NMT Medical, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts) or Amplatzer PFO occluder (AGA Medical Corp., Golden Valley, Minnesota). Written consent was obtained from all patients. PFO closure was performed with either TEE guidance, under intracardiac ultrasound guidance, or by using a standard transseptal approach. The PFO closure device was deployed across the transseptal puncture. A bubble study was performed after deployment of the device to evaluate the persistence of shunt by TEE, intracardiac echocardiography or transthoracic echocardiogram. All patients had a 12-lead ECG the next day prior to discharge. Follow up. Patients were followed clinically at 1 month, 6 months, 12 months and yearly thereafter following the procedure. All patients underwent 2-D echocardiography, color-flow Doppler, and agitated saline solution injection to evaluate the presence of residual shunt. Patients with complaint of palpitation underwent 48-hour Holter monitoring and were evaluated by an electrophysiologist. Statistical analysis. All continuous variables are expressed as a mean value ± standard deviation. Comparison of continuous values was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher’s Exact test. A p-value Results Baseline characteristics (Table 1). The patient population included 71 patients [31 (44%) men, aged 54 ± 14 years] with PFO and >/= 1 paradoxical emboli (n = 70) or orthodoxia (n = 1) between February 2001 and March 2004. Their cardiovascular risk factors included a history of hypertension in 20 (28%) patients, diabetes mellitus in 6 (9%) patients, hyperlipidemia in 10 (14%), and coronary artery disease in 6 (8%). Three (4%) patients had a history of migraine. Echocardiographic data (Table 1). Echogardiographic data were reported by different observers. The mean ejection fraction was 60% ± 6%. PFO was associated with an atrial septal aneurysm in 10 (14%) patients. Twenty-two (31%) patients had evidence of at least mild mitral regurgitation by color-flow Doppler, which was severe in only 1 patient. Twenty-nine (41%) patients had at least mild left atrial enlargement (> 5 cm; normal range 2.5–4.5 cm), while 10 (14%) patients had at least mild right atrial enlargement (>/= 5 cm; normal range 2.2–4.4 cm). The mean left atrial dimension was 3.7 ± 0.9 cm on the parasternal view, and was 5.3 ± 1.0 cm on the apical view. The mean right atrial dimension measured on the apical view was 4.7 ± 1.0 cm. Left ventricular hypertrophy was present in 2 (3%) patients. Procedural results. PFO closure was performed using a CardioSEAL device in 67 (94%) patients, while an Amplatzer occluder was used in 4 (6%) of patients. The procedure was performed under general anesthesia with TEE guidance22 in 23 (33%) patients, with intracardiac ultrasound23 in 15 (21%) patients, and using a standard transseptal approach24 in 33 (46%) patients. A 33 mm device was used in 18 (25%) patients, while the remaining 53 (75%) patients received a 28 mm device. The average size of device was 29 ± 4 mm. Follow up. The mean follow up was 248 ± 229 days. One patient committed suicide prior to the first follow-up visit. Another patient died during follow up from metastatic small-cell carcinoma. Six patients (8%) required repeat intervention for significant residual shunt detected by color-flow Doppler on the follow-up echocardiography. Atrial tachyarrhythmias (Tables 2 and 3). Five (7%) patients developed ATs (3 atrial fibrillation (AF) and 2 typical type I atrial flutter) following PFO closure. The onset of ATs ranged from 1 day to 480 days post-procedure. ATs occurred more frequently in those who received a 33 mm device than in those who received a ? 28 mm device [4/18 (22%) versus 1/53 (2%); p Discussion We report a 7% frequency of ATs in patients who underwent a percutaneous closure of PFO, which is much higher than the frequency of AT in the age-matched general population.25 These arrhythmias occurred more frequently in those patients who received a larger closure device. The prevalence of AF in the general population has been reported to be 21 Our study demonstrates that AT occurs with more frequency in patients receiving transcatheter closure devices for PFO compared to the age-matched general population. This may be due to the fact that these devices act as a local irritant for the adjacent myocardium and increase the automaticity in the surrounding area by focal irritation. It is also possible that these devices act as a central anatomical obstacle that provides the foundation for the development of anatomic macroreentry. Another possibility is that these devices cause some local changes in the surrounding tissue, enhancing triggered activity, which may be the mechanism of atrial tachyarrhythmia. The fact that these arrhythmias were more common in patients who received larger devices supports the notion that these devices cause a local effect, increasing the occurrence of arrhythmias. ATs have also been reported in other studies following transcatheter closure of PFO and atrial septal defect (ASD).15–20,26 In a study of 276 patients who underwent transcatheter closure of PFO using the Amplatzer Septal Occluder device, the authors reported a 0.8% frequency of brief episodes of AF.16 Another study reported a 6% frequency of AT following transcatheter closure of PFO.20 Sievert et al18 reported AF within the first weeks after implantation of the device in 5 (2%) out of 281 patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke. Beitzke et al19 reported AT in 6 (4%) patients (2 with supraventricular tachycardia, 1 with atrial flutter and 3 with AF) which occurred between 1 and 4 weeks after implantation of the device. All patients with AF required medical or electrical cardioversion to sinus rhythm, while in the other patients, the arrhythmias disappeared spontaneously after several weeks. Although the CardioSEAL and Amplatzer occluder devices were used with similar frequencies in their study (73 and 77 cases, respectively), 5 of these arrhythmias occurred with the CardioSEAL, and only 1 with the Amplatzer PFO occluder. Thus it was suggested by the authors that the angular design of the CardioSEAL device might predispose patients to arrhythmias by focal irritation. However, other studies that compared these devices did not show a difference between devices.14,18 Thus we do not believe that the high frequency of ATs in our group was due to the fact that most patients in our study received a CardioSEAL device. Atrial tachyarrhythmias have also been reported following transcatheter closure of atrial-septal defect (ASD). Hill et al26 used ambulatory ECG monitoring to prospectively assess the electrocardiographic effects of transcatheter closure of ASD using the Amplatzer septal occluder device. Ambulatory Holter monitoring was performed pre- and immediately post-transcatheter closure in 41 patients with secundum ASD. Changes in atrioventricular (AV) conduction, including intermittent second-degree AV block type II, and complete AV dissociation post-closure occurred in 3 patients (7%). Supraventricular ectopy was noted in 26 patients (63%) post-closure, including 9 patients (23%) with nonsustained supraventricular tachycardia, of which only 3 had short runs of supraventricular tachycardia prior to the closure. There was also a significant increase in the post-closure number of supraventricular premature beats per hour (p = 0.047). Study limitation. Forty-eight hour Holter monitoring was obtained only in patients with symptoms of palpitation. However, some patients may have had significant atrial dysrhythmias without symptoms which may have resulted in underreporting the true incidence of such ATs. In conclusion, ATs are relatively common after transcatheter closure of PFO. They are more common in patients who receive larger devices. Possible mechanisms may be focal irritation caused by the larger device, or the role of these devices as a central anatomic obstacle resulting in a circuit susceptible to macroreentry.
References
1. Cujec B, Polasek P, Voll C, Shauib A. Transesophageal echocardiography in the detection of potential cardiac sources of embolism in stroke patients. Stroke 1991;22:727–733. 2. Albers GW, Comess KA, DeRook FA, et al. Transesophageal echocardiographic findings in stroke subtypes. Stroke 1994;25:23–28. 3. Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascaut G, et al. Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1148–1152. 4. Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR. Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: A meta-analysis of case control studies. Neurology 2000;55:1172–1179. 5. Wilmshurst PT, Nightingale S, Walsh KP, et al. Effect on migraine of closure of cardiac right-to-left shunts to prevent recurrence of decompression illness or stroke or for hemodynamic reasons. Lancet 2000;356:1648–1651. 6. Godart F, Rey C, Prat A, et al. Atrial right-to-left shunting causing severe hypoxemia despite normal right-sided pressures. Report of 11 consecutive cases corrected by percutaneous closure. Eur Heart J 200;21:483–489. 7. Wilmshurst PT, Byrne JC, Webb-Peploe MM. Relation between interatrial shunts and decompression sickness in divers. Lancet 1989;II:1302–1306. 8. Cujec B, Minara R, Johnson DH. Prevention of recurrent cerebral ischemic events in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic strokes or transient ischemic attacks. Can J Cardiol 1999;15:57–64. 9. Ruchat P, Bogousslavsky J, Hurni M, et al. Systematic surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in selected patients with cerebrovascular events due to paradoxical embolism: Early results of a preliminary study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1997;11:824 –827. 10. Devuyst G, Bogousslavsky J, Ruchat P, et al. Prognosis after stroke followed by surgical closure of patent foramen ovale: A prospective follow-up study with brain MRI and simultaneous transesophageal and transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Neurology 1996;47:1162–1166. 11. Dearani JA, Ugurlu BS, Danielson GK, et al. Surgical patent foramen ovale closure for prevention of paradoxical embolism-related cerebrovascular ischemic events. Circulation 1999;100:171–175. 12. Homma S, Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, et al. Surgical closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke patients. Stroke 1997;28:2376–2381. 13. Hung J, Landzberg MJ, Jenkins KJ, et al. Closure of patent foramen ovale for paradoxical emboli: Intermediate-term risk of recurrent neurological events following transcatheter device placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:1311–1316. 14. Windecker S, Wahl A, Chatterjee T, et al. Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism: Long-term risk of recurrent thromboembolic events. Circulation 2000;101:893–898. 15. Martin F, Sanchez PL, Doherty E, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with paradoxical embolism. Circulation 2002;106:1121–1126. 16. Braun MU, Fassbender D, Schoen SP, et al. Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cerebral ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:2019–2025. 17. Ende DJ, Chopra PS, Rao PS. Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect or patent foramen ovale with the buttoned device for prevention of recurrence of paradoxical embolism. Am J Cardiol 1996;78:233–236. 18. Sievert H, Horvath K, Zadan E, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure in patients with transient ischemia attack/stroke. J Interv Cardiol 2001;14:261–266. 19. Beitzke A, Schuchlenz H, Gamillscheg A, et al. Catheter closure of the persistent foramen ovale: Mid-term results in 162 patients. J Interv Cardiol 2001;14:223–229. 20. Morrison BJ, Lanzberg MJ, Newburger JW, et al. Infrequent occurrence of recurrent paradoxical embolism at intermediate follow-up after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale. Circulation 1994;90(Suppl.I):I–237. 21. Stone DA, Godard J, Corretti MC, et al. Patent foramen ovale: Association between the degree of shunt by contrast transesophageal echocardiography and the risk of future ischemic neurologic events. Am Heart J 1996;131:158–161. 22. Kyo S, Motoyama T, Miyamoto N, et al. Percutaneous introduction of left atrial cannula for left heart bypass: Utility of biplane transesophageal echocardiographic guidance for transseptal puncture. Artif Organs 1992;16:386–391. 23. Daoud EG, Kalbfleisch SJ, Hummel JD. Intracardiac echocardiography to guide transseptal left heart catheterization for radiofrequency catheter ablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1999;10:358–363. 24. Mullins CE. Transseptal left heart catheterization: Experience with a new technique in 520 pediatric and adult patients. Pediatr Cardiol 1983;4:239–245. 25. Go AS, Hylek EM, Philips KA, et al. Prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation in adults: National implications for rhythm management and stroke prevention: The Anticoagulation and Risk factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATARIA) Study. JAMA 2001;258:2370–2375. 26. Hill SL, Berul CI, Patel HT, et al. Early ECG abnormalities associated with transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects using the Amplatzer septal occluder. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2000;4:469–474.