Clinicians' Approach to Patent Foramen Ovale Closure after Stroke: Comparing Cardiologists and Neurologists

Abstract

Background Evidence from randomized trials and updated professional society guidelines supports patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure after cryptogenic stroke in select patients. It is unclear how this has been integrated into real‐world practice, so we aimed to compare practice patterns between cardiologists and neurologists. Methods and Results In March of 2021, a survey of cardiologists and neurologists who work or previously trained at the University of Pennsylvania Health System assessed practice preferences with respect to PFO closure after stroke. Clinical vignettes isolated specific variables of interest and used a 5‐point Likert scale to assess the level of support for PFO closure. Stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists were compared by Wilcoxon‐Mann–Whitney tests. Secondarily, Kruskal–Wallis tests compared stroke neurologists, general neurologists, interventional cardiologists, and general cardiologists. We received 106 responses from 182 survey recipients (31/31 stroke neurologists, 38/46 interventional cardiologists, 20/30 general neurologists, and 17/77 general cardiologists). A similar proportion of stroke neurologists and interventional cardiologists favored PFO closure in a young patient with cryptogenic stroke, 88% and 87%, respectively ( P =0.54). Interventionalists were more likely than stroke neurologists to support closure in the context of an alternative high‐risk stroke mechanism, 14% and 0%, respectively ( P =0.003). Stroke neurologists were more likely to oppose closure on the basis of older age ( P =0.01). Conclusions There are key differences between how neurologists and cardiologists approach PFO closure after stroke, particularly when interpreting the stroke etiology and when considering closure beyond the scope of prior trials; this underscores the importance of collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists.