1 - Neurology Department, "Dr. Carol Davila" Central Military Emergency University Hospital, 010825 Bucharest, Romania
2 - Clinical Neuroscience Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, 050474, Bucharest, Romania
3 - Cardiology Department, "Dr. Carol Davila" Central Military Emergency University Hospital, 010825 Bucharest, Romania
4 - Neurology Department, Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, 050098 Romania
5 - Discipline of Balneophysiokinetotherapy and Rehabilitation, Department of Specific Disciplines, Faculty of Midwifery and Nursing, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, 050474, Bucharest, Romania; ovidiu-cristian.chiriac@drd.umfcd.ro
6 - Department of Rehabilitation, Physical Medicine and Balneology I, "Dr. Carol Davila" Central Military Emergency University Hospital, 010825 Bucharest, Romania
7 - Academy of Romanian Scientists, 050045 Bucharest, Romania.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55453/rjmm.2026.129.5.4
Received: 13 June 2026
Revised: 30 July 2026
Accepted: 02 August 2026
Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an anatomical variant in which the normal fetal interatrial passage persists after birth. It is estimated to be present in approximately 25% of adults. Furthermore, it appears to be involved in 50% of cryptogenic strokes. A cryptogenic stroke means the etiology remains unknown despite a thorough assessment (including arterial imaging, echocardiography, rhythm monitoring, and relevant laboratory testing, such as lipid profile and hemoglobin A1c). Secondary prevention options after a PFO-associated stroke consist of antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulant therapy, or percutaneous closure of the PFO, and it is still debatable which option is better. Objective: To critically review the available evidence regarding PFO closure vs. medical therapy as the optimal therapeutic option for secondary prevention after PFO-associated cryptogenic stroke, and to discuss relevant factors for patient selection. Methods: We conducted a focused review and searched the PubMed database for relevant literature on the subject. We included records about patients with PFO and a history of stroke. We chose to include only the free full-text sources. On the other hand, studies regarding children, studies comparing different devices or techniques, and observational studies on long-term complications and recurrence predictors were excluded. Results: Eight records were included, comprising 3750 participants, all diagnosed with PFO and stroke, to compare different therapeutic strategies for preventing stroke recurrence (PFO closure versus medical therapy). Conclusions: The results indicated that closure of PFO may provide greater protection against recurrent stroke than medical therapy alone in adequately selected patients with PFO-associated cryptogenic stroke. Additionally, given the lack of recent studies, further research is warranted to improve patient selection and evaluation of medium- and long-term prognosis.
Georgescu I, Badea A, Badea AA, Plesa FC, Antochi FA, Sirbu CA. Comparative Effectiveness of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Medical Therapy in Cryptogenic Stroke: A Focused Review of Current Evidence. R. J. Mil. Med. 2026, CXXIX(5): 507-513
Georgescu, I., Badea, A., Badea, A.A., Plesa, F.C., Antochi, F.A., Chiriac, O.C., & Sirbu, C.A. (2026). Comparative effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure and medical therapy in cryptogenic stroke: a focused review of current evidence. Romanian Journal of Military Medicine, 129(5). https://doi.org/10.55453/rjmm.2026.129.5.4
Georgescu I, Badea A, Badea AA, Plesa FC, Antochi FA, Chiriac OC, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Medical Therapy in Cryptogenic Stroke: A Focused Review of Current Evidence. Rom J Mil Med. 2026;129(5). doi:10.55453/rjmm.2026.129.5.4.
Georgescu, I., Badea, A., Badea, A.A., Plesa, F.C., Antochi, F.A., Chiriac, O.C. & Sirbu, C.A. 2026, 'Comparative Effectiveness of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Medical Therapy in Cryptogenic Stroke: A Focused Review of Current Evidence', Romanian Journal of Military Medicine, vol. 129, no. 5, doi:10.55453/rjmm.2026.129.5.4.