+
Site Tour
STROKE RISK FACTORS

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is an embryonic defect associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke.1 PFO closure combined with long-term antiplatelet therapy is recommended to prevent recurrent stroke in selected patients.2

SWITCH TO THE interventional VIEW    For more information specific to interventional cardiology regarding PFO closure

THE LANDMARK RESPECT TRIAL2
STILL THE DEFINITIVE CLINICAL TRIAL ON PFO CLOSURE

STUDY DESIGN

The RESPECT trial is the largest trial ever conducted on PFO closure. This trial studied the Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder, on which the new Amplatzer™ Talisman™ device is based.

It stands apart from other PFO closure studies since it is the largest clinical trial with the most extensive follow-up, spanning 13 years. The 980 enrolled patients were followed for a median of 5.9 years. Researchers ultimately collected 5,810 patient-years of data—almost 2 times more than other PFO trials.

The trial was conducted at 69 centers across the U.S. and Canada and included patients on anticoagulation therapy— a real-world cross-section of patients— unlike other PFO trials, REDUCE2 and CLOSE5

THE FINDINGS

The RESPECT trial offers conclusive evidence that using the Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder to close the PFO in patients with a PFO-associated stroke is more beneficial than medical therapy alone, reducing the risk of another stroke.

A meta-analysis on three randomized controlled trials on PFO closure confirmed that...“PFO closure was superior to medical therapy for secondary prevention of stroke…with a more robust benefit when the Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder...was used.”6


FIND OUT MORE:

CLINICAL INSIGHTS I    CLINICAL INSIGHTS II

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

EXCELLENT PROCEDURAL RESULTS

The RESPECT trial data reveal high rates of technical and procedural success and excellent closure with the study’s highly stringent criteria. At only 6 months, most patients also demonstrated freedom from shunt—both at rest and during Valsalva.3
 

Technical Success*

Procedural Success

Effective Closure
(n≥9 Bubbles)

EXCELLENT SAFETY1

Device Embolization

Device Erosion

Device Thrombus

Note: Rates are calculated based on data in final publication.
*Successful delivery and release of the device at the time of first procedure for subjects in whom a study device was attempted.
Successful implant at the time of the first procedure with no reported in-hospital serious adverse events.

Significantly lower risk of recurrent stroke

The RESPECT trial revealed a 62% relative risk reduction for recurrent cryptogenic ischemic stroke with the Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder versus medical therapy.3

 

CI=Confidence interval

The trial showed there was a 45% relative risk reduction for any recurrent ischemic stroke over nearly 6 years of follow-up, compared to medical therapy.3

 

Low Rates of Atrial Fibrillation

The RESPECT trial also revealed low rates of serious atrial fibrillation (AF) with the Amplatzer™ device, consistent with medical therapy.3 AF rates were somewhat higher in the REDUCE trial,4 which used a different PFO closure device.

RATE  
(PER 100 PATIENT-YEARS)
RESPECT1REDUCE2
Serious AF / Flutter*0.220.65
Any AF / Flutter*0.761.90



*In RESPECT, serious AF/Flutter was adjudicated by an independent board of physicians. In REDUCE, it was determined by the local investigator.


COMPARISON OF PFO TRIALS: RESPECT1, REDUCE2 AND CLOSE3
 

 RESPECT2REDUCE3CLOSE4
Devices used100% Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder39% GORE HELEX,
61% GORE Cardioform
51% Amplatzer™ PFO Occluder,
49% multiple approved
Patients980664473
Follow-up patient-years5,810
(mean 5.9yrs)
2,232
(mean 3.2yrs)
NR*
(mean 5.4yrs)
Anticoagulant allowed
in control group?
YESNONO
Relative risk reduction62%
(Recurrent ischemic stroke of
unknown mechanism)
77%
(Recurrent ischemic stroke)
97%
(Recurrent ischemic stroke)
Effective closure94.2%
Freedom from >9 bubbles
(Evaluated after 6 months)
94.5%
Freedom from >25 bubbles
(Evaluated after 9 months)
NR*



* NR=not reported

Connext
TV

CONNECT TO THE LATEST
IN STRUCTURAL HEART
THERAPY

Find out more

TV


HUB

References
  1. Kent DM, Thaler DE. Is patent foramen ovale a modifi able risk factor for stroke recurrence? Stroke. 2010;41(10 Suppl):S26–30.
    doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.595140.
  2. Messé SR, Gronseth GS, Kent DM, et al. Practice advisory update summary: patent foramen ovale and secondary stroke prevention. Neurology. 2020;94(20):876–885. doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000009443.
  3. Saver JL, Carroll JD, Thaler DE, et al. Long-term outcomes of patent foramen ovale closure or medical therapy after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1022–1032. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1610057.
  4. Søndergaard L, Kasner SE, Rhodes JF, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or antiplatelet therapy for cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1033–1042. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1707404.
  5. Mas J-L, Derumeaux G, Guillon B, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulation vs. antiplatelets after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(11):1011–1021 and supplementary appendix. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1705915.
  6. Mojadidi MK, Zaman MO, Elgendy IY, et al. Cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(9):1035–1043.
    doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.059.
  7. Tests performed by and data on file at Abbott.
  8. Amplatzer™ Talisman™ PFO Occluder Instructions For Use.

© Abbott 2023. All rights reserved. 9-EH-5-14455-01 08-2023

You are about to leave my-connext.com

You are now leaving my-connext.com. Abbott is not responsible for any content published on the third-party website you are about to enter. Abbott has not reviewed and does not endorse any information presented on third-party websites.

The content on this website is intended for healthcare professionals in EMEA with applicable health authority product registrations, excepted those practicing in France as some of the content is not in compliance with the French Advertising law N°2011-2012 dated 29th December 2011 article 34. Click OK to confirm you are a healthcare professional to proceed.

OK Decline