Sex differences in baseline profiles and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing closure of patent foramen ovale.

Objectives: Although sex differences have been emphasized in stroke and congenital heart disease, there has been limited investigation into their role in patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure for secondary prevention of stroke. We aimed to explore differences by sex in baseline profiles, procedural characteristics, and short-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter PFO closure.
Methods: Data of adult patients undergoing transcatheter PFO closure at the Toronto General Hospital from 1997 to 2017 was retrospectively analyzed. Baseline information included demographic characteristics, medical history, diagnostic, and procedural information, and periprocedural complications. Post-closure outcomes were captured at index hospitalization and during the first follow-up.
Results: From 1031 patients in the cohort sample, 80.7 % underwent closure for cryptogenic stroke and 44.7 % (n = 461) were females. We observed significant sex-related differences in baseline characteristics; females were younger, less likely to have a history of smoking, and less likely to have several cardiovascular risk factors at baseline (p < 0.05). The median time to first follow-up was 89 days for both groups. Recurrent stroke was observed in 0.1 % and TIA observed in 0.4 % of in the 'cryptogenic stroke/TIA' group; in the 'other indications' group, 1.4 % stroke and no TIA were reported. No significant differences were present between sexes.
Conclusions: There were no differences in procedural and short-term outcomes between males and females undergoing transcatheter PFO closure, but significant baseline differences in risk factors were identified. There is a critical need for long-term, systematic studies to understand sex and gender differences in the PFO population.
Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Eric Horlick reports a relationship with Abbott that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants. Abbott was not involved in planning or execution of this analysis and has not seen or reviewed this manuscript. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
(© 2022 The Authors.)