Five-Year Outcomes of PFO Closure or Antiplatelet Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke
NEJM 384:970-971, , 2021
Practice Advisory Update Summary: Patent Foramen Ovale and Secondary Stroke Prevention
Neurol 94:876-885, Messe, S.R.,et al, 2020
PFO Closure for Cryptogenic Stroke
NEJM 378:1639-1642, Mi, M.Y.,et al, 2018
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure, Antiplatelet Therapy or Anticoagulation Therapy Alone for Management of Cryptogenic Stroke?
BMJ 362:k2515, Kuijpers, T.,et al, 2018
Long-Term Outcomes of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Medical Therapy after Stroke
NEJM 377:1022-1032,1006,1093, Saver, J.L.,et al, 2017
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Anticoagulation Vs. Antiplatelets after Stroke
NEJM 377:1011-1021,1006,1093, Mas, J.L,et al, 2017
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure or Antiplatelet Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke
NEJM 377:1033-1042,1006,1093, Sondergaard, L.,et al, 2017
Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale versus Medical Therapy after Cryptogenic Stroke
NEJM 368:1092-1100,1152, Carroll, J.D.,et al, 2013
Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Embolism
NEJM 368:1083-1091,1152, Meier, B.,et al, 2013
An Index to Identify Stroke-Related vs Incidental Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke
Neurol 81:619-625,619, Kent, D.M.,et al, 2013
Patent Foramen Ovale and Cryptogenic Stroke
Stroke 44:2676-2678, Furlan, A.J. and Jauss, M., 2013
Critique of Closure or Medical Therapy for Cryptogenic Stroke with Patent Foramen Ovale
Stroke 43:3147-3149, Thaler, D.E.,et al, 2012