Background: For patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS) and patent foramen ovale (PFO), it is unknown whether the magnitude of right-to-left shunt (RLSh) measured by contrast transcranial Doppler (c-TCD) is correlated with the likelihood an identified PFO is related to CS as determined by the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score. Additionally, for patients with CS, it is unknown whether PFO assessment by c-TCD is more sensitive for identifying RLSh compared with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Our aim was to determine the significance of RLSh grade by c-TCD in patients with PFO and CS. Methods: We evaluated patients with CS who had RLSh quantified by c-TCD in the Multicenter Study into RLSh in Cryptogenic Stroke (CODICIA) to determine whether there is an association between c-TCD shunt grade and the RoPE Score. For patients who underwent c-TCD and TEE, we determined whether there is agreement in identifying and grading RLSh between these two modalities. Results: The RoPE score predicted the presence versus the absence of RLSh documented by c-TCD (c-statistic = 0.66). For patients with documented RLSh by c-TCD, shunt severity was correlated with increasing RoPE score (rank correlation (r) = 0.15, p = 0.01). Among 293 patients who had both c-TCD and TEE performed, c-TCD was more sensitive (98.7%) for detecting RLSh. Of the 97 patients with no PFO identified on TEE, 28 (29%) had a large amount of RLSh seen on c-TCD. Conclusions: For patients with CS, severity of RLSh by c-TCD is positively correlated with the RoPE score, indicating that this technique for shunt grading identifies patients more likely to have pathogenic rather than incidental PFOs. c-TCD is also more sensitive in detecting RLSh than TEE. These findings suggest an important role for c-TCD in the evaluation of PFO in the setting of CS.

1.
Kutty S, Sengupta PP, Khandheria BK: Patent foramen ovale: the known and the to be known. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1665-1671.
2.
Sacco RL, Ellenberg JH, Mohr JP, Tatemichi TK, Hier DB, Price TR, et al: Infarcts of undetermined cause: the NINCDS stroke data bank. Ann Neurol 1989;25:382-390.
3.
Kent DM, Thaler DE: Is patent foramen ovale a modifiable risk factor for stroke recurrence? Stroke 2010;41(10 suppl):S26-S30.
4.
Meier B, Kalesan B, Mattle HP, Khattab AA, Hildick-Smith D, Dudek D, et al: Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1083-1091.
5.
Carroll JD, Saver JL, Thaler DE, Smalling RW, Berry S, MacDonald LA, et al: Closure of patent foramen ovale versus medical therapy after cryptogenic stroke. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1092-1100.
6.
Messé SR, Kent DM: Still no closure on the question of PFO closure. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1152-1153.
7.
Furlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, Mauri L, Adams H, Albers GW, et al: Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med 2012;366:991-999.
8.
Alsheikh-Ali AA, Thaler DE, Kent DM: Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: incidental or pathogenic? Stroke 2009;40:2349-2355.
9.
Kent DM, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, Mas JL, Serena J, Homma S, et al: An index to identify stroke-related vs incidental patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2013;81:619-625.
10.
Agmon Y, Khandheria BK, Meissner I, Gentile F, Whisnant JP, Sicks JD, et al: Frequency of atrial septal aneurysms in patients with cerebral ischemic events. Circulation 1999;99:1942-1944.
11.
Lee JY, Song JK, Song JM, Kang DH, Yun SC, Kang DW, et al: Association between anatomic features of atrial septal abnormalities obtained by omni-plane transesophageal echocardiography and stroke recurrence in cryptogenic stroke patients with patent foramen ovale. Am J Cardiol 2010;106:129-134.
12.
Rigatelli G, Dell'Avvocata F, Cardaioli P, Giordan M, Braggion G, Aggio S, et al: Permanent right-to-left shunt is the key factor in managing patent foramen ovale. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:2257-2261.
13.
Cabanes L, Coste J, Derumeaux G, Jeanrenaud X, Lamy C, Zuber M, et al: Interobserver and intraobserver variability in detection of patent foramen ovale and atrial septal aneurysm with transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002;15:441-446.
14.
Di Tullio MR: Patent foramen ovale: echocardiographic detection and clinical relevance in stroke. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010;23:144-155; quiz 220.
15.
Wessler BS, Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, Di Tullio MR, Elkind MS et al: Transesophageal echocardiography in cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: analysis of putative high-risk features from the risk of paradoxical embolism database. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:125-131.
16.
Ringelstein EB, Droste DW, Babikian VL, Evans DH, Grosset DG, Kaps M, et al: Consensus on microembolus detection by TCD. International consensus group on microembolus detection. Stroke 1998;29:725-729.
17.
Droste DW, Kriete JU, Stypmann J, Castrucci M, Wichter T, Tietje R, et al: Contrast transcranial Doppler ultrasound in the detection of right-to-left shunts: comparison of different procedures and different contrast agents. Stroke 1999;30:1827-1832.
18.
Zito C, Dattilo G, Oreto G, Di Bella G, Lamari A, Iudicello R, et al: Patent foramen ovale: comparison among diagnostic strategies in cryptogenic stroke and migraine. Echocardiography 2009;26:495-503.
19.
Mojadidi MK, Roberts SC, Winoker JS, Romero J, Goodman-Meza D, Gevorgyan R, et al: Accuracy of transcranial Doppler for the diagnosis of intracardiac right-to-left shunt: a bivariate meta-analysis of prospective studies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:236-250.
20.
Komar M, Olszowska M, Przewłocki T, Podolec J, Stępniewski J, Sobień B, et al: Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography should it be the first choice for persistent foramen ovale screening? Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2014;12:16.
21.
Serena J, Marti-Fàbregas J, Santamarina E, Rodríguez JJ, Perez-Ayuso MJ, Masjuan J, et al: Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study. Stroke 2008;39:3131-3136.
22.
Serena J, Segura T, Perez-Ayuso MJ, Bassaganyas J, Molins A, Dávalos A: The need to quantify right-to-left shunt in acute ischemic stroke: a case-control study. Stroke 1998;29:1322-1328.
23.
Jauss M, Zanette E: Detection of right-to-left shunt with ultrasound contrast agent and transcranial Doppler sonography. Cerebrovasc Dis 2000;10:490-496.
24.
Hahn RT, Abraham T, Adams MS, Bruce CJ, Glas KE, Lang RM, et al: Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination: recommendations from the American society of echocardiography and the society of cardiovascular anesthesiologists. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013;26:921-964.
25.
Kent DM, Thaler DE: The risk of paradoxical embolism (RoPE) study: developing risk models for application to ongoing randomized trials of percutaneous patent foramen ovale closure for cryptogenic stroke. Trials 2011;12:185.
26.
Pfleger S, et al: Haemodynamic quantification of different provocation manoeuvres by simultaneous measurement of right and left atrial pressure: implications for the echocardiographic detection of persistent foramen ovale. Eur J Echocardiogr 2001;2:88-93.
27.
Markus H, Bland JM, Rose G, Sitzer M, Siebler M: How good is intercenter agreement in the identification of embolic signals in carotid artery disease? Stroke 1996;27:1249-1252.
28.
González-Alujas T, Evangelista A, Santamarina E, Rubiera M, Gómez-Bosch Z, Rodríguez-Palomares JF, et al: Diagnosis and quantification of patent foramen ovale. Which is the reference technique? Simultaneous study with transcranial Doppler, transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Rev Esp Cardiol 2011;64:133-139.
29.
Caputi L, Carriero MR, Falcone C, Parati E, Piotti P, Materazzo C, et al: Transcranial Doppler and transesophageal echocardiography: comparison of both techniques and prospective clinical relevance of transcranial Doppler in patent foramen ovale detection. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;18:343-348.
30.
Jauss M, Kaps M, Keberle M, Haberbosch W, Dorndorf W: A comparison of transesophageal echocardiography and transcranial Doppler sonography with contrast medium for detection of patent foramen ovale. Stroke 1994;25:1265-1267.
31.
Job FP, Ringelstein EB, Grafen Y, Flachskampf FA, Doherty C, Stockmanns A, et al: Comparison of transcranial contrast Doppler sonography and transesophageal contrast echocardiography for the detection of patent foramen ovale in young stroke patients. Am J Cardiol 1994;74:381-384.
32.
Droste DW, Lakemeier H, Ritter M, Dittrich R, Stypmann J, Wichter T, et al: The identification of right-to-left shunts using contrast transcranial Doppler ultrasound: performance and interpretation modalities, and absence of a significant side difference of cardiac micro-emboli. Neurol Res 2004;26:325-330.
33.
Souteyrand G, Motreff P, Lusson JR, Rodriguez R, Geoffroy E, Dauphin C, et al.: Comparison of transthoracic echocardiography using second harmonic imaging, transcranial Doppler and transesophageal echocardiography for the detection of patent foramen ovale in stroke patients. Eur J Echocardiogr 2006;7:147-154.
34.
Goutman SA, Katzan IL, Gupta R: Transcranial Doppler with bubble study as a method to detect extracardiac right-to-left shunts in patients with ischemic stroke. J Neuroimaging 2013;23:523-525.
35.
Thaler DE, Ruthazer R, Weimar C, Mas JL, Serena J, Di Angelantonio E, et al: Recurrent stroke predictors differ in medically treated patients with pathogenic vs. other PFOs. Neurology 2014;83:221-226.
36.
Schuchlenz HW, Weihs W, Beitzke A, Stein JI, Gamillscheg A, Rehak P: Transesophageal echocardiography for quantifying size of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic cerebrovascular events. Stroke 2002;33:293-296.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.