FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2035174941> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2035174941 endingPage "2756" @default.
• W2035174941 startingPage "2755" @default.
• W2035174941 abstract "HomeStrokeVol. 35, No. 12Contrast Ultrasound Techniques in the Detection and Quantification of Patent Foramen Ovale: Myth Versus Reality Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBContrast Ultrasound Techniques in the Detection and Quantification of Patent Foramen Ovale: Myth Versus Reality Herwig W. Schuchlenz, MD Herwig W. SchuchlenzHerwig W. Schuchlenz Graz-West Hospital, Graz, Austria Search for more papers by this author Originally published1 Dec 2004https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000147969.77538.c2Stroke. 2004;35:2755–2756To the Editor:I read with great interest the study of Anzola et al. The authors declared contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (ce-TCD) as the ideal tool to follow up patients after interventional device closure.1Data show a high correlation between ce-TCD and contrast enhanced transesophageal echocardiograpgy (cTTE) which is the current “gold standard” for detection of a right-to-left shunt through a patent foramen ovale (PFO), although there is a highly reported interobserver and intraobserver variability of the latter.2 Furthermore, there are major methodological limitations of these techniques that need to be addressed.The numbers of microbubbles reaching the brain can be quantified by ce-TCD, however the therapeutic impact of this information is unknown. There is no prospective study (neither by ce-TCD nor by cTEE) demonstrating that the amount of contrast shunting has any relevance for the outcome of these patients.2,3 We have previously shown that the amount of contrast shunting does not correlate with the size of the PFO measured by 2-dimensional TEE or invasively by balloon sizing.4Devuyst and colleagues reported that the amount of right-to-left contrast shunting through a PFO measured my ce-TCD mainly depends on strain rate and duration of the Valsalva maneuver.5 As Anzola et al did not perform the ce-TCD follow up under these controlled conditions, 2 contrast studies may lead to different results in the same patient even if the PFO would not have been closed.It has been shown previously that ce-TCD with saline contrast can remain positive, even without difference in the intensity, after complete occlusion of anatomical arteriovenous malformations.6According to recent findings one must accept that there is no rigid diagnostic time window for differentiation between interatrial and intrapulmonary shunts.7–10 And there is evidence that physiological arteriovenous intrapulmonary shunts do exist in most healthy humans.11 As we know so far, shunting through this dynamic vascular network is influenced on a variety of patient dependent and methodological reasons like cardiac output, blood pressure, or drugs.11–13Before and after PFO-closure we recommend, irrespective of the results of a ce-TCD, to perform a TEE examination, as it provides direct anatomic information regarding the site and nature of the shunt and regarding the device to exclude a thrombus formation.141 Anzola GP, Morandi E, Casilli F, Onorato E. Does transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale really “shut the door?”. A prospective study with transcranial Doppler. Stroke. 2004; 35: 2140–2144.LinkGoogle Scholar2 Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, Zuber C, Cabanas L, Derumeaux G, Coste J. Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1740–1746.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio M, Sciacca, Mohr JP. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale. Circulation. 2002; 105: 2625–2631.LinkGoogle Scholar4 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.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Devuyst G, Piechowski-Jozwiak B, Karapanayiotides T, Fitting JW, Kemeny V, Hirt L, Urbano LA, Arnold P, van Melle G, Despland PA, Bogouslavsky J. Controlled contrast transcranial Doppler and arterial blood gas analysis to quantify shunt through patent foramen ovale. Stroke. 2004; 35: 859–863.LinkGoogle Scholar6 Yeung M, Khan KA, Antecol DH, Walker DR, Shuaib A. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography and transesophageal echocardiography in the investigation of pulmonary arteriovenous malformation in a patient with hereditary hemorrhagic teleangiectasia presenting with stroke. Stroke. 1995; 26: 1941–1944.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Jauss M, Zanette E for the consensus conference. Detection of right–to-left shunts with ultrasound contrast agent and transcranial Doppler sonography. Cerebrovascular Dis. 2000; 10: 490–496.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Nanthakumar K, Graham AT, Robinson TI, Grande P, Pugash RA, Clarke JA, Hutchinson SJ, Mandzia JL, Hyland RH, Faughnan ME. Contrast echocardiography for detection of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations. Am Heart J. 2001; 141: 243–246.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Naqvi TZ, Nagai T, Atar S, Siegel RJ. Early appearance of echo-contrast simulating an intracardiac shunt in a patient with liver cirrhosis and intrapulmonary shunting. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002; 15: 379–381.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Droste DW, Kriete JU, Stypman J, Castrucci M, Wichter T, Tietje R, Weltermann B, Young P, Ringelstein EB. 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.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Eldridge MW, Dempsey JA, Haverkamp HC, Lovering AT, Hokanson JS. Exercise-induced intrapulmonary arteriovenous shunting in healthy humans. J Appl Physiol. 2004Sep; 97: 797–805.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Sokoll MD, Gergis SD, Kassell NF. Comparativ effects of barbiturate or enflurane anesthesia with induced hypotension on intrapulmonary shunting. J Neurosurg. 1984; 60: 248–251.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Nomoto S, Berk JL, Hagen JF, Koo R. Pulmonary anatomic arteriovenous shunting caused by epinephrine. Arch Surg. 1974 Feb; 108: 201–204.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Krumsdorf U, Ostermayer S, Billinger K, Treples T, Zadan E, Horvath K, Sivert H. Indcidence and clinical course of thrombus formation on atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale closure devices in 1000 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43: 302–309.CrossrefMedlineGoogle ScholarstrokeahaStrokeStrokeStroke0039-24991524-4628Lippincott Williams & WilkinsResponse:Anzola G.P., , MD, Morandi E., , MD, Casilli F., , MD, and Onorato E., , MD, FSCAI01122004Dr Schuchlenz’s letter seems to put a special emphasis on the lack of specificity of contrast-enhanced transcranial Doppler (ce-TCD) in differentiating the source of a right-to-left shunt (RLS), namely patent foramen ovale (PFO) versus pulmonary fistulas. In our opinion, however, instead of showing limitation, this is an argument in favor of transcranial Doppler (TCD) as an ideal tool for screening and follow-up purposes inasmuch as paradoxical embolism is suspected responsible for otherwise cryptogenic strokes. It is commonly recognized that TCD detects more RLSs than transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), not only because TEE may miss pulmonary fistulas but also because even in cases of PFO, the patient may be unable to perform a Valsalva strain valid enough to divert bubbles from the right to the left atrium across the PFO.1 This raises some doubt on the concept of TEE as the gold standard for PFO detection.There are at least 2 studies that have shown a relationship between the amount of RLS as assessed with TCD and stroke occurrence or relapse.2,3The ce-TCD test was always performed in controlled conditions following the recommendations of the Consensus of Venice4 and the strength of Valsalva was regulated so as to obtain a reduction of at least 20% of the spectral amplitude. For these reasons we believe that the bubble load assessed in the middle cerebral arteries at follow-up testing truly reflected the degree of residual shunt.5The fact that TCD (and TEE) remain positive after apparently successful embolization of a pulmonary arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in a patient with Rendu-Osler disease, as is reported in Yeung et al6 is not surprising for at least 2 reasons. First, the embolization of a macroscopic pulmonary AVM may not abolish the local RLS. Second, Rendu-Osler disease entails the presence of multiple microscopic AVMs that can escape angiography but nonetheless bring about a cumulatively significant RLS.Physiological intrapulmonary shunts are activated after prolonged strenuous exercise7 whereas ce-TCD requires a simple Valsalva strain for a few seconds.None of the patients in our series was under the effect of drugs likely to affect intrapulmonary shunts.8,9Our policy is to perform TEE after TCD demonstrates RLS to confirm the intracardiac site before PFO closure and to repeat it postprocedurally only in those patients in whom TCD has shown a significant residual shunt or in those who relapse after successful closure. Routine use of TEE to detect thrombus formation in the left atrium does not seem justified in asymptomatic patients given the very low absolute incidence of thrombus formation with the more recent devices.10 Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Orzan F, Liboni W, Bonzano A, Molinari F, Ribezzo M, Rebaudengo N, Grippi G and Negri E (2009) Follow-up of residual shunt after patent foramen ovale closure, Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2009.01302.x, 122:4, (257-261), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2010. Lovering A, Stickland M and Eldridge M (2005) Contrast Ultrasound Techniques in the Detection and Quantification of Patent Foramen Ovale: Myth Versus Reality—A Clarification, Stroke, 36:6, (1109-1109), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2005. December 2004Vol 35, Issue 12 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000147969.77538.c2PMID: 15564566 Originally publishedDecember 1, 2004 PDF download Advertisement" @default.
• W2035174941 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2035174941 creator A5018874864 @default.
• W2035174941 date "2004-11-11" @default.
• W2035174941 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2035174941 title "Contrast Ultrasound Techniques in the Detection and Quantification of Patent Foramen Ovale: Myth Versus Reality * Response:" @default.
• W2035174941 cites W1971196515 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W1979702806 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W1985125228 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W1987570318 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2007491393 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2012091054 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2014797584 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2019501650 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2021556603 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2048623925 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2057658861 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2085057549 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2121187530 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2132946541 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2142451036 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2155853471 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2161529209 @default.
• W2035174941 cites W2163092226 @default.
• W2035174941 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000147969.77538.c2" @default.
• W2035174941 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15564566" @default.
• W2035174941 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2035174941 type Work @default.
• W2035174941 sameAs 2035174941 @default.
• W2035174941 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2035174941 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2035174941 hasAuthorship W2035174941A5018874864 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C143753070 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C191616109 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C197328160 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C2776502983 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C2776893843 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C2780813298 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C2780968331 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C40993552 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C64012434 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C126322002 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C126838900 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C143753070 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C154945302 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C164705383 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C191616109 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C197328160 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C2776502983 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C2776893843 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C2780813298 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C2780968331 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C40993552 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C41008148 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C64012434 @default.
• W2035174941 hasConceptScore W2035174941C71924100 @default.
• W2035174941 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2035174941 hasLocation W20351749411 @default.
• W2035174941 hasLocation W20351749412 @default.
• W2035174941 hasOpenAccess W2035174941 @default.
• W2035174941 hasPrimaryLocation W20351749411 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W1997631045 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2045203490 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2257267309 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2353974041 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2366928440 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2381030272 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2388437948 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2414775926 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W2612902786 @default.
• W2035174941 hasRelatedWork W3175806596 @default.
• W2035174941 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W2035174941 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2035174941 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2035174941 magId "2035174941" @default.
• W2035174941 workType "article" @default.