Table 2.
Main advantages and disadvantages of different PFO-closure device available in commerce
| Device | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Amplatzer PFO Occluder | ● Large experience and supporting trial | ● Rigid device |
| ● Rigid waist not fitting long-tunnel morphologies | ||
| ● High failure incidence in complex PFO | ||
| ● Complex transseptal puncture through the device | ||
| STARflex septal closure system | ● Large experience and supporting trial | ● Rigid waist not fitting long-tunnel morphologies |
| ● Soft structure limiting erosion | ● High failure incidence in complex PFO | |
| ● Recurrence of stoke/TIA and incidence of on-device Thrombosis not negligible | ||
| Gore Septal Occluder | ● Large experience and supporting trial | ● Risk of septal distortion in long-tunnel morphology significantly reduced but not abolished |
| ● Soft structure limiting erosion and adapting to PFO an surrounding structures anatomy | ||
| St Jude Premere PFO Closure system | ● Long and adaptable interatrial portion adapting to long-tunnel morphology | ● Low experience |
| ● No septal distortion | ● Not tested in moderate or severe ASA | |
| ● No post-procedural atrial fibrillation | ||
| ● Retrievable after delivery | ||
| Coherex Flatstent PFO occluder | ● In-tunnel structure without atrial occluders | ● Low experience |
| ● Designed for long-tunnel morphology | ||
| ● Very low risk of on-device thrombus | ||
| SeptRx PFO closure device | ● In-tunnel structure without atrial occluders | ● Low experience |
| ● Very low risk of on-device thrombus | ● Not adaptable to all the tunnel lengths | |
| Noble-Stitch | ● Device-less system | ● Low experience |
| ● No risk of on-device thrombus | ● Risk of septal tears | |
| ● No residual structures on the left side of the septum |
PFO: patent foramen ovale; TIA: transient ischemic attack; ASA: atrial septal aneurysm.