Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 2004 25(5):361-362; doi:10.1016/j.ehj.2004.01.012
Copyright © 2004 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sievert, H.
Right arrow Articles by Taaffe, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sievert, H.
Right arrow Articles by Taaffe, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Editorial

Patent foramen ovale: the jury is still out

Horst Sievert* and Margaret Taaffe

CardioVascular Center Frankfurt, Sankt Katharinen & Sankt Katharinen Hospital, Seckbacher Landstrasse 65, Frankfurt D-60389, Germany

* Correspondence to: Tel.: +49-69-4603-1344; fax: +49-69-4603-1343
E-mail address: horstsievertmd@aol.com

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

This editorial refers to "Transcatheter Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism: Periprocedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems"1 by M.U. Braun et al. on page 424

Paradoxical embolism through a patent foramen ovale (PFO) was described first in 1877.1 It was never doubted that this could lead to a stroke. However, it was more than 100 years before it was realized that a PFO is in fact a frequent cause of cerebral embolism and there is a continuous debate as to how these patients should be treated.2,3 In 35–40% of . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in EHJ:

Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with paradoxical embolism: Periprocedural safety and mid-term follow-up results of three different device occluder systems
M Braun, V Gliech, A Boscheri, S Schoen, G Gahn, H Reichmann, M Haass, R Schraeder, and R.H Strasser
EHJ 2004 25: 424-430. [Abstract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CirculationHome page
R. J. Sommer, Z. M. Hijazi, and J. F. Rhodes Jr
Pathophysiology of Congenital Heart Disease in the Adult: Part I: Shunt Lesions
Circulation, February 26, 2008; 117(8): 1090 - 1099.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
W. H. Maisel and W. K. Laskey
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Devices: Moving Beyond Equipoise
JAMA, July 20, 2005; 294(3): 366 - 369.
[Full Text] [PDF]