https://t.co/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nejm.org%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1056%2FNEJMe1709637%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%253D%253D%26refsrc%3Demail%26iid%3Dcb00a62393a84227adf05b182070a13e%26uid%3D625967110%26nid%3D244%2B281088008&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&sig=7432cdbdb9033dd29ba4f63fdee9bf216c0831c0&iid=cb00a62393a84227adf05b182070a13e&uid=625967110&nid=244+281088008
This article has no abstract; the first 100 words appear below.
On the basis of what I had read previously in the Journal,
I recently explained to my 44-year-old patient that closing his patent
foramen ovale (PFO) after his stroke was not advisable. How can we now
have three trials showing that closure prevents recurrent stroke, given
that in the past 5 years, the Journal published articles from
three other trials that showed the opposite? It would be simple if the
conversion from a negative to a positive outlook with respect to PFO
closure could be explained by studying the various antiplatelet and
anticoagulant treatments, or the various durations of follow-up . . .
Disclosure forms provided by the author are available with the full text of this editorial at NEJM.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment