The Efficacy of Contrast Transthoracic Echocardiography and Contrast Transcranial Doppler for the Detection of Patent Foramen Ovale Related to Cryptogenic Stroke

• Main Authors: Jing Yang, Huiqin Zhang, Yumeng Wang, Shiquan Zhang, Tingyu Lan, Meng Zhang, Yuanzi Li, Wenyan Huang, Hongxia Zhang, Anxin Wang, Yang Xiao, Lijuan Du
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hindawi Limited 2020-01-01
• Series: BioMed Research International
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/1513409
• ISSN: 2314-6133; 2314-6141

Background. Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been linked to the pathophysiology of cryptogenic stroke. Contrast transesophageal echocardiography (cTEE) is the current gold standard for PFO diagnosis, but it has the disadvantage of being semi-invasive and does not exempt from risks. As a diagnostic test, the efficacy of contrast transthoracic echocardiography (cTTE) and contrast transcranial Doppler (cTCD) is controversial. This study is aimed at investigating the efficacy of cTTE and cTCD versus cTEE in PFO detection, exploring a more cost-effective and reliable method for the diagnosis of PFO related to cryptogenic stroke. Methods. From August 2019 to January 2020, a total of 213 patients with suspected PFO were included in our study. All patients underwent cTEE, cTCD, and cTTE examinations. cTTE3 was named for using a cutoff of 3 beats to detect PFO during cTTE, and cTTE5 represented a cutoff of 5 beats. A cutoff of cTCD grade III was named cTCD III. A cutoff of grade IV was named cTCD IV. cTTE3+cTCD IV was used for the combination of a cutoff of 3 beats during cTTE with grade IV of cTCD. cTTE5+cTCD III combined a cutoff of 5 beats during cTTE with cTCD grade III. Taking cTEE as the gold standard, we compared the sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (-LR), and misdiagnosis rate for PFO detection among the above methods. Results. A total of 161 of 213 (76%) patients had PFO confirmed by cTEE. With the spontaneous Valsalva maneuver, the sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (-LR), and misdiagnosis rate of cTTE3 in PFO diagnosis were 60%, 90%, 44%, and 10%, respectively, and those for cTTE5 were 76%, 78%, 31% and 22%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio (-LR), and misdiagnosis rate of cTCD III were 80%, 71%, 29%, and 29%, respectively, while those for cTCD IV were 55%, 90%, 49%, and 10%, respectively. When cTTE and cTCD were combined to diagnose PFO, the specificity and misdiagnosis rate were significantly improved, especially cTTE3+cTCD IV, with 100% specificity and a misdiagnosis rate of 0. Conclusion. cTTE or cTCD can be used for preliminary PFO related to cryptogenic stroke findings. The combination of the two methods can improve the specificity of PFO diagnosis, especially using the cutoff of cTTE3+cTCD IV.