Evidence Hub

Pooled Analysis of PFO Occluder Device Trials in Patients With PFO and Migraine

M. Mojadidi, Preetham Kumar, Ahmed N. Mahmoud, I. Elgendy, H. Shapiro, Brian H. West, A. Charles, H. Mattle et al.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2021

337 participants · 90 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although observational studies have shown percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to be a safe means of reducing the frequency and duration of migraine, randomized clinical trials have not met their primary efficacy endpoints.

OBJECTIVES

The authors report the results of a pooled analysis of individual participant data from the 2 randomized trials using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder to assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous device closure as a therapy for episodic migraine with or without aura.

METHODS

The authors analyzed individual patient-level data from 2 randomized migraine trials (the PRIMA [Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale in Migraine With Aura] and PREMIUM [Prospective Randomized Investigation to Evaluate Incidence of Headache Reduction in Subjects with Migraine and PFO Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder Compared to Medical Management] studies). Efficacy endpoints were mean reduction in monthly migraine days, responder rate (defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks), mean reduction in monthly migraine attacks, and percentage of patients who experienced complete cessation of migraine. The safety endpoint was major procedure- and device-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 337 subjects, 176 were randomized by blocks to device closure and 161 to medical treatment only. At 12-month follow-up, the analysis met 3 of the 4 efficacy endpoints: mean reduction of monthly migraine days (-3.1 days vs. -1.9 days; p = 0.02), mean…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 337 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free