PFO closure reduces recurrent stroke risk by 44% in older patients with cryptogenic strokePFO closure lowers stroke risk for older patients but data comes from observational studies

BACKGROUND: In younger patients (<60 years) with cryptogenic stroke (CS) presumed to be patent foramen ovale (PFO)-related, the standard approach involves transcatheter PFO closure combined with antithrombotic therapy. However, due to their exclusion from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), no formal recommendations exist for patients ⩾60 years. This study had two objectives (1) to compare the efficacy and safety of PFO closure versus antithrombotic therapy alone (ATA) exclusively in older patients (⩾60 years) and (2) to assess the outcomes of PFO closure in patients ⩾ 60 years versus < 60 years. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases to obtain articles in all languages from January 2004 until July 2025. The primary outcome was risk of recurrent stroke during follow-up. Secondary outcomes were risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), all-cause mortality, and in-hospital complications. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD420250652870. RESULTS: Only one RCT (post hoc evaluation of the DEFENSE-PFO trial) and 11 observational studies were included. In patients aged ⩾ 60 years, risk of recurrent stroke was lower when PFO was closed compared with ATA (5.48% vs 10.05%, respectively, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45-0.80, p < 0.001, I = 45.6%). All-cause mortality was also lower for PFO closure versus ATA (1.73% vs 7.59%, respectively, HR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.19-0.90, p = 0.02; I = 43.8%). There was no difference between PFO closure and ATA in risk of new-onset AF (HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.53-2.44, p = 0.74). Compared with patients < 60 years, individuals ⩾ 60 years who underwent PFO closure had a higher risk of recurrent stroke (2.94% vs 1.04%, respectively, HR = 3.47; 95% CI = 1.61-7.48; p = 0.001), new-onset AF (4.86% vs 1.01%, respectively, HR = 4.12; 95% CI = 1.90-8.95; p < 0.001), and all-cause mortality during follow-up (8.32% vs 0.39%, respectively, HR = 8.24; 95% CI = 3.49-19.46; p < 0.0001). In-hospital complications after PFO closure were comparable between two age groups. Due to insufficient data, we were not able to perform a subgroup analysis based on anatomic features of PFO, antithrombotic regimen, or occluder devices. CONCLUSION: Based on available data, which is predominantly derived from observational studies, PFO closure is associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke compared to ATA in patients over 60 years. However, these findings are subjected to limitations, including the potential for selection bias, unmeasured confounding, and insufficient long-term follow-up. Furthermore, long-term randomized trials are essential to definitively confirm efficacy and establish clinical guidelines for PFO closure in this older population.