Patent foramen ovale and migraine

Patent Foramen Ovale Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Patent Foramen Ovale from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

PFO and Stroke

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Study of Choice

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

X-ray

Echocardiography and Ultrasound

MRI

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Interventions

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Patent foramen ovale and migraine On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Patent foramen ovale and migraine

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Patent foramen ovale and migraine

CDC on Patent foramen ovale and migraine

Patent foramen ovale and migraine in the news

Blogs on Patent foramen ovale and migraine

Directions to Hospitals Treating Patent foramen ovale

Risk calculators and risk factors for Patent foramen ovale and migraine

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editors-In-Chief: Priyamvada Singh, M.B.B.S. [2]; Assistant Editor-In-Chief: Kristin Feeney, B.S. [3]

## Overview

[edit | edit source]

Patent foramen ovale has been associated with migraine headaches, particularly those with an aura. However, patent foramen ovale's role as a causative factor for migraine headaches is still not clear. The beneficial effect of patent foramen ovale closure in patients with migraine is controversial. Some smaller studies have shown some benefits of these closure, however, the large randomized double blinded 'MIST' trial failed to show any difference in cessation of migraines, between the percutaneous and the sham group.

## Trial supportive data for Supporting the Association Between a Patent foramen ovale and migraine

[edit | edit source]

* A recent metanalysis including 18 studies and comprising 2636 patients, found a low-grade positive association between migraines in patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) [1]. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with cautions, as the individual studies included for the metanalysis were quite heterogeneous. There was some positive association seen in patients of migraine with aura {odds ratio of 3.21(95% CI 2.38–4.70)} but no such relation was seen for patients of migraine without aura

* Another large case control study done to evaluate the association between migraine headaches and patent foramen ovale (PFO) found no significant association between the two [2]. The prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) was similar in case and control (26.4% versus 25.7%;P=0.90). Unlike the metanalysis discussed above, no difference in patent foramen ovale (PFO) prevalence was found in those with migraine with aura and those without (P=0.93).

* Similar results were shown in a large (1101 subjects) multiethnic, elderly, population-based cohort as no increased association was seen between patent foramen ovale (PFO) and migraine [3].

## Genetics

[edit | edit source]

A study of 71 relatives of 20 probands, found a dominant inheritance pattern in atrial shunts (patent foramen ovale and atrial septal defects). This was found to be linked to inheritance of migraine with aura in some families [4].

## Impact of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale on migraine

[edit | edit source]

The famous and controversial MIST trial (Migraine intervention with STARFlex Technology trial), was a large, randomized, prospective, double-blinded trial that intended to compare the impact of percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale to a sham procedure, on the episodes of migraine [5], [6]. The primary end point of the study was complete cessation of migraines headache 91 to 180 days after the procedure. (i.e. cure) and the secondary end point was a 50% reduction in migraine days. The study came out to be negative (primary end-point was not achieved i.e. total cessation of migraine episodes at 91-180 days was not different in the two study arms). Nevertheless, the secondary end-point was achieved and 50% reduction in migraine days, was seen in 42% of patients in the device arm versus 23% in the sham arm (P=0.038). Despite, the fact that the study was negative, it helped the future studies in deciding their endpoints as reduction in migraine frequency rather than complete cessation. Also, the statistically significant secondary end-point suggested that patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure could be beneficial in migraine patients refractory to medications.

## References

[edit | edit source]

1. ↑ Schwedt TJ, Demaerschalk BM, Dodick DW (2008). "Patent foramen ovale and migraine: a quantitative systematic review". Cephalalgia. 28 (5): 531–40. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01554.x. PMID 18355348.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ↑ Garg P, Servoss SJ, Wu JC, Bajwa ZH, Selim MH, Dineen A; et al. (2010). "Lack of association between migraine headache and patent foramen ovale: results of a case-control study". Circulation. 121 (12): 1406–12. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.895110. PMID 20231534.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link) CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
3. ↑ Rundek T, Elkind MS, Di Tullio MR, Carrera E, Jin Z, Sacco RL; et al. (2008). "Patent foramen ovale and migraine: a cross-sectional study from the Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS)". Circulation. 118 (14): 1419–24. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.771303. PMC 2737546. PMID 18794393.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link) CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
4. ↑ Wilmshurst PT, Pearson MJ, Nightingale S, Walsh KP, Morrison WL (2004). "Inheritance of persistent foramen ovale and atrial septal defects and the relation to familial migraine with aura". Heart. 90 (11): 1315–20. doi:10.1136/hrt.2003.025700. PMC 1768524. PMID 15486131.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
5. ↑ Carroll JD (2008). "Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology trial: a controversial trial of migraine and patent foramen ovale closure". Circulation. 117 (11): 1358–60. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.758748. PMID 18332260.
6. ↑ Dowson A, Mullen MJ, Peatfield R, Muir K, Khan AA, Wells C; et al. (2008). "Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology (MIST) trial: a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure with STARFlex septal repair implant to resolve refractory migraine headache". Circulation. 117 (11): 1397–404. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.727271. PMID 18316488.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link) CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)

## See also

[edit | edit source]

* Atrioventricular septal defect
* Congenital heart disease

Template:WikiDoc Sources