Transcatheter patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is a safe and effective treatment for secondary prevention after a PFO-associated stroke as demonstrated in multiple large randomized clinical trials. However, these trials excluded a significant proportion of patients who could have benefited from percutaneous PFO closure due to coexisting potential confounders such as additional thromboembolic risk factors, namely thrombophilia. Since scarce and conflicting data existed on such patients, current clinical management guidelines on patients with PFO mainly recommended against PFO closure in patients with thrombophilia and failed to provide any recommendation on the type and duration of antithrombotic treatment after transcatheter PFO closure. In the past 2 years, there has been new evidence supporting transcatheter PFO closure as a clinically meaningful alternative (vs. medical treatment) in this high-risk group of patients, along with additional data supporting the important role of systematic screening for thrombophilia in PFO-associated cerebrovascular events. This review article provides an updated overview of the incidence, clinical characteristics and outcomes of PFO closure in patients with thrombophilia, also commenting on the most appropriate medical treatment after PFO closure and future perspectives in the field.

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure, along with medical therapy, has emerged as the therapeutic gold standard in younger (<60-year-old) patients with a PFO-related stroke for preventing recurrent events. However, PFO management guidelines lack definite recommendations for older (>60 years) patients with a PFO-related cerebrovascular event, a complex group of patients who were mostly excluded from PFO closure clinical trials. Nevertheless, several studies have shown a higher prevalence of PFO among older patients with cryptogenic stroke, and its presence has been associated with an increased risk of recurrent events. Furthermore, older patients exhibit a higher prevalence of high-risk PFO anatomical features, present inherent age-related risk factors that might increase the risk of paradoxical embolism through a PFO, and have a higher incidence of ischemic events after a PFO-related event. Additionally, observational studies have shown the safety and preliminary efficacy of PFO closure in older PFO-related stroke patients. Yet, higher rates of recurrent cerebrovascular events and new-onset atrial fibrillation were observed in some studies among older patients compared to their younger counterparts. After careful case-by-case evaluation, including the assessment of hidden potential cardioembolic sources of a cryptogenic stroke other than PFO, transcatheter PFO closure might be a safe and effective therapeutic option for preventing recurrent thromboembolic events in patients >60 years with a high-risk PFO-associated stroke. Ongoing trials will provide important insights into the role of PFO closure in the elderly population.