Tariq Nauman, Tepper Stewart J, Kriegler Jennifer S
Michigan Headache and Neurological Institute Ringgold standard institution - Neurology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Dartmouth College Geisel School of Medicine Ringgold standard institution - Neurology, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Headache. 2016 Mar;56(3):462-78. doi: 10.1111/head.12779. Epub 2016 Mar 7.
A link between patent foramen ovale (PFO) and migraine as well as the utility of closure of PFO and its effect on migraine have been subjects of debate. The present review is an effort to gather the available evidence on this topic and formulate recommendations.
A systematic search of electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library) was performed. A separate search in associated reference lists of identified studies was done. Observational studies and clinical trials published in English using the International Headache Society criteria for diagnosis of migraine were included in the analysis. The search was performed in 3 categories: prevalence of migraine in patients with PFO, prevalence of PFO in migraine patients, and effect of PFO closure and its effect on migraine. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations during review of these studies was analyzed.
About 14 observational studies with 2602 subjects who had PFO were identified. Migraine prevalence ranged from 16% to 64%. Another 20 studies reported 2444 patients with migraine; the prevalence of PFO ranged from 15% to 90%. About 20 observational studies (1194 patients) that examined the effect of PFO closure on migraine were identified. Resolution of migraine was reported in 10% to 83% of patients, improvement in 14% to 83%, no change in 1% to 54%, and worsening in 4% to 8%. The overall quality of these observational studies was poor. Finally, 3 randomized clinical trials included a total of 238 patients who underwent PFO closure compared with 234 patients in the control groups. All 3 trials failed to meet their primary end points defined as migraine resolution and greater than 50% reduction in migraine days at 1 year. In 2 of the clinical trials, there was some benefit noted in a small subset of migraine patients with aura, but the numbers were too small to extrapolate the findings to the general migraine population.
There is no good quality evidence to support a link between migraine and PFO. Closure of PFO for migraine prevention does not significantly reduce the intensity and severity of migraine. We do not recommend the routine use of this procedure in current practice.
卵圆孔未闭(PFO)与偏头痛之间的联系以及PFO封堵术的效用及其对偏头痛的影响一直是争论的焦点。本综述旨在收集关于该主题的现有证据并制定建议。
对电子数据库(Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆)进行系统检索。对已识别研究的相关参考文献列表进行单独检索。分析使用国际头痛协会偏头痛诊断标准以英文发表的观察性研究和临床试验。检索分为3类进行:PFO患者中偏头痛的患病率、偏头痛患者中PFO的患病率以及PFO封堵术的效果及其对偏头痛的影响。在审查这些研究期间分析证据质量和推荐强度。
共识别出约14项观察性研究,涉及2602名患有PFO的受试者。偏头痛患病率在16%至64%之间。另外20项研究报告了2444例偏头痛患者;PFO患病率在15%至90%之间。共识别出约20项观察性研究(1194例患者),这些研究探讨了PFO封堵术对偏头痛的影响。据报告,10%至83%的患者偏头痛症状消失,14%至83%的患者症状改善,1%至54%的患者无变化,4%至8%的患者症状恶化。这些观察性研究的总体质量较差。最后,3项随机临床试验共纳入238例接受PFO封堵术的患者,与234例对照组患者进行比较。所有3项试验均未达到其定义为偏头痛症状消失以及1年内偏头痛天数减少超过50%的主要终点。在2项临床试验中,在一小部分有先兆的偏头痛患者中观察到了一些益处,但数量太少,无法将研究结果外推至一般偏头痛人群。
没有高质量证据支持偏头痛与PFO之间存在联系。封堵PFO预防偏头痛并不能显著降低偏头痛的强度和严重程度。我们不建议在当前实践中常规使用该手术。