Multifocal Cerebral Infarction Associated with Patent Foramen Ovale in Fifteen-year-old Male : A Case Report

Infarction is an uncommon occurrence in healthy young patients. Despite the lower mortality rate of infarction in the pediatric patients, there is a high social impact of the disease. Recent years are represented by the increased attention that is placed on detecting risk factors of infarction. Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is attributable to the important risk factor that has been associated with cerebral infarction of unknown etiology or cryptogenic infarction. Since the treatment to prevent recurrence in infarction is percutaneous closure with permanently implanted closure devices. We present a case of fifteen-year-old male who admitted to hospital after he had paresthesia and hemiparesis. His physical, cardiologic and neurologic examinations were normal, except for the left hemiparesis and left finger paresthesia. On admission, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy revealed multifocal hyperintense lesions consistent with acute ischemic events. Further evaluation with an aim to define the cause of infarction revealed a PFO with right-to-left shunt. He was underwent closure of the PFO using the Amplatzer occluder(R). Since one year after procedure, the patient has been visiting the out-patient department without recurrence of neurologic or cardiologic events.

A Case of Paradoxical Renal Embolism through Patent Foramen Ovale / 대한신장학회지

Paradoxical embolism is a kind of stroke caused by embolism of thrombus of venous origin through a lateral opening in the heart, such as a patent foramen ovale (PFO). Although the most frequent manifestation of paradoxical embolism is cryptogenic stroke, noncerebral paradoxical embolism is also associated with PFO. We experienced a case of cryptogenic renal infarction in a previously healthy 70-year-old man. He had no cardiac thrombus on transthoracic echocardiography and electrocardiogram revealed a normal sinus rhythm. Because it was cryptogenic renal infarction, we performed transesophageal echocardiography with microbubble test. Microbubble test using agitated saline proved the presence of right-to-left shunt and patent foramen ovale was diagnosed. We also performed lower leg doppler ultrasonogram, but there was no evidence of deep vein thrombosis. Although only the presence of a right-to-left shunt is not enough to establish the diagnosis of paradoxical embolism, it is uncommon for the source of the embolism to be identified. In this case, we concluded that paradoxical embolism is the cause of renal embolism. We report paradoxical renal embolism through PFO with review of relevant literatures.