← Clinical Trial Results
Patent Foramen Ovale Phase 3 Prevention NCT00562289

CLOSE: Complete Statistical Analysis of Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in Stroke Recurrence Prevention

An independent statistical review of the randomized phase 3 CLOSE trial evaluating patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulants versus antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke recurrence.

Completed trial · Enrollment 664 · Primary completion December 2016
Scope of this record

This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record.

1. Trial at a Glance

CLOSE was a randomized phase 3 trial investigating strategies intended to prevent recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke associated with patent foramen ovale.

664
Enrollment
3
Study arms
Phase 3
Trial phase
2007-12
Start date
FeatureCLOSE
ConditionIschemic Stroke; Patent Foramen Ovale; Atrial Septal Aneurysm; Migraine
AllocationRandomized
Design modelParallel
MaskingNone
Primary purposePrevention
Lead sponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

2. Clinical Question

Population

Patients with ischemic stroke, patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or related registry-defined conditions.

Interventions

The trial evaluated aspirin, anticoagulant therapy options, and devices for patent foramen ovale closure.

Comparator

Antiplatelet therapy comparison was included in the randomized study design.

Primary question

Does one strategy reduce stroke recurrence compared with the other randomized strategies?

3. Trial Design

01
Randomized
02
3 arms
03
Parallel design
04
Follow-up 2–9 years
ArmIntervention
Device strategyDevices for PFO closure
Drug strategyAntivitamins K or rivaroxaban or dabigatran or apixaban
Antiplatelet strategyAspirin

4. Endpoints

EndpointRegistry definitionTime frame
Stroke (fatal or not)Stroke occurrenceDuring the follow up (between 2 or 9 years)

5. Planned Analysis

The registry identifies stroke (fatal or not) during follow-up between 2 or 9 years as the primary endpoint. Clinical trial analyses of recurrent stroke outcomes commonly use time-to-event methods because participants may have different follow-up durations and may not all experience an event.

Time-to-event analysis concept

Survival function: probability of remaining event-free over time

For recurrent stroke prevention studies, methods such as Kaplan–Meier estimation, log-rank comparisons, and hazard models are commonly used to compare event occurrence over follow-up. The ClinicalTrials.gov record does not report posted statistical analyses or outcome estimates for this endpoint.

6. Statistical Methodology

Randomized parallel comparison

Randomization is designed to balance measured and unmeasured factors across treatment groups. The parallel design means participants are assigned to a strategy and followed over time rather than sequentially receiving multiple interventions.

Time-to-event outcomes

The primary endpoint is an event occurring over a follow-up period. Statistical analysis must account for varying observation times and participants who complete follow-up without experiencing stroke.

Clinical interpretation of a hazard ratio

If a hazard ratio analysis is used, it compares estimated event rates over time rather than directly comparing the percentage of participants with an event at a single time point.

7. Statistical Methods Explained

Why is stroke recurrence a time-to-event outcome?

Stroke recurrence can occur at different times after enrollment. Time-to-event methods preserve information from the entire follow-up period.

Why does follow-up duration matter?

The registry reports a follow-up range between 2 or 9 years, meaning participants may contribute different amounts of observation time.

Why is randomization important?

Random allocation supports unbiased comparison between treatment strategies by reducing systematic differences between groups.

Why are multiple study arms important statistically?

With three arms, interpretation requires attention to the comparisons being made and whether the statistical analysis accounts for multiple comparisons.

Why is masking reported as none?

The registry reports no masking. Lack of masking can influence outcomes that depend on clinical decisions or subjective assessment, although objective endpoints may be less affected.

8. Limitations

9. Why This Trial Matters Statistically

CLOSE is a useful teaching example because it illustrates several important concepts in clinical trial statistics: randomized allocation, multi-arm comparisons, prevention endpoints, and analysis of events occurring over extended follow-up.

ConceptHow it appears in CLOSE
RandomizationRandomized allocation
Parallel designThree-arm parallel trial
Time-to-event analysisStroke occurrence during follow-up
Long follow-upBetween 2 or 9 years
Prevention endpointStroke recurrence prevention

10. Sources