This article covers the main unsolved issues regarding the potential role that the patent foramen ovale (PFO) plays in the genesis of so-called cryptogenic stroke. Some brief notions of the anatomy and epidemiology of the PFO are outlined. Subsequently, the results of the three trials on secondary prevention (medical therapy vs. transcatheter closure) in patients with PFO and a history of cryptogenic stroke are presented. The conflicting results of numerous meta-analyses derived from the three randomized controlled trials are discussed. Official scientific guidelines dispute an alleged superior efficacy of transcatheter PFO occlusion in comparison with antithrombotic therapy alone (anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents), except for selected cases of patients with documented PFO and a concomitant clinical–instrumental picture of deep venous thrombosis. Nevertheless, considering recent doubts about the presumptive thrombogenic and arrhythmogenic potential of PFO occlusion, which concerns only one of the septal occluders previously used, further in-depth investigations are warranted, centered on the use of newer dedicated devices to be tested in comparison with antithrombotic regimens alone.