Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear.

Background: Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device. Methods: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points. Results: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=–0.14 [95% CI, –3.42 to 3.13]; P <0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, –1.55 to 1.55]; P <0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=–2.12 [95% CI, –4.45 to 0.21]; P <0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=–0.71 [95% CI, –3.72 to 2.31]; P =0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41–3.66]; P <0.001 for noninferiority; P =0.003 for superiority). Conclusions: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02879448.

The presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of medical conditions; however, the subject remains controversial and no official statements have been published. This interdisciplinary paper, prepared with involvement of eight European scientific societies, aims to review the available trial evidence and to define the principles needed to guide decision making in patients with PFO. In order to guarantee a strict process, position statements were developed with the use of a modified grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A critical qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the position statements of particular management options were weighed and graded according to predefined scales. Despite being based often on limited and non-randomised data, while waiting for more conclusive evidence, it was possible to conclude on a number of position statements regarding a rational general approach to PFO management and to specific considerations regarding left circulation thromboembolism. For some therapeutic aspects, it was possible to express stricter position statements based on randomised trials. This position paper provides the first largely shared, interdisciplinary approach for a rational PFO management based on the best available evidence.

Background: The NOTION trial (Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention) was designed to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients ≥70 years old with isolated severe aortic valve stenosis. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes are presented after 5 years. Methods: Patients were enrolled at 3 Nordic centers and randomized 1:1 to TAVR using the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis (n=145) or SAVR using any stented bioprostheses (n=135). The primary composite outcome was the rate of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 1 year defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar. The mean age was 79.1±4.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 3.0%±1.7%. After 5 years, there were no differences between TAVR and SAVR in the composite outcome (Kaplan-Meier estimates 38.0% versus 36.3%, log-rank test P =0.86) or any of its components. TAVR patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.7 cm ² versus 1.2 cm ² , P <0.001) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (8.2 mm Hg versus 13.7 mm Hg, P <0.001), both unchanged over time. More TAVR patients had moderate/severe total aortic regurgitation (8.2% versus 0.0%, P <0.001) and a new pacemaker (43.7% versus 8.7%, P <0.001). Four patients had prosthetic reintervention and no difference was found for functional outcomes. Conclusions: These are currently the longest follow-up data comparing TAVR and SAVR in lower risk patients, demonstrating no statistical difference for major clinical outcomes 5 years after TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared to SAVR. Higher rates of prosthetic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation were seen after TAVR. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01057173.

Subclinical leaflet thickening and reduced leaflet motion of bioprosthetic aortic valves have been documented by four-dimensional computed tomography (CT). Whether anticoagulation can reduce these phenomena after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known.