A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. RESULTS: After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Trial design: Rivaroxaban for the prevention of major cardiovascular events after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Rationale and design of the GALILEO study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antithrombotic treatment after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unknown and determined empirically. The direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban may potentially reduce TAVR-related thrombotic complications and premature valve failure. DESIGN: GALILEO is an international, randomized, open-label, event-driven, phase III trial in more than 1,520 patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation who underwent a successful TAVR (ClinicalTrials.govNCT02556203). Patients are randomized (1:1 ratio), 1 to 7days after a successful TAVR, to either a rivaroxaban-based strategy or an antiplatelet-based strategy. In the experimental arm, subjects receive rivaroxaban (10mg once daily [OD]) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, 75-100mg OD) for 90days followed by rivaroxaban alone. In the control arm, subjects receive clopidogrel (75mg OD) plus ASA (as above) for 90days followed by ASA alone. In case new-onset atrial fibrillation occurs after randomization, full oral anticoagulation will be implemented with maintenance of the original treatment assignment. The primary efficacy end point is the composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, symptomatic valve thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, and systemic embolism. The primary safety end point is the composite of life-threatening, disabling, and major bleeding, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. CONCLUSIONS: GALILEO will test the hypothesis that a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy reduces the risk of thromboembolic complications post-TAVR with an acceptable risk of bleeding compared with the currently recommended antiplatelet therapy-based strategy in subjects without need of chronic oral anticoagulation.

Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Fecal Transplantation for Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several case series have reported the effects of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed the efficacy and safety of FMT for patients with UC in a double-blind randomized trial. METHODS: Patients with mild to moderately active UC (n = 50) were assigned to groups that underwent FMT with feces from healthy donors or were given autologous fecal microbiota (control); each transplant was administered via nasoduodenal tube at the start of the study and 3 weeks later. The study was performed at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam from June 2011 through May 2014. The composite primary end point was clinical remission (simple clinical colitis activity index scores ≤2) combined with ≥1-point decrease in the Mayo endoscopic score at week 12. Secondary end points were safety and microbiota composition by phylogenetic microarray in fecal samples. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients completed the primary end point assessment. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 7 of 23 patients who received fecal transplants from healthy donors (30.4%) and 5 of 25 controls (20.0%) achieved the primary end point (P = .51). In the per-protocol analysis, 7 of 17 patients who received fecal transplants from healthy donors (41.2%) and 5 of 20 controls (25.0%) achieved the primary end point (P = .29). Serious adverse events occurred in 4 patients (2 in the FMT group), but these were not considered to be related to the FMT. At 12 weeks, the microbiota of responders in the FMT group was similar to that of their healthy donors; remission was associated with proportions of Clostridium clusters IV and XIVa. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 trial, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical and endoscopic remission between patients with UC who received fecal transplants from healthy donors and those who received their own fecal microbiota, which may be due to limited numbers. However, the microbiota of responders had distinct features from that of nonresponders, warranting further study. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01650038.

Slow and discontinuous conduction conspire in Brugada syndrome: a right ventricular mapping and stimulation study.

BACKGROUND: Brugada syndrome (BrS) is associated with lethal arrhythmias, which are linked to specific ST-segment changes (type-1 BrS-ECG) and the right ventricle (RV). The pathophysiological basis of the arrhythmias and type-1 BrS-ECG is unresolved. We studied the electrophysiological characteristics of the RV endocardium in BrS. METHODS AND RESULTS: RV endocardial electroanatomical mapping and stimulation studies were performed in controls (n=12) and BrS patients with a type-1 (BrS-1, n=10) or type-2 BrS-ECG (BrS-2, n=12) during the studies. BrS-1 patients had prominent impairment of RV endocardial impulse propagation when compared with controls, as represented by: (1) prolonged activation-duration during sinus rhythm (86+/-4 versus 65+/-3 ms), (2) increased electrogram fractionation (1.36+/-0.04 versus 1.15+/-0.01 deflections per electrogram), (3) longer electrogram duration (83+/-3 versus 63+/-2 ms), (4) activation delays on premature stimulation (longitudinal: 160+/-26 versus 86+/-9 ms; transversal: 112+/-5 versus 58+/-6 ms), and (5) abnormal transversal conduction velocity restitution (42+/-8 versus 18+/-2 ms increase in delay at shortest coupling intervals). Wider and more fractionated electrograms were also found in BrS-2 patients. Repolarization was not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: BrS-1 and BrS-2 patients are characterized by wide and fractionated electrograms at the RV endocardium. BrS-1 patients display additional conduction slowing during sinus rhythm and premature stimulation along with abnormal transversal conduction velocity restitution. These patients may thus exhibit a substrate for slow and discontinuous conduction caused by abnormal active membrane processes and electric coupling. Our findings support the emerging notion that BrS is not solely attributable to abnormal electrophysiological properties but requires the conspiring effects of conduction slowing and tissue discontinuities.

Retransfusion of pericardial blood does not trigger systemic coagulation during cardiopulmonary bypass.

OBJECTIVE: During cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), systemic coagulation is believed to become activated by blood contact with the extracorporeal circuit and by retransfusion of pericardial blood. To which extent retransfusion activates systemic coagulation, however, is unknown. We investigated to which extent retransfusion of pericardial blood triggers systemic coagulation during CPB. METHODS: Thirteen patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery were included. Pericardial blood was retransfused into nine patients and retained in four patients. Systemic samples were collected before, during and after CPB, and pericardial samples before retransfusion. Levels of prothrombin fragment F(1+2) (ELISA), microparticles (flow cytometry) and non-cell bound (soluble) tissue factor (sTF; ELISA) were determined. RESULTS: Compared to systemic blood, pericardial blood contained elevated levels of F(1+2), microparticles and sTF. During CPB, systemic levels of F(1+2) increased from 0.28 (0.25-0.37; median, interquartile range) to 1.10 (0.49-1.55) nmol/l (p=0.001). This observed increase was similar to the estimated (calculated) increase (p=0.424), and differed significantly between retransfused and non-retransfused patients (1.12 nmol/l vs 0.02 nmol/l, p=0.001). Also, the observed systemic increases of platelet- and erythrocyte-derived microparticles and sTF were in line with predicted increases (p=0.868, p=0.778 and p=0.205, respectively). Before neutralization of heparin, microparticles and other coagulant phospholipids decreased from 464 microg/ml (287-701) to 163 microg/ml (121-389) in retransfused patients (p=0.001), indicating rapid clearance after retransfusion. CONCLUSION: Retransfusion of pericardial blood does not activate systemic coagulation under heparinization. The observed increases in systemic levels of F(1+2), microparticles and sTF during CPB are explained by dilution of retransfused pericardial blood.