ArticleJACC. Advances2023
Outcomes of Patent Foramen Ovale Transcatheter Closure: Should a Short Aortic Rim Preclude Closure?
Article in JACC. Advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Device Sizing: Dynamic Tissue Interaction in Patent Foramen Ovale Closure.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Bigger Is Feasible With a Short Retroaortic Rim But Is it Always Better?JACC. Advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The risk of erosion of an atrial septal closure device, in particular the Amplatzer Septal Occluder, has been described as higher in patients with a short aortic rim. Similar concern has been applied to patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices, but there are only rare reported cases of erosion. It may be that smaller devices are chosen due to fear of device erosion in PFO patients when this is not necessarily an issue. Objectives: The authors aimed to assess outcomes after PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO device in patients with a short (<9 mm) aortic rim. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of PFO closure for any indication, between 2006 and 2017 at a quaternary center. Preprocedural transesophageal echocardiographic parameters including the aortic rim were remeasured. Long-term outcomes were obtained by linkage to provincial administrative databases. Results: Over the study period, 324 patients underwent PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO device, with a mean age of 49.8 years; 61% had a short aortic rim (<9 mm). The most common indication was cryptogenic stroke (72%); those with longer aortic distance were more likely to have a non-stroke indication for closure, diabetes (15% vs 6.5%, Conclusions: In a large cohort with long-term administrative follow-up (1,394 patient-years), implantation of an Amplatzer PFO device was performed safely even in patients with a short aortic rim.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.