Evaluation of response to thrombolytic therapy versus surgery in patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis in a tertiary heart center in Tehran, Iran, during 2007–2019

IF 0.2 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
SeyedEhsan Parhizgar, Maryam Shojaeifard, Iman Koochari, Keyvan Zarei, HosseinDehghani Mohammadabadi, Sajad Erami, Vadood Khoshtinat, MohammadJavad Bahadori, Parisa Rezazadeh
{"title":"Evaluation of response to thrombolytic therapy versus surgery in patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis in a tertiary heart center in Tehran, Iran, during 2007–2019","authors":"SeyedEhsan Parhizgar, Maryam Shojaeifard, Iman Koochari, Keyvan Zarei, HosseinDehghani Mohammadabadi, Sajad Erami, Vadood Khoshtinat, MohammadJavad Bahadori, Parisa Rezazadeh","doi":"10.4103/rcm.rcm_9_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Prosthetic valve thrombosis is of the serious long-term complications of heart valve replacement that its treatment particularly in left-sided valves is controversial. Both surgery and thrombolysis are associated with their own merits and drawbacks. Hence, the aim of the present study is the evaluation of response to surgery and thrombolytic therapy in patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis in a tertiary heart center in Tehran, Iran, during 2007–2019. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 85 patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis (including 63 case of surgery and 22 case of thrombolytic therapy) were evaluated. Response to clinical and hemodynamic treatment and frequency of complications and mortality were determined in each group. Results: Clinical complete response in surgery group (84.13%) was significantly more than patients with thrombolytic therapy (64.63%). The frequency of complications in surgery and the thrombolytic group was 12.7% and 9.09%, respectively, which show no significant difference. Mortality was seen in 1.58% and 4.53% of patients with surgery and thrombolytic therapy respectively that was not statistically significant. Complete failure of treatment was seen in 18.18% of patients with thrombolytic therapy and re-surgery was done for them. The surgery success rate was significantly more than thrombolytic success rate in patients with a therapeutic range of international normalized ratio (INR) level. Conclusion: Surgery versus thrombolytic therapy has more efficacy and similar safety in patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis and may be preferable treatment for these patients. However, thrombolytic therapy also can be used as a suitable alternative, particularly in patients with a high risk of surgery.","PeriodicalId":21031,"journal":{"name":"Research in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/rcm.rcm_9_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prosthetic valve thrombosis is of the serious long-term complications of heart valve replacement that its treatment particularly in left-sided valves is controversial. Both surgery and thrombolysis are associated with their own merits and drawbacks. Hence, the aim of the present study is the evaluation of response to surgery and thrombolytic therapy in patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis in a tertiary heart center in Tehran, Iran, during 2007–2019. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 85 patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis (including 63 case of surgery and 22 case of thrombolytic therapy) were evaluated. Response to clinical and hemodynamic treatment and frequency of complications and mortality were determined in each group. Results: Clinical complete response in surgery group (84.13%) was significantly more than patients with thrombolytic therapy (64.63%). The frequency of complications in surgery and the thrombolytic group was 12.7% and 9.09%, respectively, which show no significant difference. Mortality was seen in 1.58% and 4.53% of patients with surgery and thrombolytic therapy respectively that was not statistically significant. Complete failure of treatment was seen in 18.18% of patients with thrombolytic therapy and re-surgery was done for them. The surgery success rate was significantly more than thrombolytic success rate in patients with a therapeutic range of international normalized ratio (INR) level. Conclusion: Surgery versus thrombolytic therapy has more efficacy and similar safety in patients with aortic prosthetic valve thrombosis and may be preferable treatment for these patients. However, thrombolytic therapy also can be used as a suitable alternative, particularly in patients with a high risk of surgery.
2007-2019年伊朗德黑兰三级心脏中心主动脉瓣人工血栓患者对溶栓治疗与手术的反应评估
背景:人工瓣膜血栓形成是心脏瓣膜置换术中严重的长期并发症之一,其治疗方法,尤其是左侧瓣膜的治疗存在争议。手术和溶栓都有各自的优缺点。因此,本研究的目的是评估2007-2019年伊朗德黑兰三级心脏中心主动脉人工瓣膜血栓形成患者对手术和溶栓治疗的反应。材料与方法:回顾性分析85例人工主动脉瓣血栓形成患者,其中手术治疗63例,溶栓治疗22例。观察两组患者对临床和血流动力学治疗的反应、并发症发生频率和死亡率。结果:手术组临床完全缓解率(84.13%)明显高于溶栓治疗组(64.63%)。手术组和溶栓组并发症发生率分别为12.7%和9.09%,差异无统计学意义。手术和溶栓治疗的死亡率分别为1.58%和4.53%,差异无统计学意义。18.18%的溶栓治疗患者治疗完全失败,再次手术治疗。治疗范围达到国际标准化比值(INR)水平的患者手术成功率明显高于溶栓成功率。结论:手术治疗与溶栓治疗在主动脉瓣血栓形成患者中具有更高的疗效和相似的安全性,可能是该类患者的首选治疗方法。然而,溶栓治疗也可以作为一种合适的替代方法,特别是在手术风险高的患者中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research in Cardiovascular Medicine
Research in Cardiovascular Medicine CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信