The George Institute of Global Health, New Delhi, India.
Cardiothoracic Sciences Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Indian Heart J. 2024 May-Jun;76(3):192-196. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2024.06.013. Epub 2024 Jun 14.
Left-sided mechanical prosthetic heart valve thrombosis (PVT) occurs because of suboptimal anticoagulation and is common in low-resource settings. Urgent surgery and fibrinolytic therapy (FT) are the two treatment options available for this condition. Urgent surgery is a high-risk procedure but results in successful restoration of valve function more often and is the treatment of choice in developed countries. In low-resource countries, FT is used as the default treatment strategy, though it is associated with lower success rates and a higher rate of bleeding and embolic complications. There are no randomized trials comparing the two modalities.
We performed a single center randomized controlled trial comparing urgent surgery (valve replacement or thrombectomy) with FT (low-dose, slow infusion tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) in patients with symptomatic left-sided PVT. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a complete clinical response, defined as discharge from hospital with completely restored valve function, in the absence of stroke, major bleeding or non-CNS systemic embolism. Outcome assessment was done by investigators blinded to treatment allocation. The principal safety outcome was the occurrence of a composite of in-hospital death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal major bleed or non-CNS systemic embolism. Outcomes will be assessed both in the intention-to-treat, and in the as-treated population. We will also report outcomes at one year of follow-up. The trial has completed recruitment.
This is the first randomized trial to compare urgent surgery with FT for the treatment of left-sided PVT. The results will provide evidence to help clinicians make treatment choices for these patients. (Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2017/10/010159).
左侧机械人工心脏瓣膜血栓形成(PVT)是由于抗凝不足引起的,在资源匮乏的环境中较为常见。对于这种情况,有两种治疗选择,即紧急手术和纤维蛋白溶解治疗(FT)。紧急手术是一种高风险的手术,但更常成功恢复瓣膜功能,是发达国家的治疗选择。在资源匮乏的国家,FT 被用作默认的治疗策略,尽管它与较低的成功率和更高的出血和栓塞并发症发生率相关。目前还没有比较这两种方法的随机试验。
我们进行了一项单中心随机对照试验,比较了紧急手术(瓣膜置换或血栓切除术)与 FT(低剂量、缓慢输注组织型纤溶酶原激活剂,tPA)治疗有症状的左侧 PVT 患者。主要结局是完全临床反应的发生,定义为在无中风、大出血或非中枢神经系统系统性栓塞的情况下出院,且瓣膜功能完全恢复。结果评估由对治疗分配不知情的研究者进行。主要安全性结局是发生院内死亡、非致命性中风、非致命性大出血或非中枢神经系统系统性栓塞的复合事件。将在意向治疗和实际治疗人群中评估结局。我们还将报告一年随访时的结局。试验已完成招募。
这是第一项比较紧急手术与 FT 治疗左侧 PVT 的随机试验。结果将提供证据,帮助临床医生为这些患者做出治疗选择。(临床试验注册号:CTRI/2017/10/010159)。