- Journal
- JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
- Année
- 2024
- Volume
- 13
- Numéro
- 19
- Article
- e035143
- Mois
- OCT 1
- DOI
- 10.1161/JAHA.124.035143
Abstract
Background: The optimal strategy in prosthetic heart valve thrombosis (PVT) remains controversial, with no randomized trials and conflicting observational data. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence comparing systemic thrombolysis and cardiac surgery in PVT. Methods and Results: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies on treatment strategies in patients with left-sided PVT since 2000. The primary outcome was death, and the secondary outcomes were major bleeding and thromboembolism during follow-up (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews No. CRD42022384092). We identified 2298 studies, of which 16 were included, comprising 1389 patients with PVT (mean age, 50.4 +/- 9.3 years; 60.0% women). Among them, 67.2% were New York Heart Association stage III/IV at admission. Overall, 48.1% were treated with systemic thrombolysis and 51.9% with cardiac surgery. The mortality rate was 10.8% in the thrombolysis group and 15.3% in the surgery group. The pooled risk difference for death with systemic thrombolysis was 1.13 (exact CI, 0.74-1.79; zeta(2)=0.89; P<0.001) versus cardiac surgery. Rates of both transient ischemic attack and non-central nervous system embolism were higher in the thrombolysis group (P=0.002 and P=0.02, respectively). Treatment success, major bleeding, and stroke were similar between groups. Sensitivity analysis including studies that used low-dose or slow-infusion thrombolysis showed that the mortality rate was lower, and treatment success was higher, in patients referred to systemic thrombolysis, with similar rates of other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: There is evidence to suggest that thrombolysis might be the preferred option for the management of PVT without cardiogenic shock, pending future randomized controlled trials or larger observational studies.