Valvular & structural heart disease

Urgent surgery vs fibrinolytic therapy for left-sided prosthetic valve thrombosis: a randomized trial

Eur Heart JPublished Randomised controlled trial

Primary resultResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 1.22 95% CI 0.46–3.19

Authors' conclusion

In symptomatic left-sided PVT, urgent surgery is not more efficacious than FT. Surgery is associated with a higher risk of complications, including death, while FT is more often associated with residual valve dysfunction.

Study context

Population
Patients with symptomatic left-sided mechanical prosthetic valve thrombosis (PVT)
Participants
79 patients
Comparison
Urgent surgery vs fibrinolytic therapy (FT) for symptomatic left-sided PVT
  • Urgent surgeryn = 39
  • FTn = 40reference
Primary endpoint
Complete clinical response: discharge with completely restored valve function, without major complications
Follow-up
Discharge
Methodological detailssingle-centre, blinded outcome assessment, Of 32 patients who had surgery, 17 (53%) operated within 48 h
  • Single-centre
  • Blinded outcome assessment
  • Of 32 patients who had surgery, 17 (53%) operated within 48 h

Primary result

As reported in the abstract

Odds ratio

1.22

95% CI 0.46–3.19

P = 0.689

Urgent surgery vs FT
OR 1.22 (95% CI 0.46–3.19); P = 0.689

Further findings

OutcomeOR (95% CI)P value
Composite of death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal major bleed or systemic embolism · discharge5.14 (1.28–20.5)P = 0.021
OutcomeUrgent surgeryFTEstimateP value
Death7/391/40
Residual valve dysfunction (FT)
Twenty-five percent · 10 of 40
  • Death: P = .035

Original publication

Urgent surgery vs fibrinolytic therapy for left-sided prosthetic valve thrombosis: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J. Published 27 June 2025. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf391

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it

Get them every week

New studies on this topic in My Week and in your Monday e-mail.

We e-mail you a sign-in link and a code. No password, no spam.