Why the study?
Mechanical heart valves carry a risk of valve thrombosis, and effective thrombolytic dosing for right-sided prosthetic valves presents clinical challenges.
An ultraslow thrombolysis regimen with tissue plasminogen activator can be an effective alternative to surgery for right-sided mechanical valve thrombosis.
Successful thrombolysis resolved mechanical tricuspid valve thrombosis in this case; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Prosthetic heart valve implantation over the past 7 decades has revolutionized treatment of valvular heart disease. Mechanical heart valves, although more durable than a bioprosthesis, require lifelong anticoagulation, with risk of valve thrombosis-a serious, life-threatening complication with high morbidity and mortality. CASE SUMMARY: We present a case of prosthetic mechanical tricuspid valve thrombosis that was successfully treated with thrombolysis using tissue plasminogen activator. DISCUSSION: The incidence of prosthetic mechanical valve thrombosis ranges from 0.1% to 5.7% per year, with higher rates observed in the post-surgical period and for prosthetic tricuspid valves (20%) compared with aortic or mitral valves (0.5%-0.8%). American College of Cardiology /American Heart Association (AHA) 2020 guidelines recommend higher international normalized ratio (INR) for prosthetic tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) and mitral valve replacement 3.0 (INR: 2.5-3.5), as opposed to prosthetic aortic valve replacement 2.5 (INR: 2-3). Current guidelines recommend parenteral anticoagulation, thrombolysis, and redo valve replacement as treatment options for mechanical heart valve thrombosis. Thrombolytic treatment provides a suitable and effective alternative to surgery, with challenges in effective dose administration for right-sided prosthetic valves. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: An ultraslow thrombolysis regimen can provide a suitable and effective alternative to surgery in treatment of right-sided mechanical valve thrombosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Afzal et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: