Short-Term Clinical Follow-Up After Thrombolytic Therapy in Patients With Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis: A Single-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thrombolytic therapy has evolved as an alternative to surgery for prosthetic valve thrombosis (PVT). Therefore, this retrospective, single-center study aimed to evaluate the clinical profile of PVT and the role of thrombolytic therapy in patients with PVT. METHODS: Data from a total of 16 consecutive patients with PVT enrolled between January 2017 and January 2018 at a tertiary care center in India were retrospectively evaluated. PVT was diagnosed based on clinical presentation, transthoracic echocardiography, and fluoroscopy. All patients received 0.25 MU intravenous (IV) bolus streptokinase over 30 min, followed by a 0.1 MU/h IV infusion for a maximum of 72 h. Transthoracic echocardiography and fluoroscopy were repeated after completion of thrombolysis session. The clinical endpoints were death and hemodynamic success within 24 h of thrombolytic therapy or during the hospital stay, and major complications, including stroke or major bleeding (intracranial bleed or bleeding requiring transfusion or surgical treatment) during the hospital stay and within 3 months of thrombolytic therapy. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 40 ± 11.60 years and about 62.5% (n = 10) were females. The median time between the valve placement and presentation for PVT was 3 years (range: 1 - 4 years). The peak gradient across the thrombotic mitral and aortic valve was 43.79 ± 18.47 and 93.5 ± 33.11 mmHg, respectively. At 3 days post-thrombolysis, peak gradient across both mitral valve (15.91 ± 7.56; mean gradient: 8.45 ± 4.01) and aortic valve (23.50 ± 6.45; mean gradient: 13.60 ± 3.83) decreased significantly (P ≤ 0.05). The thrombolytic therapy was successful in 13 (81.25%) patients. While, two (12.50%) patients died, none developed stroke or myocardial infarction during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The present study with short-term follow-up demonstrated the acceptable clinical efficacy of thrombolytic therapy. However, larger trials with a greater number of patients and longer follow-up are warranted to establish the safety and effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy in patients with PVT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".