{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01594896331738437, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006379585326953748, 'mean_word_length': 5.85792349726776, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Treatment of Mechanical Aortic Valve Thrombosis Fibrinolytic Treatment versus Surgical Intervention: Result of Eight Cases

Objective Thrombosis of mechanical heart valve prosthesis is a rare fatal complication after heart valve replacement. Although surgical intervention is the suggested treatment in many series, fibrinolytic treatment offers a good alternative. We describe eight cases with mechanical aortic valve thrombosis and compare their results after fibrinolytic treatment or redo aortic valve replacement. Methods Between February 2008 and March 2009, eight patients with previous mechanical prosthetic aortic valve replacement history were admitted to our center with mechanical aortic valve thrombosis. Four patients were operated, and the remaining four patients received low-dose fibrinolytic treatment. All patients’ data were collected prospectively. Results Two of the four operated patients died. In the fibrinolytic group, all patients totally recovered, and there was no mortality or morbidity during the follow-up period. Conclusions We thought that fibrinolytic treatment is a feasible and effective method for thrombosed mechanical aortic valve. However, much more populated patient groups are needed for the vigorous inference.