Surgery compared to fibrinolytic therapy for symptomatic left-sided prosthetic heart valve thrombosis (SAFE-PVT): Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Left-sided mechanical prosthetic heart valve thrombosis (PVT) occurs because of suboptimal anticoagulation and is common in low-resource settings. Urgent surgery and fibrinolytic therapy (FT) are the two treatment options available for this condition. Urgent surgery is a high-risk procedure but results in successful restoration of valve function more often and is the treatment of choice in developed countries. In low-resource countries, FT is used as the default treatment strategy, though it is associated with lower success rates and a higher rate of bleeding and embolic complications. There are no randomized trials comparing the two modalities. METHODS: We performed a single center randomized controlled trial comparing urgent surgery (valve replacement or thrombectomy) with FT (low-dose, slow infusion tissue plasminogen activator, tPA) in patients with symptomatic left-sided PVT. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a complete clinical response, defined as discharge from hospital with completely restored valve function, in the absence of stroke, major bleeding or non-CNS systemic embolism. Outcome assessment was done by investigators blinded to treatment allocation. The principal safety outcome was the occurrence of a composite of in-hospital death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal major bleed or non-CNS systemic embolism. Outcomes will be assessed both in the intention-to-treat, and in the as-treated population. We will also report outcomes at one year of follow-up. The trial has completed recruitment. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized trial to compare urgent surgery with FT for the treatment of left-sided PVT. The results will provide evidence to help clinicians make treatment choices for these patients. (Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2017/10/010159).

Ischemia-guided vs routine non-culprit vessel angioplasty for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease: the IAEA SPECT STEMI trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multi-vessel disease presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the efficacy and safety of ischemia-guided, vs routine non-culprit vessel angioplasty has not been adequately studied. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomized, non-inferiority trial comparing ischemia-guided non-culprit vessel angioplasty to routine non-culprit vessel angioplasty, following primary PCI for STEMI. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in percent ischemic myocardium at follow-up stress MPI. All MPI images were processed and analyzed at a central core lab, blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS: In all, 109 patients were enrolled from nine countries. In the ischemia-guided arm, 25/48 (47%) patients underwent non-culprit vessel PCI following stress MPI. In the routine non-culprit PCI arm, 43/56 (77%) patients underwent angioplasty (86% within 6 weeks of randomization). The median percentage of ischemic myocardium on follow-up imaging (mean 16.5 months) was low, and identical (2.9%) in both arms (difference 0.13%, 95%CI - 1.3%-1.6%, P < .0001; non-inferiority margin 5%). CONCLUSION: A strategy of ischemia-guided non-culprit PCI resulted in low ischemia burden, and was non-inferior to a strategy of routine non-culprit vessel PCI in reducing ischemia burden. Selective non-culprit PCI following STEMI offers the potential for cost-savings, and may be particularly relevant to low-resource settings. (CTRI/2018/08/015384).