Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Apr 20;18(4):e0284652. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284652

Treatment outcome of patients with prosthetic stuck valves at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia

Kefelegn Dejene Tadesse 1, Meron Gebru 2, Atnafu Mekonnen Tekleab 3,*
Editor: Justin Paul Gnanaraj4
PMCID: PMC10118175  PMID: 37079549

Abstract

Background

Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis (PVT) is rare but life threatening condition which requires urgent intervention. Patient treatment outcome is not well studied in resource limited settings and the current study aims to explore the treatment outcome of patients with PVT at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia.

Methods

The study was conducted at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia which provides heart valve surgery. All patients who were diagnosed and managed for PVT in the center during the period July 2017 to March 2022 were included in the study. Data were collected through chart abstraction by using a structured questionnaire. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 20.0 for windows software.

Result

Eleven patients (13 episodes of stuck valve) with PVT were included in the study and nine of them were female. The median age was 28 years old (IQR 22.5–34.0) with the youngest and oldest patients being 18 and 46 years old respectively. All the patients had bi-leaflet prosthetic mechanical valves (10 at mitral valve, two at aortic and mitral and one at aortic positions). The median duration of valve replacement before having PVT was 36 months (IQR 5–72). All patients reported good adherence to anticoagulant therapy; yet only five had optimal INR value. Nine patients presented with failure symptoms. Eleven patients received thrombolytic therapy and nine of them responded to it. One patient operated for failed thrombolytic therapy. Two patients responded to heparinization and optimization of anticoagulant therapy. Of the ten patients who received streptokinase, two of them developed fever and one patient developed bleeding as a complication of the treatment. All the patients survived hospital discharge.

Conclusion

Prosthetic valve thrombosis was accompanied by sub-optimal anticoagulant therapy. Most patients responded to medical therapy alone.

Introduction

Rheumatic valvular pathology is very common in developing countries and often require surgical replacement with prosthetic valves [1]. Although Prosthetic valve thrombosis (PVT) is rare (seen in 0.3–1.3% of prosthetic valve in developed countries), it is associated with high mortality and morbidity [2]. Prosthetic valve type, anticoagulation status, valve position, the presence of prothrombotic states such as pregnancy, atrial fibrillation, and/or ventricular dysfunction determine the risk of PVT. However, inadequate anticoagulant therapy is the leading cause of PVT [3].

Early diagnosis and appropriate treatment is very vital [4]. Although surgical approach, fibrinolysis, and heparin treatment are considered as treatments of choice, the clinical status of the patient and the valvular condition determine the option of treatment [2].

Fibrinolytic agents are among the treatment options [5] though they are associated with a high risk of emboli, bleeding, and high mortality rates [68]. Complications related to use of fibrinolytic therapy can be decreased with a low dose and slow infusion of fibrinolytic therapy [9]. In 1971, Luluaga et al were the first to use thrombolytic therapy in PVT and they used Streptokinase to treat thrombosis of the tricuspid valve prosthesis. Later, Baille et al reported the use of a thrombolytic agent in a patient with aortic PVT [10].

Prosthetic valve replacement surgery is one of the open heart surgeries being offered at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia. Following the valve replacement surgery, achieving optimal anticoagulation status during patient follow up is a challenge for several reasons. Sometimes patients present with emergency condition due to prosthetic stuck valve which is a life threatening condition in the absence of urgent intervention. There are limited studies particularly in developing countries regarding the clinical profile and treatment outcomes of patients with prosthetic stuck valves. This study aimed to explore the treatment outcome of patients who had prosthetic stuck valve and who were treated at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Methods

Study setting

The study was conducted at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia (CCE), found in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. CCE is a non-profit charity organization located at the heart of Addis Ababa. It was established in 2009 and since then the center has performed hundreds of valve replacement surgeries.

Study design and study period

Data were collected through chart abstraction during the month of May 2022. A retrospective institutional based cross-sectional study design was used and patients who developed stuck valve and who were treated in the center between the periods July 2017 to March 2022 were included in the study.

Data collection technique

All patients who were diagnosed to have prosthetic stuck valve during the mentioned period were included in the study. Patient registration log book was used to identify patients who were treated for prosthetic stuck valve in the center. Then data were collected by reviewing their charts. Demographic characteristics (age and sex), and clinical profiles (underlying valvular lesion, type of mechanical valve implanted, anticoagulant adherence, International Normalized Ratio (INR), left ventricular function, presenting symptom, echo findings, thrombolytic treatment, patient outcome) were collected by reviewing the charts. Information that could help authors identify individual patients were not included in the data collection.

We defined prosthetic valve as mechanical or bio prosthetic valve implanted for patients who had native valve disease and who developed prosthetic stuck valve as a patient with acute onset of hemodynamic instability, echocardiographic findings with elevated trans-prosthetic valve pressure gradient, central regurgitation, immobility or reduced leaflet mobility, and the presence of thrombus on either side of the prosthesis, with or without obstruction [2]. Patients who were clinically asymptomatic while having immobile prosthetic valve disc and/or elevated trans-prosthetic gradient seen on echo were also included.

Patient management protocol for prosthetic stuck valve at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia

Patient who is clinically suspected to have obstructive thrombotic prosthetic valve will undergo Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE). If possible, Trans-esophageal Echocardiography (TEE) and cine fluoroscopy are also done. Once patient is diagnosed with stuck thrombotic valve, laboratory tests such as Complete Blood Count (CBC), coagulation profile, renal function test and chest X-ray will be done. In the meantime, patient will be admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for monitoring and informed consent will be sought. Patient will be assessed for an increased risk of bleeding (such as low platelet count, presence of bleeding diathesis, INR value above the target range) and if the International Normalized Ratio (INR) is found to be less than 2, in most cases streptokinase with loading dose of 250,000 IU over one hour and then maintenance dose of 100,000 IU/hour via infusion will be initiated.

TTE will be done every 6 hours to assess mobility and the mean gradient across the stuck valve. If the valve is opened within 24 hrs of streptokinase initiation, we stop the streptokinase and then start heparin infusion till the INR target for individual prosthetic valve is reached. If the stuck valve is not opened with in 24 hrs of streptokinase initiation, we continue the streptokinase infusion for 48–72 hrs. During the infusion, major adverse effect will be monitored. Redo valve surgery will be offered if there is no response to the thrombolytic therapy administered for 72 hrs. For some reasons, if thrombolytic agent is not available or partial obstruction of the valve with mild symptoms is diagnosed, then heparin infusion will be given with target partial PTT 1.5-2x of the upper normal for the patient. PTT will be determined every 6 hrs. At the end, cine fluoroscopy will be done. We use Tenecteplase when patient has previous exposure to streptokinase (in the past one year) in order to avoid hypersensitivity reaction to streptokinase re-administration. Additionally, tenecteplase is more expensive in our setting and not routinely available for first line use.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 for windows. Mean and median values were determined for continuous variables. Data were presented using frequency tables and in text form.

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of St Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College (ethical approval code = pm23/320). Informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of St Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College due to the retrospective nature of the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Ethiopian national research guideline and the Helsinki Declaration.

Results

A total of 11 patients (13 episodes of stuck valve) were treated for prosthetic stuck valves between the periods July 2017 through March 2022. During the same period, a total of 133 patients underwent prosthetic valve replacement surgery making the prevalence of PVT to be 8.3%. The median age was 28 years old (IQR 22.5–34.0) and nine of them were female. The youngest and oldest patients were 18 and 46 years old respectively.

All patients had bi-leaflet prosthetic mechanical valves. The prosthetic valve was at the mitral valve position in ten patients, mitral and aortic valve positions in two patients, and at the aortic valve position in one patient. However, only one patient had the prosthetic stuck valve at the aortic valve position. The median duration of mechanical valve implantation before having a prosthetic stuck valve was 36 months (IQR 5–72) with the shortest and longest durations being 2 months and 108 months respectively.

Just before the onset of the prosthetic stuck valve, all patients had good adherence to anticoagulant medication (all were taking only warfarin); yet only five of them had their INR value in the recommended range. Nine patients presented with class III/IV New York Heart Association (NYHA) heart failure symptoms (median duration of symptom was three days) due to the prosthetic stuck valve and for the rest four patients, the stuck valve was detected incidentally and the patients had class I/II NYHA symptoms when they came for the regular follow-up.

Pre-intervention/pre-treatment echocardiographic study showed reduced mobility of at least one of the discs of the prosthetic mechanical valve in all of the patients. However, only six patients underwent pre-treatment Fluoroscopy study and in all of them, it was seen that at least one of the discs of the prosthetic valve was immobile. The remaining seven patients didn’t undergo fluoroscopy study due to their hemodynamic instability and occasionally due to malfunction of the fluoroscopy machine.

Eleven patients received thrombolytic therapy alone as first-line treatment and nine of them responded to it. One of the patient who failed to respond to thrombolytic therapy underwent surgical mechanical valve replacement therapy. Of the 13 patients, two of them responded to combination therapy of heparinization with optimization of anticoagulant therapy and didn’t require thrombolytic therapy. Of the total eleven patients who received thrombolytic therapy, ten of them received streptokinase and the remaining one patient received Tenecteplase. Of the ten patients who received streptokinase, two of them developed fever and one patient developed bleeding (excessive epistaxis and gum bleeding) as a complication of the treatment (Table 1). All the patients survived hospital discharge. The median duration of hospital stay was eight days (IQR 5.25–11.0).

Table 1. Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients with mechanical stuck valve, 2022.

Patient Characteristics
Age Sex Duration since valve implanted INR# Site of mechanical valve Site of stuck valve Mean gradient (before)* Mean gradient (after)** Treatment
1 18 F 56month 1.3 Mitral Mitral 15 4.2 Thrombolysis
2 37 F 2month 1.5 Mitral Mitral 32 6.0 Thrombolysis
3 20 M 6month 1.5 Mitral Mitral 12 2.8 Heparin & anti-coagulant
#4a 31 F 60month 1.8 Mitral Mitral 17 6.0 Surgery
#4b 31 F 3month 2.9 Mitral & aortic Mitral 31 9.0 Thrombolysis
5 37 F 84month 3.9 Mitral & aortic Mitral 30 4.3 Thrombolysis
$6a 26 F 26month 1.7 Mitral Mitral 12 7.6 Thrombolysis
$6b 29 F 51month 1.6 Mitral Mitral 30 20.0 Thrombolysis
7 28 M 36month 3.2 Mitral Mitral 16 4.4 Thrombolysis
8 46 F 10month 3.1 Mitral Mitral 7 4.5 Heparin & anti-coagulant
9 25 F 4month 2.4 Mitral Mitral 15 7.0 Thrombolysis
10 27 M 84month 2.1 Aortic Aortic 60 29.0 Thrombolysis
11 18 M 108month 1.74 Mitral Mitral 30 10.8 Thrombolysis

#INR- International Normalized Ratio; Mean trans-vulvar gradient *before intervention and **after intervention.

#4a and #4b as well as $6a and $6b represent patients who had two episodes of stuck valve.

The mean value of the mean trans-mitral valve gradient of the patients who had isolated mitral prosthetic stuck valve (12 patients) before initiation of therapy for the stuck valve was 18.3mmHG and the post-treatment mean gradient for the group was 7.2mmHG.

Two of the patients (patient 4a & 4b and patient 6a & 6b) had recurrence of the prosthetic stuck valve. One of them developed a recurrence of the stuck valve three months after the initial episode and the other patient had it three years after the initial episode (Table 1).

Discussion

The current study aimed to describe treatment outcome of patients who had mechanical prosthetic stuck valve. Most of the patients were female and most stuck valves happened at the mitral valve position. We also found out that the INR values of most of the patients were below the recommended target value. Most patients responded to medical treatment alone and there was no death among the case series we studied.

In line with the findings of the current study, previous study reported female patients with prosthetic mechanical valve to have higher likelihood of developing PVT as compared to their male counter parts [11].

Due to hemodynamic characteristic of the prosthetic valve, mitral prosthetic valve thrombosis is 2–3 times more frequent than thrombosis of aortic valve prosthesis [2]. That explains the higher number of patients with mitral valve prosthetic thrombosis than aortic valve prosthesis in our study population. Higher proportion of mitral valve prosthetic thrombosis than aortic valve prosthetic valve thrombosis was reported by a study conducted in India [12].

Patients with prosthetic mechanical valve require life-long anticoagulant therapy and it should be able to attain optimum INR level that is indicated for the site of the prosthetic mechanical valve [13]. However, patients in resource limited settings lack proper lab monitoring of anticoagulant therapy due to different social and economic reasons. In our case series, most patients had suboptimal anticoagulant therapy as reflected by their low INR level though they claim to have good adherence to the treatment regimen. We believe that the suboptimal anticoagulant therapy is contributory to the development of PVT in our study population.

In the current study, the median time between valve replacement and onset of PVT was 36 months. Previous study reported median time of four years. The risk of PVT is high in the first year of the postoperative period (24%) with stable incidence between the second to fourth years (15%) and declining incidence then after [14]. In our case series, the occurrence of PVT can be related to the inadequate dose of anti-coagulation therapy they were receiving at the time of their presentation.

In our case series, the fact that most of the patients responded to medical therapy alone is interesting finding. For left sided obstructive PVT, surgery is the option of treatment and fibrinolysis is reserved for patients with poor functional class and those who are high risk to undergo surgery [15]. Previous study indicated that the success rate of fibrinolysis therapy alone is 82% (2,6). The higher rate of response to medical treatment of stuck valve management in our study population is an interesting finding since cardiac surgery is expensive and unavailable for most patients in resource limited settings such as ours. As a result, in low income countries, it is estimated that only about 11.0% of cardiac patients who demand cardiac surgery are operated on [16].

Limitation of the study includes small size study population and single institution study which makes the findings difficult to be generalized.

Conclusion

Prosthetic valve thrombosis can happen several months after valve replacement surgery is done and it is accompanied by sub-optimal anticoagulant therapy. Most patients responded to medical therapy alone.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Anonymized data set used for the current study.

(SAV)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Lengyel M. Management of prosthetic valve thrombosis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004. May;13(3):329–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Roudaut R, Serri K, Lafitte S. Thrombosis of prosthetic heart valves: diagnosis and therapeutic considerations. Heart. 2007. Jan 1;93(1):137–42. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2005.071183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Duran NE, Biteker M, Ozkan M. [Treatment alternatives in mechanical valve thrombosis]. Turk Kardiyol Dernegi Arsivi Turk Kardiyol Derneginin Yayin Organidir. 2008. Sep;36(6):420–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Edmunds LH. Thromboembolic Complications of Current Cardiac Valvular Prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 1982. Jul;34(1):96–106. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(10)60862-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Martinell J, Jiménez A, Rábago G, Artiz V, Fraile J, Farré J. Mechanical cardiac valve thrombosis. Is thrombectomy justified? Circulation. 1991. Nov;84(5 Suppl):III70–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lengyel M, Fuster V, Keltai M, Roudaut R, Schulte HD, Seward JB, et al. Guidelines for Management of Left-Sided Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis: A Role for Thrombolytic Therapy 11These guidelines are the results of a Consensus Conference held during the Symposium on Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis on September 16, 1994, in Budapest, Hungary. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997. Nov;30(6):1521–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gupta D, Kothari SS, Bahl VK, Goswami KC, Talwar KK, Manchanda SC, et al. Thrombolytic therapy for prosthetic valve thrombosis: Short- and long-term results. Am Heart J. 2000. Dec;140(6):906–16. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2000.111109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Karthikeyan G, Math RS, Mathew N, Shankar B, Kalaivani M, Singh S, et al. Accelerated Infusion of Streptokinase for the Treatment of Left-Sided Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Circulation. 2009. Sep 22;120(12):1108–14. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.876706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Özkan M, Gündüz S, Biteker M, Astarcioglu MA, Çevik C, Kaynak E, et al. Comparison of Different TEE-Guided Thrombolytic Regimens for Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013. Feb;6(2):206–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Luluaga I. SUCCESSFUL THROMBOLYTIC THERAPY AFTER ACUTE TRICUSPID-VALVE OBSTRUCTION. The Lancet. 1971. May;297(7708):1067–8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(71)91627-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sharif Khan H, Ijaz Z, Ali M, Saif M, Ishaq U, Kamal A, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Mechanical Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis. Cureus [Internet]. 2020. Jun 22 [cited 2022 Aug 28]; Available from: https://www.cureus.com/articles/34862-clinical-outcomes-of-mechanical-prosthetic-valve-thrombosis. doi: 10.7759/cureus.8760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mahindru S, Pande S, Malhotra P, Thukral A, Kotwal AS, Gupta RP, et al. Mechanical prosthetic valve thrombosis in current era: 5-year follow-up. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021. Mar;37(2):140–6. doi: 10.1007/s12055-020-01041-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic Heart Valves: Selection of the Optimal Prosthesis and Long-Term Management. Circulation. 2009. Feb 24;119(7):1034–48. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.778886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Deviri E, Sareli P, Wisenbaugh T, Cronje SL. Obstruction of mechanical heart valve prostheses: Clinical aspects and surgical management. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991. Mar;17(3):646–50. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(10)80178-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): Developed in Collaboration With the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: Endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation [Internet]. 2006. Aug [cited 2022 Aug 28];114(5). Available from: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.176857. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mirabel M, Grimaldi A, Freers J, Jouven X, Marijon E. Access to cardiac surgery in sub-Saharan Africa. The Lancet. 2015. Feb;385(9968):606. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60235-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Justin Paul Gnanaraj

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

31 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-34873Treatment outcome of patients with prosthetic stuck valves at the Cardiac Center of EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tekleab,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Justin Paul Gnanaraj, MD, DM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and one of the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interest: Dr Atnafu Mekonnen Tekleab is serving as Academic Editor of PLOS ONE Journal."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

In addition to responding to the queries of the reviewers, the authors are requested to highlight if there is any new contribution, this study offers or if there is any specific regional perspective this study brings about.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The sample volume is small and single Center as stated by the authors themselves.

The total no of patients , who had valve surgery during the study period can be provided, to calculate the incidence and prevalence of prosthetic valve thrombosis

The clinical characteristics and pattern of anticoagulation and the INR and TTR status of all the patients who had valve replacements during this period, will be of great value in statistical analysis and to identify the predictors of PVT

Reviewer #2: Introduction:

P3 Line 6-7: The author mentions surgical approach, fibrinolysis, and heparin treatment are considered as treatments of choice. As per guidelines, for patients with a thrombosed left-sided mechanical prosthetic heart valve who present with symptoms of valve obstruction, urgent initial treatment with either slow-infusion, low- dose fibrinolytic therapy or emergency surgery is recommended. Heparinisation is not a treatment of choice.

Methods:

P3 Line 27-29: The following phrase need not be mentioned in study setting “ Following the valve replacement surgery, patients might develop stuck valve and present with an emergency condition”

Study design and study period:

P4 Line 2: The actual study design should be detailed.

Data collection technique:

P4 Line 6: The inclusion criteria not properly delineated- whether all the consecutive patients with stuck valve during the study period were included. Any exclusion criteria to be added. “Information that could help authors identify individual patients were not included in the data collection”- requires clarity

P4 Line 8-12: The author mentions the data collected in the given lines.

Has the data on immediate post operative trans prosthetic valvular gradient or the gradients recorded prior to the PVT during the previous routine visits collected?

Any pre study period complications (bleeding or thrombotic) available for patients who had prosthetic valve implanted prior to the study period?

P4 Line 10: The data on anticoagulant adherence is collected but the type of anticoagulant and the dosage, the patient is on, has not been mentioned? Were all the patient on warfarin?

P4 Line 11: Instead of thrombolytic treatment, interventions done can be mentioned since not all the patients were thrombolysed.

P4 Line 15-18: Was the study entirely based on clinical and echocardiographic criteria? Was fluoroscopic criteria included in the study?

What does the author mean by acute hemodynamic instability as the clinical criteria- the author also mentions “four patients, the stuck valve was detected incidentally when they came for the regular follow-up” (P6 Line 6-7). Kindly clarify the definition for stuck valve.

The patient symptoms on the basis of NHYA is not mentioned.

The echocardiographic criteria mentions a series of findings- where they all pre requisite for diagnosis of stuck valve in this study or a combination of the findings were alone necessary- clarification needed.

Patient management protocol for prosthetic stuck valve:

P4 Line 20: The author mentions that this is the protocol for patients with obstructive thrombotic prosthetic valve. In the previous section while defining stuck prosthetic valve it is mentioned with or without obstruction(P4 Line 18). Is there different protocol for patients without obstruction? What is their symptom profile?

P4 Line 27: Patient will be assessed for an increased risk of bleeding- Kindly mention what criteria/ scoring was used to assess the bleeding risk.

P4 Line 28-29: Mentions only the protocol for thrombolysis with streptokinase. “Ten of them received streptokinase and the remaining one patient received Tenecteplase” What was the protocol used for TNK managed patient?

P5 Line 6: “Redo valve surgery will be offered if there is no response to the thrombolytic therapy” Is this after 72 hrs of thrombolytic therapy. Kindly clarify

P5 Line 9: “At the end, cine fluoroscopy will be done”. Is fluoroscopy done in all cases?

Results:

P5 Line 27-28: “However, only one patient had the prosthetic stuck valve at the aortic valve position” The sample size appear to be too small to comment on this.

P6 Line 4-7: “Nine patients presented with symptoms of heart failure (median duration was three days) due to the prosthetic stuck valve and for the rest four patients, the stuck valve was detected incidentally when they came for the regular follow-up”

Does this mean that the incidentally diagnosed patients were also in acute hemodynamic compromise as mentioned in the definition of stuck prosthetic valve?

P6 Line 9: “However, only six patients underwent pre-treatment Fluoroscopy study”. Was hemodynamic instability the reason for fluoroscopy not done in other patient- reasons can be mentioned.

P6 Line 17-19

“Of the ten patients who received streptokinase, two of them developed fever and one patient developed bleeding as a complication of the treatment”

What type of bleeding complication was encountered? Was it a major or a minor bleed and how was it managed

P6 Line 21-23: “The mean value of the mean trans-mitral valve gradient of the patients who had isolated mitral prosthetic stuck valve (12 patients) before therapy was initiated was 18.3mmHG and the post- treatment mean gradient for the group was 7.2mmHG”.

Was the post operative gradients available for these patients. For patients for whom baseline value was not available, what was the criteria used to confirm prosthetic valve obstruction?

P6 Line 24-26:

“Two of the patients (patient 4 & 5 and patient 7 & 8) had recurrence of the prosthetic stuck valve. One of them developed a recurrence of the stuck valve three months after the initial episode and the other patient had it three years after the initial episode”

Does this mean 11 patients and 13 episodes- kindly clarify

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.​

Reviewer #1: Yes: T R Muralidharan

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 20;18(4):e0284652. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284652.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Mar 2023

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you so much. We have provided a Point_by_point response to your comments. We have uploaded all the necessary information and data.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Justin Paul Gnanaraj

5 Apr 2023

Treatment outcome of patients with prosthetic stuck valves at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia

PONE-D-22-34873R1

Dear Dr.Atnafu Mekonnen Tekleab,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Justin Paul Gnanaraj, MD, DM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Thoddi Ramamurthy Muralidharan

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Justin Paul Gnanaraj

12 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-34873R1

Treatment outcome of patients with prosthetic stuck valves at the Cardiac Center of Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Tekleab:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Justin Paul Gnanaraj

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Anonymized data set used for the current study.

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES