Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3720_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
The Spectrum of Clinical Presentations and Management Options Chapter | 26 395
https://t.me/med1917
with pharmacotherapy, aspiration catheters, mechanical thrombus extraction devices, and thrombus-capturing stents as
well as DESs and BMSs continues to be associated with lower efficacy compared with PCI outcomes in native coronary
arteries. Further research and pharmaceutical and technologi c developments are warranted to improve the outcom es of
SVG PCI.
REFERENCES
[1] Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials
by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 1994;344:563e70.
[2] Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American
College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice on practice guidelines (Committee to update the 1999 guidelines for
coronary artery bypass graft surgery). Circulation 2004;110:e340e438.
[3] Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein P, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery
disease. N Engl J Med 2009;360:961e72.
[4] Hess CN, Lopes RD, Gibson MC, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: insights from prevent iv. Circulation
2014;130:1445e51.
[5] Sur S, Sugimoto JT. Agrawal DK coronary artery bypass graft: why is the saphenous vein prone to intimal hyperplasia? Canadian J Physiol
Pharmac 2014;92:531e45.
[6] Hata M, Takayama T, Sezal A, et al. Efficacy of aggressive lipid controlling therapy for preventing saphenous vein graft disease. Ann Thorac Surg
2009;88:1440e4.
[7] de Vries MR, Simons KH, Jukema JW, Braun J, Quax PHA. Vein graft failure: from pathophysiology to clinical outcomes. Nature Rev Cardiol
2016;13:451e70.
[8] McKavanagh P, Yanagawa B, Zawadowski G, Cheema A. Management and prevention of saphenous vein graft failure: a review. Cardiol Ther
2017;6:203e23.
[9] Vlodaver Z, Edwards JE. Pathologic changes in aortic-coronary arterial saphenous vein grafts. Circulation 1971;44:719e28.
[10] Parang P, Arora R. Coronary vein graft disease: pathogenesis and prevention. Can J Cardiol 2009;25(2):e57e62.
[11] Sturm W, Goldberg D, Goldberg S. Embolic protection devices in saphenous vein graft and native vessel percutaneous intervention: a review. Curr
Cardiol Rev 2012;8:192e9.
[12] Collins P, Webb CM, Chong CF, et al. Radial Artery versus Saphenous Vein Patency randomized trial: five-year angiographic follow-up.
Circulation 2008;117:2859e64.
[13] Schwann TA, Zacharias A, Riordan CJ, et al. Sequential radial artery grafts for multivessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery: 10-year survival
and angiography results. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:31e9.
[14] Harskamp RE, Lopes R, Clinton B, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: pathophysiology, management, and
future directions. Ann Surg 2013;257:824e33.
[15] Neitzel GF, Barboriak JJ, Pintar K, et al. Atherosclerosis in aortocoronary bypass grafts: morphological study and risk factor analysis 6 to 12 years
after surgery. Arteriosclerosis 1986;6:594e600.
[16] Cox JL, Chiasson DA, Gotlieb AI. Stranger in a strange land: the pathogenesis of saphenous vein graft stenosis with emphasis on structural and
functional differences between veins and arteries. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1991;34:45e68.
[17] Fox MH, Gruchow HW, Barboriak JJ, et al. Risk factors among patients undergoing repeat aorta-coronary bypass procedures. J Thorac Cardiovasc
Surg 1987;93:56e61.
[18] Yi G, Shine B, Rehman SM, et al. Effect of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts on long-term survival: a meta-analysis approach. Circulation
2014;130:539e45.
[19] Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz T, et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery:
results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:2149e56.
[20] MehtaD GSJ, Jeremy JY, et al. External stenting reduces long-term medial and neointimal thickening and platelet derived growth factor expression
in a pig model of arteriovenous bypass grafting. Nat Med 1998;4:235e9.
[21] Lardenoye JHP, de Vries MR, Grimbergen JM, et al. Inhibition of accelerated atherosclerosis in vein grafts by placement of external stent in Apo
E*3 -Leiden transgenic mice. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002;22(1433):1438.
[22] Neufang A, Dorweiler B, Espinola-Klein C, et al. External reinforcement of varicose veins with PTFE prosthesis in infra inguinal bypass surgery-
clinical results. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;51:62e6.
[23] Stooker W, Niessen HW, Wildevuur WR, et al. Perivenous application of fibrin glue reduces early injury to the human saphenous vein graft wall in
an ex vivo model. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg 2002;21:212e7.
[24] Stooker W, Niessen HW, Jansen EK, et al. Surgical sealant in the prevention of early vein graft injury in an ex vivo model. Cardiovasc Pathol
2003;12:202e6.
[25] Wood FO, Badhey N, Garcia B, et al. Analysis of saphenous vein graft lesion composition using near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular
ultrasonography with virtual histology. Atherosclerosis 2010;212:528e33.
[26] Fitzgibbon GM, Kafka HP, Leach AJ, et al. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to
survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:616e26.

396 Cardiovascular Thrombus
https://t.me/med1917
[27] Tonino PA, Fearon WF, De Bruyne B, et al. Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow
reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2816e21.
[28] Harskamp RE, Williams JB, Hill RC, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure and clinical outcomes: toward a surrogate endpoint in patients following
coronary artery bypass surgery? Am Heart J 2013;165:639e43.
[29] Aggarwal V, Stanislawski MA, Maddox TM, et al. Safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein bypass graft
percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from the Veterans Affairs CART program. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;28:1825e36.
[30] Alam M, Bandeali SJ, Virani SS, et al. Clinical outcomes of percutaneous interventions in saphenous vein grafts using drug-eluting stents
compared to bare-metal stents: a comprehensive meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials. Clin Cardiol 2012;35:291e6.
[31] Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J Am Coll Cardiol
2006;48:193e202.
[32] Nakazawa G, Otsuka F, Nakano M, et al. The pathology of neoatherosclerosis in human coronary implants: bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1314e22.
[33] Otsuka F, Vorpahl M, Nakano M, et al. Pathology of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus- and paclitaxel-
eluting stents in humans. Circulation 2014;129:211e23.
[34] Weintraub WS, Jones EL, Morris DC, et al. Outcome of re-operative coronary bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty after previous bypass
surgery. Circulation 1997;95:868e77.
[35] Baim DS. Percutaneous treatment of saphenous vein graft disease: the ongoing challenge. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1370e2.
[36] Gruentzig AR, Senning A, Siegenthaler WE. Nonoperative dilatation of coronary artery stenosis. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
N Engl J Med 1979;301:61e8.
[37] Redfors B, Généreux P, Witzenbichler B, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft. Circ Cardiovasc Interv
2017;10:e004953. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.004953.
[38] Yazdani SK, Otsuka F, Nakano M, Ladich E, Virmani R. Pathology of saphenous vein grafts. Interv Cardiol Clin 2013;2:241e9.
[39] Stone GW, Rogers C, Hermiller J, et al. Randomized comparison of distal protection with a filter-based catheter and a balloon occlusion and
aspiration system during percutaneous intervention of diseased saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation 2003;108:548e53.
[40] Lee MS, Park SJ, Kandzari DE, et al. Saphenous vein graft intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:831e43.
[41] Sbarzaglia P, Notaristefano S, Cavallini C. Best treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions. Inetrvent Cardiolo Rev 2010;5:46e50.
[42] Gorog DA, Foale RA, Malik I. Distal myocardial protection during percutaneous coronary intervention: when and where? J Am Coll Cardiol
2005;46:1434e45.
[43] Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, et al. Saphenous vein graft Angioplasty Free of Emboli Randomized (SAFER) trial investigators. Randomized trial
of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation
2002;105:1285e90.
[44] Carrozza Jr JP, Mumma M, Breall JA, et al. Randomized evaluation of the TriActiv balloon-protection flush and extraction system for the treatment
of saphenous vein graft disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1677e83.
[45] Dixon SR, Mann JT, Lauer MA, et al. A randomized ,controlled trial of saphenous vein graft intervention with a filter-based distal embolic
protection device: TRAP trial. J Interv Cardiol 2005;18:233e41.
[46] Mauri L, Cox D, Hermiller J, et al. The PROXIMAL trial: proximal protection during saphenous vein graft intervention using the Proxis Embolic
Protection System: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1442e9.
[47] Kereiakes DJ, Turco MA, Breall J, et al. The AMEthyst study investigators. A novel filter-based distal embolic protection device for percutaneous
intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions. Results of the AMEthyst randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiovasc Interv 2009;1:248e57.
[48] Sturm E, Goldberg D, Goldberg S. Embolic protection devices in saphenous vein graft and native vessel percutaneous intervention: a review. Curr
Cardiol Rev 2012;8:192e9.
[49] Silber S, Albertsson P, Avilés FF, et al. Task force for percutaneous coronary interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines for
percutaneous coronary interventions. Eur Heart J 2005;26:804e
[50] Smith Jr SC, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld Jr JW, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart association task force on practice guidelines;
ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to update the 2001 guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline
update for percutaneous. Coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice
guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to update the 2001 guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol
2006;47:e1e121.
[51] Mehta SK, Frutkin AD, Milford-Beland S, et al. Utilization of distal embolic protection in saphenous vein graft interventions (an analysis of 19,546
patients in the American College of CardiologyeNational Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol 2007;100:1114e8.
[52] Migliorini A, Stabile A, Rodriguez AE, et al. Comparison of Angiojet rheolytic thrombectomy before direct infarct artery stenting with direct
stenting alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The JETSTENT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;12:1298e306.
[53] Topaz O. Comparison between thrombus removal devices: aspirations meet reality. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2011;78:20e2.
[54] Topaz O. On the hostile massive thrombus and the means to eradicate it. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2005;65:280e1.
[55] Topaz O. Thrombectomy during primary PCI for STEMI-call of the thrombus. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2012;80:1181e2.
[56] Topaz O. Late stent thrombosis: is rheolytic thrombectomy the preferred revascularization technique. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2003;58:18e9.
[57] Gaitonde RS, Sharma N, von der Lohe E, Kalaria VG. Combined distal embolization protection and rheolytic thrombectomy to facilitate per-
cutenous revascularization of totally occluded saphenous vein grafts. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2003;60:212e7.
47.

The Spectrum of Clinical Presentations and Management Options Chapter | 26 397
https://t.me/med1917
[58] Ebersole D, Dahm JB, Das T, et al. Excimer laser revascularization of saphenous vein grafts in acute myocardial infarction. J Invas Cardiol
2004;16:177e80.
[59] Foster C, Zajarias A. Degenerated saphenous vein graft intervention: should we target the native vessel instead? Interv Cardiol Clin
2013;2:323e37.
[60] Lee MS, Park SJ, Kandzari DE, et al. Saphenous vein graft intervention. J Am Coll Interv 2011;4:831e43.
[61] Rodés-Cabau J, Bertrand OF, Larose E. Five-year follow-up of the plaque sealing with paclitaxel-eluting stents vs medical therapy for the treatment
of intermediate nonobstructive saphenous vein graft lesions VELETI trial. Can J Cardiol 2014;30:138e45.
[62] Rodés-Cabau J, Jolly SS, Cairns J, et al. Sealing intermediate nonobstructive coronary saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents asa
new approach to reducing cardiac events. A randomized controlled trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:e004336. https://doi.org/10.1161/
CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004336.
[63] Mehilli J. The VELETI II trial (sealing moderate coronary saphenous vein graft lesions with paclitaxel-eluting stents): local mechanical inter-
vention fails to stop atheroprogression in saphenous vein grafts. Ciculation 2016;9:e004542.
[64] Topaz O. The thrombus containing lesion. In: Topol EJ, Teristein P, editors. Textbook of interventional cardiology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;
2015. p. 439e63.
[65] Deharo P, Strange JW, Mozid A. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention of native chronic total occlusions to treat ST elevation myocardial
infarction secondary to acute vein graft occlusion. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2017;90:251e6.
[66] Kolleran R, Kufner S, Rosenbeiger C, et al. Long term comparative efficacy of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft
lesions: 5-year clinical follow-up of a randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2017;38(Suppl. 1). ehx504.3122.
[67] Vermeersch P, Agostoni P, Verheye S, et al. Randomized double-blind comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent implantation
in diseased saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:2423e31.
[68] Gao J, Ren M, Liu Y, Gao M, Sun B. Drug-eluting versus bare metal stent in treatment of patients with saphenous vein graft disease: a meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2016;222:95e100.
[69] Guttman OP, Jones DA, Safwan KA. Drug eluting stents appear superior to bare metal stents for vein-graft PCI in vessels up to stent diameter of
4 mm. Heart Int 2016;11:e17e24.
[70] Brennan MJ, Sketch Jr MH, Dai D, et al. Safety and clinical effectiveness of drug-eluting stents for saphenous vein graft intervention in older
individuals: results from the medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry
2016;87:43e9.
[71] Patel PM, Kern MJ. PCI in failing saphenous vein grafts: DES trumps BMS for the older patient. Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2016;87:50e1.
[72] Turco MA, Buchbinder M, Popma JJ, et al. Pivotal, randomized U.S. study of the Symbiot covered stent system in patients with saphenous vein
graft disease: eight-month angiographic and clinical results from the Symbiot III trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;68:379e88.
[73] Stankovic G, Colombo A, Presbitero P, et al. The RECOVERS Trial Investigators. Randomized evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene covered stent
in saphenous vein grafts: the Randomized Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene COVERed stent in Saphenous vein grafts (RECOVERS) trial.
Circulation 2003;108:37e42.
[74] Stone GW, Goldberg S, O’Shaughnessy C, et al. Five-year follow-up of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents compared with bare-metal stents in
aortocoronary saphenous vein graft: the randomized BARRICADE (barrier approach to restenosis: restrict intima to curtail adverse events) trial.
J Am Coll Cardiol Interv 2011;4:300e9.
[75] Kaluski E, Hauptmann KE, Muller R, et al. Coronary stenting with MGuard: fi rst-in-man trial. J Invasive Cardiol 2008;20:511e5.
[76] Grube E, Hauptmann KE, Muller R, Uriel N, Kaluski E. Coronary stenting with MGuard: extended follow-up of first human trial. Cardiovasc
Revasc Med 2011;12:138e46.
[77] Maia F, Costa Jr JR, Abizaid A, et al. Preliminary results of the INSPIRE trial with the novel MGuard stent system containing a protection net to
prevent distal embolization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010;76:86e92.
[78] Abizaid A, Weiner B, Bailey SR, Londero H. Use of a self-expanding super-elastic all-metal endoprosthesis; to treat degenerated SVG lesions: the
SESAME first in man trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010;76:781e6.
[79] Colombo A, Almagor Y, Gaspar J, Vonderwalde C. The pericardium covered stent (PCS). EuroIntervention 2009;5:394e9.
[80] Kilic ID, Fabris E, Serdoz R, et al. Coronary covered stents. EuroIntervent 2016;12:1288e95.
[81] Salloum J, Tharpe C, Vaughan D, et al. Release and elimination of soluble vasoactive factors during percutaneous coronary intervention of
saphenous vein grafts: analysis using the PercuSurge GuardWire distal protection device. J Invasive Cardiol 2005;17:575e9.
[82] Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European
Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2010;31:2501e55.
[83] Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, a report of the American College of
Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American Association
for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:e123e210.
[84] Gao C, Ren C, Li D, Li L. Clopidogrel and aspirin versus clopidogrel alone on graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg
2009;88:59e62.
[85] Sun JCJ, Teoh KHT, Lamy A, et al. Randomized trial of aspirin and clopidogrel versus aspirin alone for the prevention of coronary artery bypass
graft occlusion: the Preoperative Aspirin and Postoperative Antiplatelets in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting study. Am Heart J
2010;160:1178e84.
Ò
CathPCI RegistryÒ(2005e2009). Cath Cardiovasc Interv

398 Cardiovascular Thrombus
https://t.me/med1917
[86] Gao G, Zheng Z, Pi Y, et al. Aspirin plus clopidogrel therapy increases early venous graft patency after coronary artery bypass surgery a single-
center, randomized, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:1639e43.
[87] Kulik A, Le May MR, Voisine P, et al. Aspirin plus clopidogrel versus aspirin alone after coronary artery bypass grafting: the Clopidogrel after
[88] Rafiq S, Johansson P, Kofoed K, et al. Thrombelastographic hypercoagulability and antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery (TEG-
CABG trial): a randomized controlled trial. Platelets 2017;22:1e8.
[89] Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med
2009;361:1045e57.
[90] Brilakis ES, Held C, Meier B, et al. Effect of ticagrelor on the outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: insights from
the PLATelet inhibition and patient outcomes (PLATO) trial. Am Heart J 2013;166:474e80.
[91] Smith PK, Goodnough LT, Levy JH, et al. Mortality benefit with prasugrel in the TRITON-TIMI 38 coronary artery bypass grafting cohort: risk-
adjusted retrospective data analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:388e96.
[92] Hansson EC, Jideus L, Aberg B, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting-related bleeding complications in patients treated with ticagrelor or clo-
pidogrel: a nationwide study. Eur Heart J 2016;37:189e97.
[93] Harskamp RE, Hoedemaker N, Newby LK, et al. Procedural and clinical outcomes after use of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab for
saphenous vein graft interventions. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2016;17:19e23.
[94] Randomised placebo-controlled trial of abciximab before and during coronary intervention in refractory unstable angina: the CAPTURE Study.
Lancet 1997;349:1429e35.
[95] Roffi M, Mukherjee D, Chew DP, et al. Lack of benefit from intravenous platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition as adjunctive treatment
for percutaneous interventions of aortocoronary bypass grafts: a pooled analysis of five randomized clinical trials. Circulation 2002;106:3063e7.
[96] Karha J, Gurm HS, Rajagopal V, et al. Use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention
and clinical outcomes. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:906e10.
[97] Mak KH, Challapalli R, Eisenberg MJ, et al. Effect of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition on distal embolization during percutaneous
revascularization of aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts. EPIC Investigators. Evaluation of IIb/IIIa platelet receptor antagonist 7E3 in Preventing
Ischemic Complications. Am J Cardiol 1997;80:985e8.
[98] Jonas M, Stone GW, Mehran R, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition as adjunctive treatment during saphenous vein graft stenting:
differential effects after randomization to occlusion or filter based embolic protection. Eur Heart J 2006;27:920e8.
[99] Silva JA. Percutaneous coronary intervention of thrombotic lesions: still challenging! Cath Cardiovasc Interv 2002;56:8e9.
[100] Topaz O. Editorial: ischemic thrombotic syndromes and SVG interventions: do 2b/3a inhibitors miss the target? Cath Cardiovasc Interv
2006;69:630e1.
[101] Gohlke H, Gohlke-Barwolf C, Sturzenhofecker P, et al. Improved graft patency with anticoagulant therapy after aortocoronary bypass surgery: a
prospective, randomized study. Circulation 1981;64(Suppl. II):22e7.
[102] The Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Trial Investigators. The effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-
dose anticoagulation on obstructive changes in saphenous-vein coronaryeartery bypass grafts. N Engl J Med 1997;336:153e62.
[103] Kulik A, Ruel M, Jneid H, et al. Secondary prevention after coronary artery bypass surgery: a scientific statement from the American Heart
Association. Circulation 2015;131:927e64.
[104] Saigan M, Isawa T, Ootomo T. Apixaban for the treatment of saphenous vein graft thrombosis presenting as unstable angina: a case report. Throm J
2017;15:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-017-0133-5. PMC:5381029.

Chapter 27
https://t.me/med1917
Prosthetic Heart Valve Thrombosis
Felipe N. Albuquerque, Christopher Hawk and Eduardo de Marchena
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, United States
INTRODUCTION
Valvular heart disease is a growing area of interest within cardiovascular disease due to its increasing prevalence, changing
pattern, and rapidly evolving means of treatment. The burden is 100 million people worldwide, and the resultant morbidity
and mortality is significant. The overall prevalence of age-adjusted aortic and mitral valve disease, characterized as
moderate or severe on echocardiography, is 2.5% in the United States, with a prevalence of over 10% in people over
75 years of age [1]. While the treatment of valvular heart disease was almost exclusively surgical valve replacement, or
repair in the case of the mitral and tricuspid valves , the clin ical and technological advances since 2008 have introduced a
new therapy: transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Surgical treatment rema ins the standard of care for patients at
low surgical risk, but patients at high to prohibitive risk should undergo formal evaluation for TAVR by the heart team [2].
Large randomized control trials, such as SUR-TAVI and PARTNER 2A, comparing TAVR with surgical aortic valve
replacement in patients with intermediate surgical risk suggest that the heart team should also evaluate patients at
intermediate risk for TAVR [3,4].
Prosthetic heart valves (PHVs) can be classified into two categories depending on the leaflet type: mechanical (MHV)
or bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV). The design of the MHV began with the caged ball valve, followed by the tilting disk,
and is now the bileaflet valve mounted on a Teflon- or Dacron-covered sewing ring. While MHVs are more thrombogenic,
they are also more durable than their counterpart. The BHV uses leaflets either of porcine origin or crafted from sheets of
bovine pericardial tissue that is cut to form valve leaflets and sewn into the valve structure. The far-reaching benefits of
PHVs are tempered somewhat by the accompanying risk of thrombosis, a potential rare complication, which can lead
to PHV dysfunction with or without symptoms and potential thromboembolism (TE). In the era of exponential growth of
TAVR, new data have suggested an increase in the incidence of transcatheter heart valve (THV) thrombosis. Studies using
routine computed tomography imaging after TAVR implantation suggest that reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening
are relatively common findings, and may be associated with an increased risk of stroke [5]. Although rare, the
consequences of PHV thrombosis can be catastrophic, and based on studies, we seem to be underestimating its incidence
and potentially missing the opportunity to treat.
PREVALENCE AND INCIDENCE
An accurate assessment of PHV thrombosis is limited by the lack of standardized, routine imaging and infrequently
recommended use of imaging in the guidelines. Thus, the reported incidence is highly variable and likely to be
underestimated. Althoug h rare, PHV thrombosis remains a poorly characterized phenomenon. The early PARTNER
(Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) and CoreValve trials had no cases of PHV thrombosis, and the PARTNER EU
registry reported just one case in 130 TAVR patients [6e8]. The incidence of THV thrombosis in a large multicenter
TAVR registry was approximately 0.61%; cases occurred during the first 2 years after valve implantation and patients
usually presented with symptoms of worsening dyspnea and increased transvalvular pressure gradient [9]. Jose and
colleagues further investigated the overall incidence of clinical valve thrombosis after TAVR and found a rate of 2.8%,
with an incidence as high as 4.8% in patients on antiplatelet drugs, and no patient on oral anticoagulation developed
Cardiovascular Thrombus. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812615-8.00027-2
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
399

400 Cardiovascular Thrombus
https://t.me/med1917
thrombosis [10]. In another study, Hansson et al. investigated its incidence in TAVR patients treated with balloonexpandable valves (Edwards Sapien 3 or Sapien XT), performed routine screening with transesophageal echocardiogram and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), and found that approximately 7% of the patients developed THV
thrombosis. Of these, 18% had overt thrombosis with worsening clinical symptoms and the remainder had subclinical
thrombosis. The inves tigators also found that the predictors of THV thrombosis were lack of post-TAVR warfarin
treatment and larger THV size (29-mm THV) after multivariable analysis [11].
In surgical valves, the incidence is higher with MHVs compared with BHVs, higher in the mitral than in the aortic
position, and higher in the right-sided PHV than the left-sided PHV [12]. The incidence of surgical PHV thrombosis is
significantly lower, but also varies, depending on the study. In a meta-analysis of 5837 patients followed for a total of
31,874 patient years, the annual incidence of PHV thrombosis was 0.03%, and that of TE 0.33% [13]. In a single-center
study of 387 consecutively explanted BHVs, the estimated annual incidence of PHV thrombosis was 0.74% based on the
total number of valves implanted during the study period. The incident rate varied with valve position. Of the 46 valves
found to have thrombosis (11.6% of the total implanted during the study period), 29 were aortic (10.9%), 9 were mitral
(12.7%), 7 were tricuspid (12.1%), and 1 was pulmonic. The highest annual incidence of thrombosis occurred in the
tricuspid position, with a rate of 1%. Observed rates were higher with certain valve types, with subtherapeutic
anticoagulation, and in the early perioperative period. Thromboembolic events occurred annually in 2.5%e3.7% of
patients with MHV, which may or may not have originated from the valve [14]. Some of the differences in the incidence of
both surgical valves and THV thrombosis found in these studies may be related to the variations in methodology,
diagnostic methods, and definitions of valve thrombosis adopted by the earlier studies.
MECHANISMS OF THROMBOSIS
The mechanisms of PHV thrombosis are complex and multifactorial. It appears that three main mechanisms may contribute
to the development of endovascular thrombus and can be divided into three groups: surface-, hemodynamic-, and
hemostasis-related factors (Fig. 27.1) [15]. The endothelial trauma that occurs after THV implantation promotes clotting
via several complex processes, including adhesion of platelets, leukocytes, and red blood cells; thrombin generation; and
complement activation. After approximately 3 months, a neointima layer that will mature and become more fibrotic
replaces the fibrin coat. Furthermore, enhanced endothelialization and pannus formation may reduce leaflet motion that
could potentially trigger thrombosis. Hemodynamic factors include the host cardiocirculatory hemodynamic status and the
intrinsic hemodynamic characteristics. Turbulence may contribute to neointimal injury or dysfunction and produces low
Incomplete prosthesis
endothelialization
Surface Factors
Relative
Contribution to
Prosthetic Valve
Thrombosis
Hemodynamic Factors
Leaflet damage
Leaflet deterioration
Stent fracture
Prosthesis malpositioning
Hemostatic Factors
FIGURE 27.1 Mechanisms of prosthetic heart valve thrombosis. Adapted from Dangas GD, Weitz JI, Giustino G, Makkar R, Mehran R. Prosthetic
heart valve thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:2670e89.
Low cardiac output
Prosthesis malpositioning
Anatomical prosthesis
position
Prosthetic hemodynamic
profile
Hyperviscosity
Hyper-coagulable
state*
Significant tissue injury
Heparin-induced
thrombocytopenia
Suboptimal anticoagulation
Platelet reactivity

Prosthetic Heart Valve Thrombosis Chapter | 27 401
https://t.me/med1917
shear stress conditions, whereas stasis increases blood coagulability. Low cardiac output and reduced leaflet motion may
also lead the thrombus formation. Acquired causes of hypercoagulab ility, such as chronic kidney disease, obesity,
smoking, and anemia, along with other procedural characteristics like aggressive pre- and postdilatation, may also increase
the likelihood of thrombus formation. Other potential factors that could lead to THV thrombosis would be inadequate
antithrombotic therapy, poor left-ventricular systolic function, atrial fibrillation, and reduced antiplatelet effect or high
platelet reactivity (Fig. 27.1) [15]. Brown et al. postulated that the “rail” design in the sinus portions of these porcine
valves could create pockets of stasis leading to valve thrombosis. It is likely that recesses may form between the TAVR and
the surgical valve that extend into these rail pockets during a valve-in-valve procedure [16]. Prosthetic valve thrombosis is
usually a subacute or chronic process, rather than an acute phenomenon. Pathological studies suggest that fresh thrombi are
less common, and the main pathological entity is characterized by an organized thrombus with multiple clot layers [15].
CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND DIAGNOSIS
The clinical presentation of PHV thrombosis is highly variable. The symptoms are usually based on the severity of the
obstruction, and the patient’s presentation usually varies from the lack of symptoms associated with an incidentally
detected change in valve appearance with increased transvalvular gradient to heart failure symptoms due to valve
dysfunction (dyspnea, fatigue, pulmonary edema, cardiogenic shock, and, rarely, sudden death) and symptoms of TE.
Partial obstruction may present with worsening dyspnea, systemic embolism, and rarely fever. If fever is present,
diagnostic blood cultures should be performed to rule out infectious endocarditis. If PHV thrombosis is suspected, careful
physical examination and further investigation with imaging should be performed.
PHV thrombosis may or may not be associated with any episode of TE. Any evidence of TE after surgical or THV
implantation should be considered thrombosis until proven otherwise. Furthermore, the clinical manifestations of the TE
are related to the arterial territory occluded by the embolism, including stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), acute
peripheral ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, or acute ischemic kidney injury. Moreover, in the appropriate clinical setting,
any evidence of TIA, stroke, new-onset heart failure, or even small increases in the prosthesis pressure gradients should
lead to vigilance and investigation for prosthesis thrombosis [15]. In a review of four cases with THV thrombosis
confirmed by histopathological data, two patients of four with evidence of THV thrombosis on histopathology were
asymptomatic and had increased transvalvular gradients, suggesting that the frequency of THV thrombosis may be
underestimated because clinical signs could be masked by comorbidities [17].
The initial evaluation for PHV thrombosis is usually performed with a transthoracic echocardiogram and then either a
transesophageal echocardiogram or MDCT for diagnostic confirmation. MDCT enables assessment of prosthetic valve
leaflet appearance, leaflet motion, and features of thrombus and has the ability to detect THV thrombosis even in
asymptomatic patients with no evidence of THV obstruction on transthoracic echocardiogram [17]. An algorithm for serial
imaging has been proposed (Fig. 27.2) [15]. Furthermore, THV thrombosis should be suspected in cases of premature THV
dysfunction even if a thrombotic mass is not clearly detected. It is important that patients with progressive dyspnea and
increased transvalvular gradient be referred to experienced centers for further investigation to exclude THV thrombosis.
The role of routine imaging surveillance to investigate THV thrombosis is controversial and not endorsed by guidelines as
of this writing; however, several experts are proposing serial imaging surveillance studies after TAVR to prevent early
valve degeneration and detection in asymptomatic patients. A consensus criterion is needed for identification of subclinical
and clinical THV thrombosis and further studies are needed to assess the benefit of routine imaging surveillance especially
in high-risk patients.
TREATMENT AND PREVENTION
There is increasing awareness of PHV thrombosis and its risks after TAVR. The TE complications after TAVR are highest
in the first 3 months after valve implantation, while neointimal coverage of the stent frames and leaflets has occurred. The
type of prosthesis and thromboembolic and hemorrhage risks influence the intensity and duration of antithrombotic
treatment after TAVR or surgery.
Treatment options include medical therapy (anticoagulation and fibrinolysis) and surgical treatment (valve replacement). Factors influencing the choice of therapy include the impact of the valve thrombosis on the heart failure functional
status, location of the thrombosis (right or left side), thrombus size, mobility, and associated funct ional status. While
thrombus size is frequently used as a factor guiding management, it is usually difficult to quantify the thrombus size
because of prosthesis imaging artifacts and other technical limitations. Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy appears to be a
safe and effective treatment for restoring bioprosthetic function in patients with valve thrombosis after valve replacement

402 Cardiovascular Thrombus
https://t.me/med1917
TTE baseline prior to hospital discharge after
bioprosthetic valve implantation
High risk for bioprosthesis complications?
-
TTE at 1 month TTE at 1 month
Yearly TTE
Gradient up >50%,
thickened cusps, and/or
restricted cusp mobility?
-
Evidence of
thrombosis
Continue
yearly TTE
FIGURE 27.2 Algorithm for serial imaging follow-up after prosthetic valve replacement. CT, computed tomography; TEE, transesophageal echocar-
diogram; TTE, transthoracic echocardiogram. Adapted from Dangas GD, Weitz JI, Giustino G, Makkar R, Mehran R. Prosthetic heart valve thrombosis. J
Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:2670e89.
(see Algorithm Figure 7)
Treat
+
TTE at 3/6 month
Yearly TTE
+
TEE or CT scan
No evidence
of thrombosis
Watchful waiting:
TTE at 1 month
who are hemodynamically stable. Latib et al. showed that anticoagulation with a VKA resulted in improvement of normal
THV function with 2 months of treatment and should be considered the treatment of choice when THV thrombosis is
suspected [9]. The rapid onset of action of the novel oral anticoagulants and their reduced bleeding risk compared with
warfarin render them an attracti ve option for the treatment of THV thrombosis; however, data regarding their safety are
missing and randomized trials are testing this strategy as of this writing. In patients with overt heart failure symptoms and
hemodynamically instability, the initial treatment is usually slow infusion of low-dose fibrinolytic therapy or emergency
surgery.
For MHV, the guidelines recommend dose-adjusted warfarin to maintain international normalized ratios (INRs) of
2.5e3.5 for the mitral position and 2e3 for the aortic position [18]. Within the first 3 months of a surgi cal valve
implantation the risk of PHV thrombosis is also high, and during this time guidelines also recommend the use of
dose-adjusted VKA to maintain an INR of 2e3, regardless of the valve position [18]. A large study by Brennan et al.
reviewed outcomes in 25,656 patients who underwent surgical BHV in the aortic position, and found that the use of aspirin
plus warfarin at discharge versus aspirin alone was associated with a lower risk of death and embolic events, but at a higher
cost of bleeding [19]. In a similar study of early anticoagulation after BHV implant in the aortic position, Merie et al.
reported that warfarin compared with aspirin was associated with a lower risk of TE, stroke, and cardiovascular death in the
first 3 months. They also showed that the discontinuation of warfarin between 3 and 6 months was associated with an
increase in thromboembolic events [20]. It is reasonable to treat with VKA up to 3 months after BHV implantation, but
careful risk/benefit analysis must be weighed regarding the use of VKAs beyond 3 months. At the time of this writing,
studies are evaluating the safety and efficacy of oral inhibitors of factor Xa in the prevention of PHV thrombosis in MHV
and their results are eagerly awaited.
THV appears to be less thrombogenic compared with surgical mechanical and bioprosthetic valves owing to the lack of
a sewing ring. There remains uncertainty regarding the optimal antithrombotic regimen post-TAVR. In the PARTNER
trial, lifelong aspirin (75e100 mg/day) and clopidogrel (75 mg/day) for 6 months were recommended based on expert
opinion. Although more potent adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists, such as ticagrelor or prasugrel, may be
superior to clopidogrel, they have not been fully evaluated after TAVR as of this writing, and their safety profile remains

Prosthetic Heart Valve Thrombosis Chapter | 27 403
https://t.me/med1917
poorly understood in the often-frail TAVR patients. An expert consensus document by the American College of
Cardiology recommends the use of clopidogrel 75 mg daily for 6 months and lifelong aspirin 75e100 mg daily for
6 months in patients who received a balloon-expandable valve, and for 3 months in patients who received a self-expanding
valve. Furthermore, they also recommend that the use of VKAs may be considered in the first 3 months after TAVR in
patients who are at risk of atrial fibrillation and valve thrombosis based on the individual and specific riskebenefit for that
patient. When VKA is used, the continuation of aspirin is reasonable, but it may be prudent to avoid other antiplatelet
agents [21]. The CHA
and HEMORR
HAGES scoring systems may be helpful to predict bleeding risk.
2
-VASc score may serve as a tool to evaluate the risk of stroke, while the HAS-BLED, ATRIA,
2DS2
CONCLUSION
PHV thrombosis can be a potentially life-threatening condition, and prompt treatment is mandatory. Determination of the
etiology of the PHV dysfunction should be the first step in defining subsequent treatment, which may include surgery,
thrombolytic therapy, or anticoagulation. The risk of valve thrombosis appears to be higher in the first 3 months after
implantation. The CHA
postdilation or incomplete metallic strut apposition) may influence the risk of TE episodes. Anticoagulation with a VKA
appears to be the treatment of choice in hemodynamically stable patients. In patients with hemodynamic instability , a
regimen of intravenous heparin should be started, followed by either thrombolysis or surgery. If New York Heart
Association (NYHA) functional class IeII and small thrombus (<0.8 cm
choice. If NYHA functional class IIIeIV and a large thrombus, emergent surgery is usually recommended. Following the
restoration of the thrombus and hemodynamics, long-term anticoagulation should be added to prevent recurrent valve
thrombosis and serial follow-up is needed. Although the use of vitamin antagonists for thromboprophylaxis appears to be
safe in patients with mechanical valves, its safety in THV remains to be determined. Early detection and prompt treatment
may lead to reduction in the risks of both TE events and PHV degeneration; however, this hypothesis needs to be
confirmed in randomized trials [15].
-VASc score, the position of the valve, and procedure-related factors (traumatic leaflet
2DS2
2
) apply, anticoagulation is the treatment of
REFERENCES
[1] Iung B, Vahanian A. Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in the adult. Nat Rev Cardiol 2011;8:162e72.
[2] Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with
valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice guidelines. J Am
Coll Cardiol 2017;70:252e89.
[3] Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med
2016;374:1609e20.
[4] Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med
2017;376:1321e31.
[5] Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H, et al. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2015e24.
[6] Kapadia SR, Leon MB, Makkar RR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients
with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2485e91.
[7] Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high
surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2477e84.
[8] Reardon MJ, Adams DH, Kleiman NS, et al. 2-Year outcomes in patients undergoing surgical or self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve
replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:113e21.
[9] Latib A, Naganuma T, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Treatment and clinical outcomes of transcatheter heart valve thrombosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv
2015;8.
[10] Jose J, Sulimov DS, El-Mawardy M, et al. Clinical bioprosthetic heart valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: incidence,
characteristics, and treatment outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:686e97.
[11] Hansson NC, Grove EL, Andersen HR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve thrombosis: incidence, predisposing factors, and clinical implications. JAm
Coll Cardiol 2016;68:2059e69.
[12] Roudaut R, Serri K, Lafitte S. Thrombosis of prosthetic heart valves: diagnosis and therapeutic considerations. Heart 2007;93:137e42.
[13] Puvimanasinghe JP, Steyerberg EW, Takkenberg JJ, et al. Prognosis after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis: predictions based on
meta-analysis and microsimulation. Circulation 2001;103:1535e41.
[14] Lin SS, Tiong IY, Asher CR, Murphy MT, Thomas JD, Griffin BP. Prediction of thrombus-related mechanical prosthetic valve dysfunction using
transesophageal echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 2000;86:1097e101.
[15] Dangas GD, Weitz JI, Giustino G, Makkar R, Mehran R. Prosthetic heart valve thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:2670e89.

404 Cardiovascular Thrombus
https://t.me/med1917
[16] Brown ML, Park SJ, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Early thrombosis risk in patients with biologic valves in the aortic position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2012;144:108e11.
[17] De Marchena E, Mesa J, Pomenti S, et al. Thrombus formation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv
2015;8:728e39.
[18] Whitlock RP, Sun JC, Fremes SE, Rubens FD, Teoh KH. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for valvular disease: Antithrombotic Therapy
and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest
2012;141:e576Se600S.
[19] Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, et al. Early anticoagulation of bioprosthetic aortic valves in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic
Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:971e7.
[20] Merie C, Kober L, Skov Olsen P, et al. Association of warfarin therapy duration after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement with risk of mortality,
thromboembolic complications, and bleeding. J Am Med Assoc 2012;308:2118e25.
[21] Otto CM, Kumbhani DJ, Alexander KP, et al. 2017 ACC expert consensus decision pathway for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the
management of adults with aortic stenosis: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1313e46.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
