Predicting development of thromboembolic complications and complications in patients after mitral valve replacement with mechanical prostheses

The aim of the study. To develop a mathematical model for predicting the development of thromboembolic complications and bleeding in patients after mitral valve replacement with mechanical prostheses based on an analysis of a number of risk factors – age, compliance, heart rate at the postoperative stage, prosthesis manufacturer, hemostasis indicators.

Materials and methods. There were examined 260 patients. The following risk factors were analyzed: patient compliance (Morisky-Green test), heart rate at the postoperative stage, prosthesis manufacturer (MedInzh, Carbomedics, ATS, On-X), hemostasis indices (international normalized ratio, activated partial thromboplastin time, D-dimer, fibrinogen, soluble fibrin-monomeric complexes).

Results of the study and conclusion. The frequency of thromboembolic complications was 5.2 cases, bleeding 4.7 cases per 1000 patient-months. With an increase in the level of soluble fibrin-monomeric complexes by 1 g/L, the risk of thromboembolic complications increases by 1.63 times, the presence of a MedInzh’s prosthesis increases the risk of thromboembolic complications by 2.04 times compared to prostheses of other companies, with paroxysmal or permanent forms of atrial fibrillation the risk thromboembolic complications increase 16.29 times compared with patients with sinus rhythm. In compliant patients, the risk of bleeding is 52.5 (1/0.08) times lower than in non-compliant patients; with an increase in the activated partial thromboplastin time by 1 sec, the risk of bleeding increases by 1.07 times.

1. Aimo A., Emdin M., De Caterina R. Low-Thrombogenicity Mechanical Heart Valves: Which Antithrombotic Strategy? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 9; 72 (15): 1878–1879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.065

2. Odarenko Yu.N., Rutkovskaya N. V., Gorbunova E. V., Khomenko E. A., Kokorin S. G., Barbarash L. S. The use of bioprostheses in surgery of mitral defects: the possibility of refusing anticoagulant therapy. Complex problems of cardiovascular diseases. 2018; 7 (3): 72–82. https://doi.org/10.17802/2306–1278–2018–7–3–72–82

3. Novoselova A. A., Yakushin S. S. Thrombosis of a mechanical heart valve: diagnostic difficulties in a clinical case with a fatal outcome. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2020. Vol. 16, No. 3. P. 399–403. DOI: 10.20996/1819–6446–2020–06–13.

4. Bal U., Aydinalp A., Yilmaz K., Ozcalik E., Hasirci S., Atar I., Gultekin B., Sezgin A., Muderrisoglu H. The effects of a low international normalized ratio on thromboembolic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical mitral valve replacement. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014. Vol. 9. P. 79. DOI: 10.1186/1749–8090–9–79.

5. Kanorsky S. G. Antithrombotic therapy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a choice based on evidence of efficacy and safety. Difficult Patient. 2014. V. 12. No. 7. P. 20–25.

6. Çınar T., Hayıroğlu M. I., Tanık V. O., Aruğaslan E., Keskin M., Uluganyan M.., Öz A, Çağdaş M., Alper A. T. The predictive value of the CHA2DS 2-VASc score in patients with mechanical mitral valve thrombosis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2018. Vol. 45, No. 4. P. 571–577. DOI: 10.1007/s11239–018–1640–3.

7. Gorbunova E. V. Features of prescribing anticoagulant therapy in patients with prosthetic heart valves. Clinical medicine. 2013; 91 (2): 49–52.

8. Akhtar R. P., Abid A. R., Zafar H., Khan J. S. Aniticoagulation in patients following prosthetic heart valve replacement. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009; 15: 10–17.

9. Labaf A., Svensson P. J., Renlund H., Jeppsson A., Själander A. Incidence and risk factors for thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients with mechanical valve prosthesis: a nationwide population-based study. Am 9 Heart J. 2016; 181: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2016.06.026

10. Grzymala-Lubanski B., Svensson P. J., Renlund H., Jeppsson A., Själander A. Warfarin treatment quality and prognosis in patients with mechanical heart valve prosthesis. Heart. 2017; 103 (3): 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2016–309585

11. Poli D., Antonucci E., Pengo V., Migliaccio L., Testa S., Lodigiani C., Coffetti N., Facchinetti R., Serricchio G., Falco P., Mangione C., Masottini S., Ruocco L., De Caterina R., Palareti G. Italian Federation of Anticoagulation Clinics. Mechanical prosthetic heart valves: Quality of anticoagulation and thromboembolic risk. The observational multicenter PLECTRUM study. Int J Cardiol. 2018 Sep 15; 267: 68–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.04.042.

12. Cortellini S., Favril C., De Nutte M., Teughels W., Quirynen M. Patient compliance as a risk factor for the outcome of implant treatment. Periodontology 2000. 2019. Vol. 81, No. 1. P. 209–225. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12293.

13. Tarasenko E. V., Naumova E. A., Shvarts Yu. G. Adherence to long-term treatment of patients and factors influencing it. Fundamental research. 2007. No. 9. P. 57–58.

14. Cao H., Wu T., Chen W., Fu J., Xia X., Zhang J. The effect of warfarin knowledge on anticoagulation control among patients with heart valve replacement. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020; 42 (3): 861–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096–020–01043-y

15. İlker K., Ali E. K. Assessment of the warfarin anticoagulation knowledge of patients with mechanical mitral valve prosthesis and its effect on therapy adherence and relevant complications. Fam Med Prim Care Rev 2021; 3 (2): 174–178 https://doi.org/10.5114/fmpcr.2021.105919

16. Morisky D. E., Green L. W., Levine D. M. Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care. 1986. Vol. 24, No. 1. P. 67–74. doi:10.1097/00005650–198601000–00007.

17. Lukina Yu.V., Martsevich S. Yu., Kutishenko N. P. Moriskey-Green scale: pros and cons of the universal test, work on mistakes. Rational pharmacotherapy in cardiology. 2016. V 12, No. 1. P. 63–65.