“…Some authors have indicated fibrinolytic therapy only for critically ill patients, in NYHA functional class III or IV, in whom the surgical intervention is of high risk, or in patients with contraindications [8][9][10][11][12] . The controversy in regard to the use of fibrinolytic therapy in patients in functional class I or II is based on the low surgical risk observed in this group of patients as compared with the thromboembolic risk caused by fibrinolysis, which ranges from 12 to 17% [10][11][12][13] . On the other hand, some authors have indicated fibrinolysis as the first line of therapy in patients with St. Jude prostheses with a low risk of permanent complications and an excellent chance of success In our study, we selected the stable patients or those with elevated surgical risk due to antecedents of 1 or more previous surgeries, or patients, who, due to some reason, had their anticoagulation temporarily suspended or poorly controlled, ie, who had a transient reason for having a prosthetic thrombosis.…”