Outcomes of Aortic Root Replacement in Patients With Marfan Syndrome: The Role of Valve-Sparing and Valve-Replacing Approaches

Authors

Joseph S Coselli
Irina V Volguina
Lynna Nguyen
Susan Y Green
Scott A LeMaire
Marc R Moon

Publication Date

7-31-2023

Journal

Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery

DOI

10.21037/acs-2023-avs2-0085

PMID

37554715

PMCID

PMC10405346

PubMedCentral® Posted Date

7-14-2023

PubMedCentral® Full Text Version

Post-print

Published Open-Access

yes

Keywords

Marfan syndrome (MFS), aortic aneurysm, aortic root, valve-sparing aortic root replacement (ARR), heritable thoracic aortic disease

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a heritable thoracic aortic disease with pervasive cardiovascular effects, including commonly, a dilated aortic root. Traditionally, the root is replaced using a mechanical composite valve graft (CVG); however, this valve-replacing (VR) approach necessitates a lifelong regimen of anticoagulation with a potential for late bleeding complications. In time, valve-sparing (VS) approaches were developed. Today, several options for aortic root replacement (ARR) exist; each has advantages and disadvantages that helps inform choice. The Aortic Valve Operative Outcomes in Marfan Patients (AVOMP) is a multi-center international registry to analyze clinical outcomes of ARR in MFS patients using either VR or VS techniques to better elucidate choice. We summarize outcomes of AVOMP and present our own experience.

METHODS: We performed 223 consecutive elective ARR [1991-2023] in patients with MFS; 15 such repairs were included in AVOMP. Repairs included 113 (51%) using a mechanical CVG, 62 (28%) using a VS approach, and 48 (22%) using a bioprosthetic root. Many patients underwent aortic arch repair (30% to 54% by type).

RESULTS: The median patient age was 38 [29–52] years. In comparing VS and VR groups, patients were similar in age and rates of major comorbidities and symptoms. Patients with VR repair had a more complex aortic history. The rate of redo sternotomy was 24% (n=54). Operative death was uncommon [4% overall (10/223); ranging from 2% to 8% by type], and stroke was rare [1/223 (<1%)]. Late survival and reoperation differed by operative approach; survival was improved in patients who underwent VS repair.

CONCLUSIONS: We found that repair in patients with MFS undergoing ARR resulted in low operative risk. Our late results were similar to those of AVOMP in that patients undergoing VS repair tended to experience greater rates of valvular-structural deterioration, although this did not appear to impact survival.