CONTEXT: Surgical treatment of aortic root aneurysm in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare results of total root replacement versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement in MFS patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were searched from January 1966 until February 2010 looking for papers reporting on aortic root operations in MFS patients. 530 studies were retrieved. STUDY SELECTION: Finally, 11 publications were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were observational studies reporting valve-related morbidity and mortality after total root replacement (TTR) and/or valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) in patients with MFS and study size n≥30, reflecting the centre's experience. DATA EXTRACTION: Data obtained from papers reporting both TRR and VSRR cohorts were analysed separately. In case of multiple publications, the most recent and complete report was selected. If the total number of patient-years was not provided, we calculated it by multiplying the number of hospital survivors with the mean follow-up duration of that study. RESULTS: Overall, 1,385 patients were analysed (972 patients had TTR and 413 patients had VSRR). Reintervention rate was 0.3%/year (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) versus 1.3%/year (95% CI 0.3 to 2.2) (p=0.02) and thromboembolic events rate was 0.7%/year (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) versus 0.3%/year (95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) (p=0.01) after TRR and VSRR, respectively. When composite valve-related events were compared, no difference existed between the two surgical strategies (p=0.41). Among patients undergoing VSRR, reimplantation was associated with a reduced rate of reintervention compared with remodelling (0.7%/year vs 2.4%/year, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: VSRR may represent a valuable option for patients with MFS with aortic aneurysm. However, this technique should be used with caution in patients with valve characteristics at risk for decreased durability.
CONTEXT: Surgical treatment of aortic root aneurysm in Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare results of total root replacement versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement in MFSpatients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were searched from January 1966 until February 2010 looking for papers reporting on aortic root operations in MFSpatients. 530 studies were retrieved. STUDY SELECTION: Finally, 11 publications were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were observational studies reporting valve-related morbidity and mortality after total root replacement (TTR) and/or valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) in patients with MFS and study size n≥30, reflecting the centre's experience. DATA EXTRACTION: Data obtained from papers reporting both TRR and VSRR cohorts were analysed separately. In case of multiple publications, the most recent and complete report was selected. If the total number of patient-years was not provided, we calculated it by multiplying the number of hospital survivors with the mean follow-up duration of that study. RESULTS: Overall, 1,385 patients were analysed (972 patients had TTR and 413 patients had VSRR). Reintervention rate was 0.3%/year (95% CI 0.1 to 0.5) versus 1.3%/year (95% CI 0.3 to 2.2) (p=0.02) and thromboembolic events rate was 0.7%/year (95% CI 0.5 to 0.9) versus 0.3%/year (95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) (p=0.01) after TRR and VSRR, respectively. When composite valve-related events were compared, no difference existed between the two surgical strategies (p=0.41). Among patients undergoing VSRR, reimplantation was associated with a reduced rate of reintervention compared with remodelling (0.7%/year vs 2.4%/year, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: VSRR may represent a valuable option for patients with MFS with aortic aneurysm. However, this technique should be used with caution in patients with valve characteristics at risk for decreased durability.