Valve-Sparing Operation for Aortic Root Aneurysm in Patients with Marfan Syndrome

Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Reimplantation Versus Remodeling Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement in Patients With Connective Tissue Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques for valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTDs). Studies were screened and identified after the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines from the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Forest plots were produced using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane, UK). Studies comparing early and midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling VSARR in patients with CTD with a mean age ≥18 years were included. The sensitivity analysis excluded studies and subgroups of patients that received ring or suture annuloplasty in addition to remodeling surgery. The study selection identified 9 eligible studies. After analysis of the study period and location for patient crossover, 7 retrospective studies consisting of 597 patients (301 reimplantation and 296 remodeling) were pooled. The pooling revealed no significant difference in postoperative mortality (estimated mean follow-up of 10.5 years) (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 1.48, I2 = 30%, p = 0.32), reoperation (OR 0.35, CI 0.04 to 3.30, I2 = 81%, p = 0.36), or occurrence of postoperative aortic regurgitation of ≥2 (OR 0.56, CI 0.31 to 1.02, I2 = 47%, p = 0.06). The sensitivity analysis excluding annuloplasty demonstrated improved mortality (OR 0.19, CI 0.06 to 0.64, I2 = 0%, p = 0.007) and decreased aortic regurgitation of ≥2 (OR 0.23, CI 0.10 to 0.53, I2 = 47%, p = 0.0005) in reimplantation VSARR. The rates of reoperation remained insignificant in the sensitivity analysis (OR 0.43, CI 0.05 to 3.53, I2 = 71%, p = 0.43). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has demonstrated no significant difference in the midterm clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques of VSARR. The sensitivity analysis excluding studies and patient subgroups that received remodeling and annuloplasty suggests remodeling alone to be inferior to reimplantation in patients with CTDs. Further research is required to assess remodeling and annuloplasty against reimplantation in patients of this demographic because the current body of knowledge does not allow sufficient analysis.

Aortic regurgitation in Marfan syndrome patients who underwent prophylactic surgery: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Marfan syndrome is an inherited connective tissue disease that causes aortic root dilatation and dissection and requires surgical intervention. Apart from emergent surgery for aortic dissection or aortic aneurysmal rupture, prophylactic surgical intervention can also be administered, depending on the severity of aortic root dilatation. The direct relationship between surgical intervention and aortic regurgitation was seldom mentioned in previous studies.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was designed to determine the clinical presentations of prophylactic surgery in patients with Marfan syndrome. Between January 2009 and May 2019, 112 patients, adolescents and young adults, treated in the Department of Pediatric Cardiology of Taipei Veterans General Hospital, were enrolled. All patients' sex, body measurements, echocardiography reports, and surgical notes were collected for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Among the participants, nine patients (8%) underwent the Bentall procedure, and the other 103 did not receive surgical intervention. The operation group had a larger aortic root size (4.89 vs 2.86 cm, p < 0.001), more dilated left ventricle (4.81 vs 4.1 cm, p = 0.002), and higher prevalence of moderate and severe aortic regurgitation (66% vs 1%, p < 0.001) than the nonoperation group.

CONCLUSION

Among adolescents and young adults with Marfan syndrome, echocardiographic presentation of aortic root dilatation, left ventricular dilatation, and significant aortic regurgitation was significantly associated with prophylactic surgical intervention. According to the study, significant aortic regurgitation should also be considered as an important indication for prophylactic surgery.

Reimplantation versus remodeling in valve-sparing surgery for aortic root aneurysms: a meta-analysis

Background

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR), which includes reimplantation and remodeling techniques, has been developed as an important treatment for aortic root aneurysms. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques in valve-sparing surgery for aortic root aneurysms.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library until November 2019. Fourteen retrospective cohort studies comparing reimplantation with remodeling techniques for aortic root aneurysms were included and contained at least one of the following outcomes: early mortality, late mortality, aortic valve-related reoperation, and postoperative moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (AR).

Results

The outcomes of 1,672 patients (1,011 underwent reimplantation surgery, and 661 underwent remodeling) were analyzed. Compared with remodeling, the reimplantation technique was associated with a significantly lower risk of late mortality (RR =0.34; 95% CI, 0.17–0.71; P=0.004; I²=37%) and reoperation (RR =0.31; 95% CI, 0.12–0.76; P=0.01; I²=55%). There was no significant difference in early mortality (RR =0.69; 95% CI, 0.31–1.53; P=0.36; I²=0%), postoperative moderate to severe AR (RR =0.64; 95% CI, 0.31–1.32; P=0.22; I²=36%) or postoperative stroke (RR =1.26; 95% CI, 0.58–2.75; P=0.56; I²=0%) between the two groups. No evidence of publication bias was detected.

Conclusions

The current meta-analysis indicate that patients who undergo reimplantation procedures have a significantly lower risk of late mortality and reoperation than those who undergo remodeling procedures. Early mortality, postoperative moderate to severe AR and stroke were comparable between the two techniques.