Key result
Aortic-valve-sparing reimplantation showed a trend toward better 14-year event-free survival compared to composite valve grafting in patients with Marfan syndrome (82.3% vs 58.6%, p=0.086).
Why the study?
Does aortic-valve-sparing reimplantation improve event-free survival compared to composite valve grafting in patients with Marfan syndrome requiring aortic root replacement?
Population
88 patients with Marfan syndrome who underwent aortic root replacement between January 1995 and January 2010.
Comparison
Aortic-valve-sparing reimplantation technique… vs Composite valve grafting according to Bentall
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 3.2 (95% CI: 2.4-4.2) years
Authors
Loading...
May support AVS durability in MFS; leaves open need for randomized trials versus CVG.
Cohort (n=88)
Does aortic-valve-sparing reimplantation improve event-free survival compared to composite valve grafting in patients with Marfan syndrome requiring aortic root replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 82.3% vs 58.6%
p-value: p=0.086
Aortic-valve-sparing reimplantation in Marfan syndrome patients is associated with excellent survival and a trend toward better event-free survival compared to composite valve grafting.
Bernhardt et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Marfan syndrome (n=88). Aortic-valve-sparing (AVS) reimplantation vs. Composite valve grafting (CVG) was evaluated on Event-free survival at 14 years (p=0.086). Aortic-valve-sparing reimplantation showed a trend toward better 14-year event-free survival compared to composite valve grafting in patients with Marfan syndrome (82.3% vs 58.6%, p=0.086).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: