Why the study?
A recent ESC guideline proposed an algorithm for genetic testing of HTAD genes, but its diagnostic performance required evaluation.
What is the diagnostic performance of the 2024 ESC algorithm for genetic testing in patients with thoracic aortic disease?
What is the diagnostic performance of the 2024 ESC algorithm for genetic testing in patients with thoracic aortic disease?
This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of the newly proposed 2024 ESC algorithm for genetic testing in patients with thoracic aortic disease.
Should not yet restrict genetic testing given ~8.5% specificity; leaves open whether simpler criteria outperform the algorithm.
Heritable thoracic aortic diseases (HTAD) include Marfan syndrome (MFS), Loeys-Dietz syndrome (LDS), vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (vEDS), and non-syndromic HTAD (ns-HTAD).1,2 HTAD are monogenic diseases, and genetic testing serves as gold standard for guiding surgical decisions. For atheromatous TAD, surgery is recommended for proximal aortic diameters of ≥ 55 mm. However, surgery is advised for smaller diameters of ≥ 40 mm in patients with high-risk HTAD associated with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in genes such as TGFBR1 and TGFBR2.3 Evidence-based genes for genetic testing include FBN1 for MFS, TGFBR1, TGFBR2, SMAD3, and TGFB2 for LDS, COL3A1 for vEDS, and ACTA2, MYH11, MYLK, LOX, and PRKG1 for ns-HTAD.4 Widely accepted, classical criteria for genetic testing of TAD patients5,6 comprise presence of syndromic features of MFS, LDS, or vEDS,7,8 age ≤ 60 years at diagnosis of TAD, and family history of HTAD, specified as the presence of TAD or peripheral or intracranial aneurysm or unexplained sudden death at age < 60 years in a first-degree relative.3 A recent ESC guideline proposed an algorithm for genetic testing of HTAD genes.3 We retrospectively evaluated the diagnostic performance of this algorithm in a large cohort of patients referred to the German hub of the Vascular European Reference Network (VASCERN-GE).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kodolitsch et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: