Key result
Aortic valve-sparing operations in Marfan syndrome show 100% five-year survival vs composite root replacement.
Why the study?
The appropriateness and outcomes of aortic valve-sparing operations versus composite aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome and aortic root aneurysm remain controversial.
Does aortic valve-sparing surgery improve survival and reduce reoperation compared to composite aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome and aortic root aneurysm?
Population
78 consecutive patients with Marfan syndrome undergoing surgery for aortic root aneurysm
Comparison
Aortic valve-sparing operations vs composite replacement of aortic valve and ascending aorta
Design
Cohort study
Follow-up
Mean 41±35 months for valve-sparing group, 65±50 months for composite replacement group
Authors
Loading...
May support valve-sparing in selected Marfan patients; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=78)
No
Does aortic valve-sparing surgery improve survival and reduce reoperation compared to composite aortic root replacement in patients with Marfan syndrome and aortic root aneurysm?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 88%
p-value: p=0.04
Aortic valve-sparing operations in selected patients with Marfan syndrome demonstrate excellent mid-term survival and freedom from reoperation compared to traditional composite root replacement.
L. Tambeur (2000) conducted a cohort in Marfan syndrome with aortic root aneurysm (n=78). Aortic valve-sparing operations vs. Composite replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta was evaluated on Survival at 5 years (p=0.04). Aortic valve-sparing operations in patients with Marfan syndrome resulted in 100% survival at 5 years compared to 88% for composite aortic root replacement (P=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: