Objective To compare the 1-year results after aortic valve-sparing (AVS) or valve-replacing (AVR) aortic root replacement from a prospective, international registry of 316 patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS). Methods Patients underwent AVS (n = 239, 76%) or AVR (n = 77, 24%) aortic root replacement at 19 participating centers from 2005 to 2010. One-year follow-up data were complete for 312 patients (99%), with imaging findings available for 293 (94%). The time-to-events were compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. Results Two patients (0.6%) - 1 in each group - died within 30 days. No significant differences were found in early major adverse valve-related events (MAVRE; P =.6). Two AVS patients required early reoperation for coronary artery complications. The 1-year survival rates were similar in the AVR (97%) and AVS (98%) groups; the procedure type was not significantly associated with any valve-related events. At 1 year and beyond, aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity (≥2+) was present in 16 patients in the AVS group (7%) but in no patients in the AVR group (P =.02). One AVS patient required late AVR. Conclusions AVS aortic root replacement was not associated with greater 30-day mortality or morbidity rates than AVR root replacement. At 1 year, no differences were found in survival, valve-related morbidity, or MAVRE between the AVS and AVR groups. Of concern, 7% of AVS patients developed grade ≥2+ aortic regurgitation, emphasizing the importance of 5 to 10 years of follow-up to learn the long-term durability of AVS versus AVR root replacement in patients with MFS.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine