Abstract 9355: Mitral Valve Disease in Marfan Syndrome Patients Undergoing Aortic Root Replacement
Background: The primary cardiac manifestations of the Marfan syndrome (MFS) include aortic root dilation and mitral valve prolapse (MVP). There are only scant data describing MV disease in MFS patients who undergo aortic root replacement.
Methods: We retrospectively studied 239 patients (90 female; mean age 34 y) with MFS enrolled in a prospective multicenter registry. All patients were referred for repair of aortic root aneurysms with either composite graft aortic valve replacement (AVR, n=59) or an aortic valve-sparing procedure (AVS, n=180). MVP and mitral regurgitation (MR) severity was evaluated by echocardiography preoperatively and during follow-up (postoperatively, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery). The severity of MR was graded as none, trivial (0), mild (1), moderate (2), moderate to severe (3), or severe (4). Preoperative echocardiography identified MVP in 166 (69%) patients without previous MV intervention.
Results: Forty-one (25%) of 166 patients with MVP received AVR, and 125 (75%) received AVS, with similar proportions of patients with preoperative MR grade >2 in the two groups (p=0.7). Thirty-three patients (20%) underwent concomitant MV intervention: 29 repairs and 4 replacements (15 patients (45%) had MR >2, 11 (33%) had MR=2, and 7 had MR ≤1). All patients with MR >2 underwent a MV procedure. One patient following MV repair required MV replacement on postoperative day 16 after developing grade 4 MR. No other patient required MV reintervention during follow-up (mean clinical follow-up, 30±9 months). Echocardiography performed 21±13 (±1 SD) months postoperatively revealed MR >2 in only 1 of 158 patients. There were 1 early death (bleeding) and 2 late deaths (multi-organ failure and unknown cause); all deaths occurred in patients with concomitant MV surgery.
Conclusions: MVP is present in 69% of patients with MFS undergoing aortic root replacement; 20% of patients with MVP underwent a concomitant MV procedure. Short-term results suggest that a simultaneous MV procedure in patients with MR >2 is reasonable because operative risk was not increased and subsequent MV procedures were rare. More follow-up is needed to learn if prophylactic MV intervention at the time of aortic surgery might benefit patients with MR ≤2.
- © 2012 by American Heart Association, Inc.