Are aortic biomechanical properties early markers of dilatation in patients with Marfan syndrome? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Although tissue stiffness is known to play an important role in aortic dilatation, the current guidelines for offering preventative surgery in patients with Marfan syndrome rely solely on the aortic diameter. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we analyze and compare literature on in vivo aortic stiffness measures in Marfan patients. Our aim is to assess the potential of these measurements as early indicators of aortic dilatation. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we collected literature on diameter and three in vivo stiffness measures: Pulse wave velocity (PWV), \(\beta \)-stiffness index (SI) and distensibility, at five different aortic locations in patients with Marfan syndrome. Results were reviewed and compared against each other. For meta-analysis, an augmented dataset was created by combining data from the literature. Regression with respect to age and statistical comparisons were performed. Thirty articles reporting data from 1925 patients with Marfan and 836 patients without Marfan were reviewed. PWV was found to be higher in Marfan, but only in dilated aortas. Distensibility was found to be lower even in non-dilated aortas, and its decrease was associated with higher chances of developing aortic dilatation. \(\beta \)-SI was higher in Marfan patients and was positively correlated with the rate of aortic dilatation, emphasizing its role as a valuable indicator. In our meta-analysis, all stiffness measures showed a significant variation with age. Distensibility and \(\beta \)-stiffness index were different in Marfan patients at all locations, and the difference was more pronounced after accounting for age-related variation. From the literature, \(\beta \)-SI and distensibility emerge as the best predictors of future aortic dilatation. Our meta-analysis quantifies age-related changes in aortic stiffness and highlights the importance of accounting for age in comparing these measurements. Missing diameter values in the literature limited our analysis. Further investigation of criteria combining stiffness and diameter is recommended to better assist clinical decisions for prophylactic surgery.