Three international nosologies have been proposed for the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome (MFS): the Berlin nosology in 1988; the Ghent nosology in 1996 (Ghent-1); and the revised Ghent nosology in 2010 (Ghent-2). We reviewed the literature and discussed the challenges and concepts of diagnosing MFS in adults. Ghent-1 proposed more stringent clinical criteria, which led to the confirmation of MFS in only 32%–53% of patients formerly diagnosed with MFS according to the Berlin nosology. Conversely, both the Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 nosologies diagnosed MFS, and both yielded similar frequencies of MFS in persons with a causative FBN1 mutation (90% for Ghent-1 versus 92% for Ghent-2) and in persons not having a causative FBN1 mutation (15% versus 13%). Quality criteria for diagnostic methods include objectivity, reliability, and validity. However, the nosology-based diagnosis of MFS lacks a diagnostic reference standard and, hence, quality criteria such as sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy cannot be assessed. Medical utility of diagnosis implies congruency with the historical criteria of MFS, as well as with information about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnostic triggers, prognostic triggers, and potential complications of MFS. In addition, social and psychological utilities of diagnostic criteria include acceptance by patients, patient organizations, clinicians and scientists, practicability, costs, and the reduction of anxiety. Since the utility of a diagnosis or exclusion of MFS is context-dependent, prioritization of utilities is a strategic decision in the process of nosology development. Screening tests for MFS should be used to identify persons with MFS. To confirm the diagnosis of MFS, Ghent-1 and Ghent-2 perform similarly, but Ghent-2 is easier to use. To maximize the utility of the diagnostic criteria of MFS, a fair and transparent process of nosology development is essential.

Introduction: The revised Ghent nosology presents classical features of Marfan syndrome. However, behind its familiar face, Marfan syndrome hides less well-known features. Areas covered: The German Marfan Organization listed unusual symptoms and clinical experts reviewed the literature on clinical features of Marfan syndrome not listed in the Ghent nosology. Thereby we identified the following features: (1) bicuspid aortic valve, mitral valve prolapse, pulmonary valve prolapse, tricuspid valve prolapse, (2) heart failure and cardiomyopathy, (3) supraventricular arrhythmia, ventricular arrhythmia, and abnormal repolarization, (4) spontaneous coronary artery dissection, anomalous coronary arteries, and atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, tortuosity-, aneurysm-, and dissection of large and medium-sized arteries, (5) restrictive lung disease, parenchymal lung disease, and airway disorders, (6) obstructive- and central sleep apnea, (7) liver and kidney cysts, biliary tract disease, diaphragmatic hernia, and adiposity, (8) premature labour, and urinary incontinence, (9) myopathy, reduced bone mineral density, and craniofacial manifestations, (10) atrophic scars, (11) caries, and craniomandibular dysfunction, (12) headache from migraine and spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leakage, (13) cognitive dysfunction, schizophrenia, depression, fatigue, and pain, (14) and activated fibrinolysis, thrombin, platelets, acquired von Willebrand disease, and platelet dysfunction. Expert opinion: Future research, nosologies and guidelines may consider less well-known features of Marfan syndrome.

Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a rare, severe, chronic, life-threatening disease with multiorgan involvement that requires optimal multidisciplinary care to normalize both prognosis and quality of life. In this article, each key team member of all the medical disciplines of a multidisciplinary health care team at the Hamburg Marfan center gives a personal account of his or her contribution in the management of patients with MFS. The authors show how, with the support of health care managers, key team members organize themselves in an organizational structure to create a common meaning, to maximize therapeutic success for patients with MFS. First, we show how the initiative and collaboration of patient representatives, scientists, and physicians resulted in the foundation of Marfan centers, initially in the US and later in Germany, and how and why such centers evolved over time. Then, we elucidate the three main structural elements; a team of coordinators, core disciplines, and auxiliary disciplines of health care. Moreover, we explain how a multidisciplinary health care team integrates into many other health care structures of a university medical center, including external quality assurance; quality management system; clinical risk management; center for rare diseases; aorta center; health care teams for pregnancy, for neonates, and for rehabilitation; and in structures for patient centeredness. We provide accounts of medical goals and standards for each core discipline, including pediatricians, pediatric cardiologists, cardiologists, human geneticists, heart surgeons, vascular surgeons, vascular interventionists, orthopedic surgeons, ophthalmologists, and nurses; and of auxiliary disciplines including forensic pathologists, radiologists, rhythmologists, pulmonologists, sleep specialists, orthodontists, dentists, neurologists, obstetric surgeons, psychiatrist/psychologist, and rehabilitation specialists. We conclude that a multidisciplinary health care team is a means to maximize therapeutic success.

Marfan syndrome is associated with ventricular arrhythmia but risk factors including FBN1 mutation characteristics require elucidation. We performed an observational cohort study of 80 consecutive adults (30 men, 50 women aged 42±15 years) with Marfan syndrome caused by FBN1 mutations. We assessed ventricular arrhythmia on baseline ambulatory electrocardiography as >10 premature ventricular complexes per hour (>10 PVC/h), as ventricular couplets (Couplet), or as non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (nsVT), and during 31±18 months of follow-up as ventricular tachycardia (VT) events (VTE) such as sudden cardiac death (SCD), and sustained ventricular tachycardia (sVT). We identified >10 PVC/h in 28 (35%), Couplet/nsVT in 32 (40%), and VTE in 6 patients (8%), including 3 with SCD (4%). PVC>10/h, Couplet/nsVT, and VTE exhibited increased N-terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide serum levels(P<.001). All arrhythmias related to increased NT-proBNP (P<.001), where PVC>10/h and Couplet/nsVT also related to increased indexed end-systolic LV diameters (P = .024 and P = .020), to moderate mitral valve regurgitation (P = .018 and P = .003), and to prolonged QTc intervals (P = .001 and P = .006), respectively. Moreover, VTE related to mutations in exons 24–32 (P = .021). Kaplan–Meier analysis corroborated an association of VTE with increased NT-proBNP (P<.001) and with mutations in exons 24–32 (P<.001). Marfan syndrome with causative FBN1 mutations is associated with an increased risk for arrhythmia, and affected persons may require life-long monitoring. Ventricular arrhythmia on electrocardiography, signs of myocardial dysfunction and mutations in exons 24–32 may be risk factors of VTE.

Advances in medical, interventional and surgical treatment have increased average life expectancy of patients with congenital heart defects. As a result a new group of adult patients with congenital cardiac defects requires medical rehabilitation. Patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) are a relevant group among these patients. So far, no reports on the effectiveness of specialized rehabilitation programmes for MFS patients exist. We implemented an inpatient 3-week rehabilitation program for MFS patients at the Muehlenberg-Clinic for rehabilitation and assessed the medical safety as well as the impact of the program on physical fitness and psychological wellbeing of participants by means of an observational pilot study. The comprehensive multidisciplinary program included medical, physiotherapeutic, psychological and social issues. Two groups including 8 and 10 individuals with verified MFS attended the programme. Medically adverse events that occurred during the rehabilitation were registered. Adverse events were defined as: any new cardiac arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, cardiac syncope or any complications located at the aorta. Psychological assessment was performed using Short Form-36 (SF-36), hospital anxiety and depression scale and other psychometric questionnaires. Medical examinations included assessment of maximum power in bicycle ergometry. All assessments were performed at the beginning and at the end of the rehabilitation. Psychometric assessments were repeated 1 year after the end of the programme for both groups, respectively. Patients were highly satisfied with the programme and improved in almost all psychological and physical fitness assessments. The pre-post-comparison resulted in significant positive changes for mental health (p < .001 for SF-36 Mental Health), fatigue (p < .05 for Fatigue Severity Scale), nociception (p < .05 for SF-36 Pain) and vitality (p < .05 for SF-36 Vitality). Physical fitness improved from admission to discharge (p < .001 for maximum power in bicycle ergometry, p < .05 for maximum nordic walking distance). Considerable improvements persisted through 1 year follow-up. Medical assessments excluded medical problems or adverse events caused by participation in the programme. In our study, inpatient rehabilitation was both safe and helpful for MFS patients. They benefited in terms of physical fitness, health related quality of life and in terms of psychological wellbeing. An evaluation of the efficacy of the programme in a controlled design as well as further conceptual improvements of our current program is desirable.