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.

The diagnosis of Marfan syndrome (MFS) is based on evaluating a large number of clinical criteria. We have observed that many persons presenting in specialized centers for "Marfan-like" features do not have MFS, but exhibit a large spectrum of other syndromes. The spectrum of these syndromes and the distribution of "Marfan-like" features remain to be characterized. Thus, we prospectively evaluated 279 consecutive patients with suspected MFS (144 men and 135 women at a mean age of 34+/-13 years) for presence of 27 clinical criteria considered characteristic of MFS. The most frequent reasons to refer individuals for suspected MFS were skeletal features (31%), a family history of MFS, or aortic complications (29%), aortic dissection or aneurysm (19%), and eye manifestations (9%). Using established criteria, we confirmed MFS in 138 individuals (group 1) and diagnosed other connective tissue diseases, both with vascular involvement in 30 (group 2) and without vascular involvement in 39 (group 3), and excluded any distinct disease in 72 individuals (group 4). Clinical manifestations of MFS were present in all four patient groups and there was no single clinical criterion that exhibited positive and negative likelihood ratios that were per se sufficient to confirm or rule out MFS. We conclude that "Marfan-like" features are not exclusively indicative of MFS but also of numerous, alternative inherited diseases with many of them carrying a hitherto poorly defined cardiovascular risk. These alternative diseases require future study to characterize their responses to therapy and long-term prognosis.

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.

A simple prediction model provides evidence for Marfan syndrome. This model can be used to identify patients who require definitive diagnostic work-up.