- Thank you very much indeed and thank you again, Frank. The European Society guidelines, just to get things put surely, if you've had a major stroke and a large infarction with altered consciousness and drowsiness we recommend that surgery should be deferred and should not be urgently entered.
Similarly patients who present with stroke and evolution or crescendo TIAs are a very special subgroup, relatively small, and these should be treated with carotid surgery within 24 hours. So that gets rid of the two questions that somebody's going to ask afterwards.
What we're dealing with is how should you treat the non-disabling stroke or TIA. Now this is the natural history of early recurrent stroke after a TIA in patients with 50 to 99% stenoses and you can see that the early risks are really very high indeed, way higher than was reported
in the randomized trials. And that was because these patients never were included in the randomized trials. They'd suffered their stroke long before they had a chance to be treated. And we know from a meta-analysis of the pooled ECST,
NASCET, and VA data that the quicker you offer surgery the more strokes that you prevent in the long term, particularly in patients with severe stenoses. And so for that reason the ESVS recommended that wherever possible patients who have presented with a TIA or a non-disabling stroke,
they should undergo a carotid intervention within 14 days of onset, preferably as soon as possible. Now there's a lot of debate about the impact of if you operate early does that increase the procedural risk? Well there have been three big registries,
the Swedish with two and a half thousand patients, the UK with 23,000, and the German with 56,000. The study that captures eternal attention is the Swedish study with the 11% death and stroke rate within 48 hours. But while there was a small but modest increase
in the 48 hours complication rates with the UK and German databases, there were nowhere near as gross as the Swedish ones. The reality is it's quite difficult to get somebody with a non-disabling stroke into the operating theater within 48 hours.
The problem is in terms of whether you should do stenting or surgery is that the overviews of the randomized trials have shown that stenting is still associated with a threefold excess risk if you perform surgery within either seven days or eight to 14 days.
So the European Society recommended that if you are undergoing revascularization within the first 14 days it's preferable to offer carotid endarterectomy rather than carotid stenting, but as I will mention later, that might change
the next time the guidelines are published. And we also concluded that if you have, you do have comorbidities in recently symptomatic patients who make them high risk for surgery, and these are going to be careful about the definition of that. We recommend that an MDT needs to review that decision,
but if that is the case then stenting should be considered as an alternative. Now, I thought it useful also to point out that we recommend that early endarterectomy within 14 days should be considered after intravenous thrombolysis.
If the patient makes a rapid recovery the area of infarction is less than one-third of the MCA territory, a previously occluded middle cerebral mainstem is recanalized, and there is a significant stenosis and no evidence of any parenchymal hemorrhage
or significant brain edema. Now there is a careful caveat to this, and that is that you should withhold IV heparin and antiplatelet therapy for 24 hours after lysis completion, but then before you take the patient to theater
the patient should be restarted on antiplatelet therapy. So that will introduce a small delay, but if you don't the risks of hemorrhage are much higher. There are unanswered questions of course that the guidelines that Jean Baptiste and I chaired cannot answer.
First of all, do newer CAS technologies mean that it can be performed as safely as endarterectomy in the first seven to 14 days. And I'm notably referring to TCAR. Now I know there's a very large registry being published on the results of TCAR,
and I've reviewed it for the Journal of Vascular Surgery. And I heard Glenn Darling present it to the European meeting. But they cannot tell you what the death and stroke rates were when operations were performed within seven or 14 days of surgery,
and this is crucial. There's no point in saying that TCAR's fantastically good in asymptomatic patients or patients whose symptoms were three months ago. What we need to know is whether this offers a benefit in patients within the first seven to 14 days.
And the other big issue is whether following mechanical thrombectomy should a tandem internal carotid artery stenosis be treated by synchronous stenting or by deferred stenting to surgery. Now I was reviewing a lot of the literature
for a separate presentation yesterday, and the jury is out on that because there is not much published. But there do seem to be increased hemorrhagic complication rates where you have patients who undergo a synchronous mechanical thrombectomy
and synchronous carotid stenting. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, Dr. Ascher. Great to be part of this session this morning. These are my disclosures. The risk factors for chronic ischemia of the hand are similar to those for chronic ischemia of the lower extremity with the added risk factors of vasculitides, scleroderma,
other connective tissue disorders, Buerger's disease, and prior trauma. Also, hemodialysis access accounts for a exacerbating factor in approximately 80% of patients that we treat in our center with chronic hand ischemia. On the right is a algorithm from a recent meta-analysis
from the plastic surgery literature, and what's interesting to note is that, although sympathectomy, open surgical bypass, and venous arterialization were all recommended for patients who were refractory to best medical therapy, endovascular therapy is conspicuously absent
from this algorithm, so I just want to take you through this morning and submit that endovascular therapy does have a role in these patients with digit loss, intractable pain or delayed healing after digit resection. Physical examination is similar to that of lower extremity, with the added brachial finger pressures,
and then of course MRA and CTA can be particularly helpful. The goal of endovascular therapy is similar with the angiosome concept to establish in-line flow to the superficial and deep palmar arches. You can use an existing hemodialysis access to gain access transvenously to get into the artery for therapy,
or an antegrade brachial, distal brachial puncture, enabling you treat all three vessels. Additionally, you can use a retrograde radial approach, which allows you to treat both the radial artery, which is typically the main player in these patients, or go up the radial and then back over
and down the ulnar artery. These patients have to be very well heparinized. You're also giving antispasmodic agents with calcium channel blockers and nitroglycerin. A four French sheath is preferable. You're using typically 014, occasionally 018 wires
with balloon diameters 2.3 to three millimeters most common and long balloon lengths as these patients harbor long and tandem stenoses. Here's an example of a patient with intractable hand pain. Initial angiogram both radial and ulnar artery occlusions. We've gone down and wired the radial artery,
performed a long segment angioplasty, done the same to the ulnar artery, and then in doing so reestablished in-line flow with relief of this patient's hand pain. Here's a patient with a non-healing index finger ulcer that's already had
the distal phalanx resected and is going to lose the rest of the finger, so we've gone in via a brachial approach here and with long segment angioplasty to the radial ulnar arteries, we've obtained this flow to the hand
and preserved the digit. Another patient, a diabetic, middle finger ulcer. I think you're getting the theme here. Wiring the vessels distally, long segment radial and ulnar artery angioplasty, and reestablishing an in-line flow to the hand.
Just by way of an extreme example, here's a patient with a vascular malformation with a chronically occluded radial artery at its origin, but a distal, just proximal to the palmar arch distal radial artery reconstitution, so that served as a target for us to come in
as we could not engage the proximal radial artery, so in this patient we're able to come in from a retrograde direction and use the dedicated reentry device to gain reentry and reestablish in-line flow to this patient with intractable hand pain and digit ulcer from the loss of in-line flow to the hand.
And this patient now, two years out, remains patent. Our outcomes at the University of Pennsylvania, typically these have been steal symptoms and/or ulceration and high rates of technical success. Clinical success, 70% with long rates of primary patency comparing very favorably
to the relatively sparse literature in this area. In summary, endovascular therapy can achieve high rates of technical, more importantly, clinical success with low rates of major complications, durable primary patency, and wound healing achieved in the majority of these patients.
- Thank you Peter and Tony and thanks Frank for the kind invitation. I have no disclosures. So we looked our iliac vein stent experience and looked at the failure modes of the iliac vein stents, we found that majority of these patients over half of these patients had poor inflow
in the common femoral vein. If that is the case then the treatment options involve either stenting across the inguinal ligament or a surgical option or a hybrid option of endovenectomy combined with iliac vein stenting. So, here is a patient who came back with recurrent
venous ulcer after iliac vein stenting and he had improved following the iliac vein stenting. When we did a venogram for this patient we found that there was additional (mumbles) material around the distal part of the iliac vein stent and also material in the common femoral vein lower down.
The idea to down into the the idea is to go down into the Profunda Vein and do a venography to identify all areas. On the left hand side screen, you can see that the stent was extended and profunda venogram was done
and the common femoral vein common stenosis was identified. And this is often done through, from the contra-lateral side and you can either stent them going down into the common femoral and get a good result and if you can't then endovenectomy is an option. Why endovenectomy works is because A,
where do you put a stent in the common femoral? Again, with a curtain effect, you can affect the flows from the profunda vein, especially if you're using a closed cell stent. The advantage of endovenectomy is that you can improve flows from the profunda
and extend the stent into the patch. Here's a video demonstrating that exposure of the common femoral vein and as Tony showed you before, the collagen material inside the vein is quite adherent and bulky
and it is not amenable to endarterectomy all the way and therefore, sharp dissection with Pott's scissors is necessary to find adequate plains. Especially the collagen extension into the branch veins of the common femoral vein. It's important to extend it right
across the profunda orifice and you want to make sure that the profunda flows are excellent because the procedure hinges on that. Once you find a pearly surface of the intima, then you can excise the rest of the bulky material to get a smooth surface.
This is extended right into the external iliac vein level or until you can find a place where you can introduce a sheath into the external iliac vein to complete the extension of the iliac vein stent. The profunda is back-flowed and as you can see, good flows and further extension down below
is also done around the profunda orifice to make sure that all clearance is achieved. You have to be a little careful in this area because you can sometimes go too thin and cause perforation in the wall, which is not an ideal situation and you don't want that.
So, you can, you find an area where the sheath can be introduce and now you can see you can excise the bulky material around the sheath. And then if the lumen is adequate, I close it primarily. And if I find the vein has shrunk, then you know, I put in a patch.
Once the closure is done, I release the profunda so allowing blood to flow while I'm doing the stenting and that way, we can complete the procedure by extension of the stents. And this is the final result. So, we've had good experience with this
and we are happy with the results with freedom of ulceration around 89%. I've already alluded to the key clinical steps in clearing the profunda inflow and also the outflow of the inguinal ligament, stenting distal to the common femoral vein
clearance points and anticoagulation for three months. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you for asking me to speak. Thank you Dr Veith. I have no disclosures. I'm going to start with a quick case again of a 70 year old female presented with right lower extremity rest pain and non-healing wound at the right first toe
and left lower extremity claudication. She had non-palpable femoral and distal pulses, her ABIs were calcified but she had decreased wave forms. Prior anterior gram showed the following extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease due to the small size we went ahead and did a CT scan and confirmed.
She had a very small aorta measuring 14 millimeters in outer diameter and circumferential calcium of her aorta as well as proximal common iliac arteries. Due to this we treated her with a right common femoral artery cutdown and an antegrade approach to her SFA occlusion with a stent.
We then converted the sheath to a retrograde approach, place a percutaneous left common femoral artery access and then placed an Endologix AFX device with a 23 millimeter main body at the aortic bifurcation. We then ballooned both the aorta and iliac arteries and then placed bilateral balloon expandable
kissing iliac stents to stent the outflow. Here is our pre, intra, and post operative films. She did well. Her rest pain resolved, her first toe amputation healed, we followed her for about 10 months. She also has an AV access and had a left arterial steel
on a left upper extremity so last week I was able to undergo repeat arteriogram and this is at 10 months out. We can see that he stent remains open with good flow and no evidence of in stent stenosis. There's very little literature about using endografts for occlusive disease.
Van Haren looked at 10 patients with TASC-D lesions that were felt to be high risk for aorta bifem using the Endologix AFX device. And noted 100% technical success rate. Eight patients did require additional stent placements. There was 100% resolution of the symptoms
with improved ABIs bilaterally. At 40 months follow up there's a primary patency rate of 80% and secondary of 100% with one acute limb occlusion. Zander et all, using the Excluder prothesis, looked at 14 high risk patients for aorta bifem with TASC-C and D lesions of the aorta.
Similarly they noted 100% technical success. Nine patients required additional stenting, all patients had resolution of their symptoms and improvement of their ABIs. At 62 months follow up they noted a primary patency rate of 85% and secondary of 100
with two acute limb occlusions. The indications for this procedure in general are symptomatic patient with a TASC C or D lesion that's felt to either be a high operative risk for aorta bifem or have a significantly calcified aorta where clamping would be difficult as we saw in our patient.
These patients are usually being considered for axillary bifemoral bypass. Some technical tips. Access can be done percutaneously through a cutdown. I do recommend a cutdown if there's femoral disease so you can preform a femoral endarterectomy and
profundaplasty at the same time. Brachial access is also an alternative option. Due to the small size and disease vessels, graft placement may be difficult and may require predilation with either the endograft sheath dilator or high-pressure balloon.
In calcified vessels you may need to place covered stents in order to pass the graft to avoid rupture. Due to the poor radial force of endografts, the graft must be ballooned after placement with either an aortic occlusion balloon but usually high-pressure balloons are needed.
It usually also needs to be reinforced the outflow with either self-expanding or balloon expandable stents to prevent limb occlusion. Some precautions. If the vessels are calcified and tortuous again there may be difficult graft delivery.
In patients with occluded vessels standard techniques for crossing can be used, however will require pre-dilation before endograft positioning. If you have a sub intimal cannulation this does put the vessel at risk for rupture during
balloon dilation. Small aortic diameters may occlude limbs particularly using modular devices. And most importantly, the outflow must be optimized using stents distally if needed in the iliac arteries, but even more importantly, assuring that you've
treated the femoral artery and outflow to the profunda. Despite these good results, endograft use for occlusive disease is off label use and therefor not reimbursed. In comparison to open stents, endograft use is expensive and may not be cost effective. There's no current studies looking
into the cost/benefit ratio. Thank you.
- I'd like the thank Doctor Veith for inviting me back to speak. I have no disclosures, we will be discussing some slight off-label use of the anitcoagulants. As we all know, acute limb ischemia occurs as a result of acute thrombosis of a native artery or bypass graft or embolism from a proximal
source, dissection, or trauma. The incidence is not insignificant, 15 cases per 100 000 persons per year, or interestingly about 10 to 16% of our vascular workload. Despite the relative frequency of this condition, there are relatively few guidelines to
guide us for anticoagulation therapy. The last set of guidelines for the American College of Chest Physicians regarding PAD gives some very brief, generic recommendations from 2012. They state, suggest immediate systemic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin.
We suggest reperfusion over no reperfusion, which seems pretty obvious to an audience of vascular specialists. One of the challenges with acute limb ischemia is that it is a fairly heterogenous group. It can be thrombosis or embolism to the aorticiliac segments to the infrainguinal segments, and
there's also the patients who develop ALI from trauma. So we actually looked at the various phases of anticoagulation for acute limb ischemia and then we do, as with many institutions, utilize intravenous heparin at the time of the diagnosis, as well as obviously at the time of surgery,
but we found that there was a significant variation with regard to the early, post-operative anticoagulation regimens. One option is to give therapeutic intravenous heparin on an adjusted dose, but what we found in a significant minority of patients across the country actually,
is that people are giving this fixed mini-dose 500 unit an hour of heparin without any standardization or efficacy analysis. Then, obviously you go the long-term anticoagulation. We reviewed 123 patients who had ALI at our institution, who underwent surgical revascularization.
And they had the typical set of comorbidities you might expect in someone who has PAD or atheroembolism. In these patients, the Rutherford Classification was viable or marginally threatened in the majority, with about 25% having immediately threatened limb.
Various procedures were performed for these patients, including thromboembolectomy in the majority, bypass operations, angioplasty and stenting was performed in the significant minority and then primary amputation in the various selects few. We divided these patients into
the first four days of anticoagulation. Therapeutic with unfractionated heparin early on versus subtherapeutic or this mini-dose unfractionated heparin and we found that 29% of our patients were receiving the mini-dose unfractionated heparin, again without much efficacy analysis.
We used the International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis Anticoagulation Outcome Guidelines to look at the ischemic complications, as well as major and minor bleeding for these patients, and we identified actually not a significant rate of difference between the
subtherapeutic category and the therapeutic category of patients, with regard to mortality, with regard to recurrent limb ischemia, MI, VTE, or stroke, major amputation, and we actually didn't find because it's a fairly small study, any significant difference in major or minor bleeding for these patients.
So, we do feel that this small study did justify some efficacy of mini-dose unfractionated heparin because we didn't find that it was causing recurrent lower extremity thromboembolsim in these patients. Now on to long-term anticoagulation, for these patients, after that first three or four days
after the surgery, the options are long-term vitamin K antagonists, the DOAC's or vitamin K antagonists if you have atrial arrhythmia, or in the patients who had no other comorbidities, there really is not much guidance until recently. The compass trial was recently published in 2018
in stable PAD and carotid disease patients, identifying that rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant benefit over aspirin alone in patients who had stable PAD. And then, an upcoming trial, which is still ongoing currently in patients who underwent recent
revascularization, whether open or endo, is hopefully going to demonstrate that rivaroxaban, again has a role in patients with lower extremity ischemia. So in conclusion, there is relatively a scarcity of clinical data to help guide anticoagulation after acute limb ischemia.
Unfractionated heparin pre and intraop are standardized, but postop anticoagulation is quite variable. The mini-dose, we consider to be a reasonable option in the first few days to balance bleeding versus rethrombrosis, and fortunately we are having larger randomized clinical trials to help demonstrate the benefit of the DOACs and
aspirin in patients who are stable or post-revascularization for PAD, thank you.
- Good morning, I would like to thank Dr. Veith, and the co-chairs for inviting me to talk. I have nothing to disclose. Some background on this information, patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are at least three times more likely to suffer a thrombo-embolic event, when compared to the general population.
The incidence is 0.1 - 0.5% per year. Overall mortality associated with these events can be as high as 25%, and postmortem exams reveal an incidence of 39-41% indicating that systemic thrombo-embolism is probably underdiagnosed. Thrombosis mainly occurs during disease exacerbation,
however proctocolectomy has not been shown to be preventative. Etiology behind this is not well known, but it's thought to be multifactorial. Including decrease in fibrinolytic activity, increase in platelet activation,
defects in the protein C pathway. Dyslipidemia and long term inflammation also puts patients at risk for an increase in atherosclerosis. In addition, these patients lack vitamins, are often dehydrated, anemic, and at times immobilized. Traditionally, the venous thrombosis is thought
to be more common, however recent retrospective review of the Health Care Utilization Project nationwide inpatient sample database, reported not only an increase in the incidence but that arterial complications may happen more frequently than venous.
I was going to present four patients over the course of one year, that were treated at my institution. The first patient is 25 year old female with Crohn's disease, who had a transverse colectomy one year prior to presentation. Presented with right flank pain, she was found to have
right sided PE, a right sided pulmonary vein thrombosis and a left atrial thrombosis. She was admitted for IV heparin, four days later she had developed abdominal pains, underwent an abdominal CTA significant for SMA occlusion prompting an SMA thrombectomy.
This is a picture of her CAT scan showing the right PE, the right pulmonary vein thrombosis extending into the left atrium. The SMA defect. She returned to the OR for second and third looks, underwent a subtotal colectomy,
small bowel resection with end ileostomy during the third operation. She had her heparin held post-operatively due to significant post-op bleeding, and over the next three to five days she got significantly worse, developed progressive fevers increase found to have
SMA re-thrombosis, which you can see here on her CAT scan. She ended up going back to the operating room and having the majority of her small bowel removed, and went on to be transferred to an outside facility for bowel transplant. Our second patient is a 59 year old female who presented
five days a recent flare of ulcerative colitis. She presented with right lower extremity pain and numbness times one day. She was found to have acute limb ischemia, category three. An attempt was made at open revascularization with thrombectomy, however the pedal vessels were occluded.
The leg was significantly ischemic and flow could not be re-established despite multiple attempts at cut-downs at different levels. You can see her angiogram here at the end of the case. She subsequently went on to have a below knee amputation, and her hospital course was complicated by
a colonic perforation due to the colitis not responding to conservative measures. She underwent a subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy. Just in the interest of time we'll skip past the second, third, and fourth patients here. These patients represent catastrophic complications of
atypical thrombo-embolic events occurring in IBD flares. Patients with inflammatory disease are at an increased risk for both arterial and venous thrombotic complications. So the questions to be answered: are the current recommendations adequate? Currently heparin prophylaxis is recommended for
inpatients hospitalized for severe disease. And, if this is not adequate, what treatments should we recommend, the medication choice, and the duration of treatment? These arterial and venous complications occurring in the visceral and peripheral arteries
are likely underappreciated clinically as a risk for patients with IBD flares and they demonstrate a need to look at further indications for thrombo-prophylaxis. Thank you.
- Pleasure to be here again this year, discussing now something very exciting that we're going to be a part of at Baylor. Some disclosures, of which probably the fact that I educate and train for Boston may be relevant to this topic. Quick picture showing some of my own patients
that had chronic limb threatening ischemia over a year ago and just recently we had to do an angio again for some more proximal disease. And obviously not a surprise but at one year after drug alluding stenting, obviously balloon expandable stenting, the patency, actually it was more than that,
13, 14 months, it was fantastically open. On another terrible case, I had a patient that had a failed distal bypass and that one area of occlusion was the area where the bypass was amassed the most. Unfortunately after atherectomy, after balloon angioplasty
there was still acute recoil and I had to stent that area. I had to take the patient back a few months later for assisted primary patency and that stent had just become a mesh of useless metal and that's because that mobility at that proportion of the tibials is a lot.
So there's a lot to be said about the utilization of a non crushable scaffold in this segment. Tibial disease as is no secret to any of us is very diffuse, specifically in diabetics. And can be seen in a multitude of studies that there is an advantage of a scaffold
that has biological effect. Now granted most of these lesions have been very small and very short because of the availability of the structures and also because of what we've learned about the anatomy of the tibial and the areas of the tibials we've learned that not every single
part of the tibial vessels are actually amenable to a balloon expandable scaffold. Drug coated balloons have tried to expand the indication with some variable results as you look at the entirety of the studies out there. Now looking at what the patency has shown,
restenosis and freedom from TLR, it's been very obvious that those cases that have been scaffolded at 12 months have actually done very good, obviously the criticism and the constraint has always been lesion length. Smaller lesions have responded really well.
Now what would happen after that first year, we know from the PADI stud at 5 years is that when compared to PTA and bare meta stenting there is a very clear advantage that is maintained up to five years by using biological affects. So the SAVAL pivotal trial is a global pivotal trial
of a drug eluting system called the SAVAL stent. It's the first time that the differentiated technology selected for expedited access pathway has been awarded by the FDA and the anticipated enrollment us going to be Q3 2018, the idea of this flexible Nitinol self expanding stent is that it's going to be
compliant to most of the anatomy of the tibials. This is a polymer drug coating based scaffold. Somewhat in accordance or at least the same one that has been used previously for the Aluvia, that has been recently approved. This study is randomized, comparing DES below the knee
to percutaneous angioplasty alone below the knee. Doctor Mustapha is the global PI and Patrick Geraghty, Hans Overhagen and Masato Nakamura are going to be the co PIs for the global perspective as it will be conducted in Japan, in EU and in the United States.
There will be a perspective phase for this, so a two to one study with a limited size of 80 millimeter in length scaffold and then a phase B where they will allow us to put more than one scaffold, allowing longer lesions to be treated.
The objective is to get 200 patients, randomize again to two to one in 50 centers and we're looking for obviously CLTI patients Rutherford's class four and five, greater than 70 percent stenosis. Reference vessel diameter is going to be two five to
three 75 and total target lesion length is going to be initially less than 70 for coverage with one scaffold and then after that it's going to be freed up to hopefully less than 140 lesions. Primary patency at six months, it's going to be a superiority versus the PTA branch.
Certainly a major adverse events are going to be defined by above the ankle amputation, major reintervention and mortality. So the key features, primary patency measured at one, six, 12, 24 and 36 months. TLRs are going to be also seen.
Hemodynamic outcomes will be managed and assessed. Wound assessment will be also closely followed. Major amputation rate, Rutherford classification, quality of life and hospital readmissions. So in conclusions CLTIs associated with high amputation rates and poor clinical outcomes.
CLTI is commonly associated with below the knee lesions and challenging anatomy. Endovascular treatment has potential to increase wound healing and reduce amputation rates and the SAVAL clinical study will investigate safety and efficacy of a self expanding
drug eluting stent design particularly for the below the knee vessels, thank you very much.
- You already heard about different devices which can finish the treatment of acute DVT in the lab and I would like to add one of the devices which is quite widespread in Europe. And share the first study on this device. This is called the Aspirex device. So what is the objective?
Post traumatic syndrome after proximal DVT, I think that's clear. 25% of the patient are at risk for developing post traumatic syndrome. I think that is clear and some of these patient even expect severe post traumatic syndrome.
We already saw this ATTRACT trial outcome and we learned that especially patient with Iliofemoral DVT might benefit from treatment, invasive treatment of Iliofemoral DVT but of course, we need to know that is catheter-directed thrombolysis causes issues
and therefore our way should be to go away from thrombolytic therapy to a pure mechanical thrombectomy approach. This is a typical case example of a patient, 20 year old female patient who came to the emergency room with that leg on the left side in the morning,
back pain in the evening and this is clear that it is a descending Iliofemoral DVT in that patient caused by May-Thurner syndrome. So, with modern devices like this Aspirex, mechanical thrombectomy device, the 10 French device is able to aspirate up to 130 millimeter,
ml per minute of clots. You see that this can be effectively treated and then stinted within the May-Thurner syndrome within one session approach. So, but, what is clear of course that we need to get data
for these modern Mechanical Thrombectomy devices and therefore, we conducted clinical follow-up study to evaluate safety and efficiency of that Aspirex Mechanical Thrombectomy device. This device is based on the Archimedic principle which you can see here it comes with six up
to 10 French systems and with that you are able, as I already showed to sac 130ml of thrombus per minute. So these are the study details I want to show you. We treated 50 psychs, 56 patients with acute, subacute and acute on chronic which means up to 3 months of symptoms patients with Iliofermal DVT.
We performed IVIS on all these patients. We found May-Thurner syndrome in at least half of these patients as a reason for the Iliofermal DVT. You see the patient demographics. Some of the patients had even malignancy condition. A lot of patients were on oral contraceptives.
Here are the clinical symptoms within our cohort. Most of the patients came with swelling and rest pain. The rVCSS at the beginning was 4.5 within this cohort. Most of the traumatic lesions were on the left side involving even the profunda and the common femoral vein in this cohort.
You see here the excess which we used for treating these Iliofermal DVT, we used in the main part of the cohort, the left popliteal vein access or left femoral vein access. 84% were treated with 10 French system, the Aspirex device. As I mentioned we used IVIS
to analyze underlying pathologies. We found in most of the patients underlying pathologies and this explains why we implanted stents in 100% of the patients. You see the treatment duration which was in mean 94 minutes within this treatment cohort.
These are the patency analysis within one year. You see patency at 12 months, 87% percent in these patients, which we could follow up after 12 months. Here you see the Post-thrombotic syndrome analysis after 12 months so only low PTS
and some kind of moderate PTS were seen in these patients. There were no severe Post-thrombotic syndrome. Most of the patients just had a little bit of swelling after that procedure. Of course, it's important to mention safety and those end points.
There were just some small punctures associated, site being complicationS. Of course re-hospitalization is a severe adverse event which you can see here. But there were of course no bleeding events in this cohort. And to follow up
on this much more multicentric perspective trial, we just started a multicenter trial on this and we'll follow up patients up to five years within this just initiated multicenter registry. And I think we can show some preliminary data next year. Thank you very much.
- These are my disclosures. So aortic neck dilatation is not a new problem. It's been described even before the era of endovascular repair and it's estimated to occur in about 20% of all patients that undergo EVAR two years after the index procedure.
We're seeing more and more cases where patients that survive long enough after EVAR, they develop aortic neck dilatation beyond the nominal diameter of the endograft and like on this patient, this image, large type 1A endoleaks that are difficult to treat.
There's a number of factors that are contributing to aortic neck dilatation including a continuous outward force that is exerted by the endograft. Progression of aortic wall degeneration. Aneurisymal disease is a degenerative procedure.
The presence of endoleaks, particularly type two endoleaks have been implicated in aortic neck dilatation. And then incomplete seal at the proximal neck in the form of microleaks or positional leaks. HeliFX EndoAnchors as you heard were
designed to stabilize and improve the apposition of the endograft to the aortic neck. And as you saw on this video, their presence even when the super no fixation disengages from the wall of the aorta, may help stabilize the graft onto
the aorta and prevent type 1A endoleaks. About three or four years ago we started looking at the anchor registry data, trying to identify predictors of aortic neck dilatation in patients who are undergoing EVAR with EndoAnchors. We published those results about a year ago.
In terms of the one year mark, we had 267 patients in that cohort. We measured the aortic diameter at four different levels. 20 millimeters proximal to the lowest main renal artery and then at the level of the lowest renal artery, five and 10 millimeters distal to that.
We defined the change in diameter that occurred between the pre-implantation EVAR and the first post-implantation EVAR at about one month. As adoptive enlargement due mainly to the effect of endograaft and the interaction with the aortic wall.
And then we defined this dilatation, what occurred between the one month and the 12 month mark, post EVAR. We used 20 different variables and we ran all these variables at the three levels. And what we found in terms of
post-operative neck dilatation is that it occurred in 3.1% of patients at the level of the lowest renal artery. 7.7% five millimeters distal to it and 4.6% at 10 millimeters distal to it. And this is a dilatation with a threshold
of at least three millimeters. We felt that this was much more clinically relevant. In terms of protective factors for adaptive enlargement, the presence of calcium and the aortic diameter of the level of the lowest renal, both of these are easy to understand.
The stiffer the aorta, the lesser the degree of the immediate dilatation. But then when we looked at the true dilatation, we found out that the aortic neck diameter at the lowest renal artery was a significant risk factor as was Endograft oversizing.
So if you started with a large aorta to begin with, these patients were much more likely to develop neck dilatation and if you significantly oversize the endograft that was also an independent risk factor. On the other hand, the neck length as well as the number of EndoAnchors that
were placed in these patients, both appear to have independent protective effects. So the two year preliminary analysis results is what I'm going to present. The analysis is still ongoing, but now we have a larger number of patients, 674.
We performed the same measurements at the same levels. What we found in terms of time course and location of the aortic neck dilatation is that in the suprarenal site, there is negligible dilatation up to 24 months. The largest dilatation occurs at five millimeters,
but more interestingly, a significant number of patients did not even have endograft present in that location. And then at 10 millimeters distal to the lowest renal artery right where most of the aneurysm changes you would expect to occur,
that change in diameter was again negligible. Indirectly suggesting that EndoAnchors have protective effect. So these are our interesting, some interesting insights. Female sex and graft oversize do play a significant role in the post-operative neck dilatation.
With EndoAnchors implanted at the index procedure neck dilatation 10 millimeters distal to the lowest renal artery appears to be negligible both at 12 and at 24 months. But we're working to see a little bit more finer elements at this analysis.
As where exactly the EndoAnchors were placed and how this was associated with the changes in the aortic neck. We hope to have those results later this year. Thank you.
- Thank you very much both. It was a great pleasure to see you. I continue to be grateful for the guidance you have given me over the years. Thank you to the organizers for advising me to speak. These are my disclosures. So really there are two questions posed by this topic.
One is, is the patent popliteal vein necessary? I would assume from this is it necessary for patency and symptom relief to be achieved in treating patients with both acute DVT and potentially chronic. And has the evolution formic mechanical therapy
led to over stenting. Which means we have to ask the question what is an appropriate rate for stenting. I am not sure we know the answer to that. So being able to answer over stenting requires us to know how many patients
actually need the stent in the first place in acute DVT treatments. The problem is essentially this. Is that when we form lithic therapies and this is a classic case of treatment formed with formic and mechanical device
but without a follow up using lithic in the patient for whom lithic was not feasible. You end up opening up a vessel but you can see from the image on the left hand side that there is a degree still of luminol contrast deficit suggesting some cult left behind
in the external iliac vein. Well there is obviously a May-Thurner legion at the top. The question of over stenting is one of do we just stent the May-Thruner and extend it down into the external iliac vein to trap that thrombus
or would a period of time of lithic have resulted in this clot resolving and not needed a stent at the end of it. To get to the question of how many people should be stented. The only way we can really do this
is try and exstipulate from the literature to some extent. This is the short and long term outcome from the Kevin study. Where there is ultrasound follow up of patients underwent standard treatment only.
And a additional group in the patients had catheter-directed thrombolysis. We can see there that the patients did six months in catheter-directed thrombolysis group is around 60%. And the patency seen with the non treated group
is around 40%. If we kind of use these numbers as a guide we probably expect therefore that the stent rate would be somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. To account for treating the outflow structure that presumably patients see at six months.
But this is clearly not a very rebost method of being absolutely clear on who needs stents. Additional method is we don't really have and answer for who should be stented at the end of a procedure. So if you look at the massive variability
in the other studies. We see that attract stent rate is approximately 28% for the study. Which is obviously a operative discretion and has been criticized for that reason. But there is no comment on the Popliteal vein
or Popliteal vein patency. Cavent did an stent rate of 15% again with no real comment on whether the Popliteal vein was open and it wasn't a prerequisite for treatment in the study. This contrast with the Ansberg Aspirex Registry.
Which is a registry of a purely mechanical device to aspirex clot and the stent rate is 100%. Baekgaard Copenhagen used a catered-directed thrombolysis with a mandated open popliteal vein for purpose to be in the study. He has a stent rate of 60%.
My own personal experience of 160 odd patients is that were stenting around 80% of patients with outflow legion at the end of treatment. And were not really bothered by whether the popliteal vein is clear or not. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question
whether it makes a difference in the long run. So its very difficult even looking at the data we have because there is no standard definition of what a outflow stenosis is. There is no objective measure for an outflow stenosis. So stenting becomes and operative discretion decision.
But you would have to say that if your taking purely mechanical devices and the stent rates are going up to 100% that the inclination would be that there is potential for formic mechanical therapy to lead to overstenting and increase use
for stents for sure. In our experience then we had 81 patients who had CDT alone verse 70 patients who had AngioJet Thrombectomy. The basic characteristics of the group are pretty much identical.
With similar ages and no difference between whether the thrombus with left side or right side of body or so on. And these are the patency curves for the different groups with equivalent primary, primary assisted and secondary patency over two yeas.
We had no difference in stent rates with the median stenting of 80% in both groups with two stents used in average for each of those patients. However in our practice AngioJet is rarely used alone. So we had 70 patients for whom AngioJet was used. 24 of those where AngioJet was used up front
as the first line of treatment followed by some CDT. We have tended find that if we wanted full clock clearance. We have always had omit to some extent. And single stage therapy is quite difficult to achieve unless you spent a lot of time in it.
Patency in the popliteal vein is clearly affected by some extent. These are our follow up results if we don't have a patent popliteal vein at the end. It does drop off in stent patency. So the conclusions then I think.
Is that patent popliteal vein is necessary for long term results. But you can still treat patients that have acute popliteal vein for larsons that is not a contraindication. Pure mechanical therapies may well lead to higher stent rate.
But is this a bad thing or a good thing? We don't really know this at this stage as to what the long term outcomes will be. Thank you very much.
- Good afternoon, I'd like to thank the moderators and Dr. Veith for inviting me to discuss our experience with using coronary drug eluting stents to salvage failed or failing vein grafts. Vein graft stenosis is the major cause of delayed graft failure after infrainguinal bypass.
It affects one-third of bypasses and reduces primary patency. Obviously the gold standard is open revision, but there isn't always conduit for that. It requires a general anesthesia. The result of endovascular interventions
have been largely disappointing. In particular, conventional peripheral stents are way too large to treat most saphenous vein bypass grafts. Coronary drug eluting stents are a better match from a size standpoint
to saphenous vein bypass grafts and they have a mechanical advantage, or many mechanical advantages over balloons, especially with regard to watermelon seeding. The scaffold of the stent prevents the balloon from slipping proximately
or distally when your dilating the stent. Finally, the mechanism of vein graft stenosis, especially at anastomoses, is neointimal hyperplasia, so the drug eluding stent is rational and obviously it's been proven in saphenous vein grafts used for
coronary artery bypass grafting when compared to angioplasty and bare metal stenting. So this is a case of proximal stenosis of a bypass graft arising from the femoral artery, which we treated with a balloon mounted coronary drug eluting stent
with an excellent technical result. We retrospectively looked at our experience doing this from 2012 to 2017 and we looked at the following outcomes. Primary stenosis-free patency, assisted graft patency, graft occlusion,
amputation, and then I'll talk about this briefly, comparison to standard endovascular interventions on the same patients in the same bypasses. We put 21 drug eluting coronary stents and 19 lesions in 17 patients bypasses. All of these bypasses were either
baloney popliteal bypasses or tibial bypasses using saphenous vein bypass graft. The lesions were most likely or most often just distal to the proximal anastomosis or at the proximal anastomosis, although three of them were at the distal anastomosis.
Twelve of them were performed after failure of angioplasty at the same operative setting. The others were performed as a primary intervention in a single setting. Operative technical success was 100%, primary stenosis-free patency
and assisted graft patency were good at six months and declined from there, as you might expect. Five patients occluded their grafts during follow up and that resulted in four amputations, but twelve bypasses, or 70%, were still open at the end of the follow up.
We compared the 21 coronary drug eluting stent interventions to 23 more standard endovascular interventions for lesions of saphenous vein bypass grafts. When we compared the two approaches for all lesions, we didn't see any difference in primary stenosis-free patency
between the coronary drug eluting stents and the more standard endovascular interventions. Similarly, for recurrent lesions we didn't see any difference. But for primary treatment of initial lesions in saphenous vein bypass grafts,
there was better primary stenosis-free patency for the coronary drug eluting stents then for the standard endovascular interventions. So a couple of caveats. This is a single institution experience, it's a small sample size.
However for these tough lesions threatening bypass grafts, we saw that the majority of coronary drug eluting stents placed after immediate PTA failure were technically successful. Half of them were placed for recurrent lesions
and we did see a kind of patency that was at least comparable to standard vascular interventions. Here's a woman who was in a lot of trouble when she originally came to us. She had had bilateral knee arthroplasties
with a tourniquet, but she had popliteal aneurysms bilaterally that the orthopedic surgeon didn't recognize. So she thrombosed both her popliteal aneurysms. She only had enough conduit for a bypass on one side
so she got an above knee amputation on the other side. But the one side had kind of a not so great of saphenous vein and not so great of perineal artery, but we performed the bypass
and I then had to intervene on this bypass graft a number of times to keep it patent. And here you can see a stenosis at our distal anastomosis and some disease in her perineal artery that we treated with a drug eluting coronary stent
with an excellent technical result and this leg is still attached and she's walking. So again, in a small cohort at a single institution, I think this experience demonstrates that coronary drug eluting stents
provide durability at least comparable to standard endovascular interventions for the treatment of infrainguinal bypass graph stenosis that threaten bypasses and coronary drug eluting stents definitely performed better than
standard endovascular interventions in initial lesions. I think these results warrant further clinical investigation. Thanks.
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. Thank you.
- Thank you very much and thank you Frank for giving me the opportunity to speak. And I will adapt my talk because I saw some of the slides, I will have to comment of course. So I have no financial disclosures. In many, many papers we know that Endovascular Treatment needs a word
of caution for long-term follow-up and we can see many, many pictures with very good results of viaven or other devices but when you look at the long-term follow-up for this patient, it's quite awful.
So we have late thrombosis just like this, we have curves that goes down and down after 40 or 60 months and much of the patients are very young and so I think it's not a good option. On the contrary, the durability
of open popliteal aneurysm repair has been showed and it's been showed by another of the panelist there and of course I think it's the good way to do and there are several options. The first one, this one, is quite rare
just to make resection with direct anastomosis like this, but it could happen and in this kind of patient, mostly when they are young patients, you don't have to make interposition of any graft.
I mean no vein, no SFA, and no prosthetic grafts. When you have to make some of the conventional open repair just like this, you have to choose between an exclusion graft like this,
I don't like it really much because it can leave a very important aneurysm and it takes a lot of place and it is prone to growing after due to the collaterals
going to the aneurysm sac. Most of the times I like to do something which is a combination of both these two pictures. I mean I like to open the sac to make the aneurysm or if you have the collaterals and then to make a end-to-end
anastomosis at both sides. Of course, when you go to the segment in the gonoral approach you have to make a venous bypass and venous bypass is probably
better when the run-off is awful just like this, but for this patient this was something needing a venous graft and this for me can be treated by synthetic graft because it ends at this level
that mean retroarticular level. So, for the venous graft, I go to venous graft only when I have to make the anastomosis directly on lower-leg vessel just like this and then you mention this
specific paper and if you could read this paper, I'm not one of the first author of this paper because I don't follow this thing because as you say, I think it's not good at all
to section all the muscles and this patient, I know this patient, they can't walk anymore for probably two months, it's not a good option but I'm part of that team and I don't want to defend it for now. Prosthetic bypass is I prefer
because this is very ancient, I agree with you, it's not modern situation, it is very ancient situation but the main thing is that you don't have to cut all the muscles, you have to select patients
with distal neck or retroarticular popliteal artery with good arterial runoff, aminolytic vessels and you have to select the patient and the Angio-CT rather than the angiogram except for
selecting the quality of the run-off. So who should be selected, this kind of patient can be selected because the prosthetic graft will end only here.
And this one could be also, but you can s there is origin of the arteritica artery.
And you have to think at the level of cutting the lower knee popliteal artery. And most of the time you can just externalize the lower knee popliteal artery to make
anastomosis. And then when you make the distal anastomosis, first you can reintegrate after there is the graft. And then the graft in the anastomotic sides goes just below
the level of the endoarticular line just like this. So for me, this is a go even if
you see that it goes just right to the condyles like this. And if you make some pictures with the reflection of the knees, there is no problem for the space. And even when there is a large
length beneath the artery like this. So when (unidentifiable phrase) where there's no vein and no below knee extension. So these are the technique that I expect I already talk about.
This is a small surveys we did I did finally. 20 popliteal arteries, this is the mean diameters. All the patients had good run-off as you can see. And there were only five long bypasses from the common femoral artery.
The other one from the popliteal or distal SFA. This is the mean Length of Stay 4 days only. The limb salvage rate is 100%. Primary patency rates were at one, two and three as 10
and secondary rates were 100% with mean follow-up 2 30 months. So prosthetic bypass is our simple, safe durable options.
I don't cut any muscles for this kind of option. Results compare favorably with our other open and endovascular techniques. And the French survey is going on for now. Thank you very much. (Audience applauds)
- Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank you Frank, for this kind invitation again to this symposium. This is my disclosure. With the drug coated balloons it is important to minimize the drug loss during the balloon transit during the inflation of the balloon.
Because Paclitaxel has a high degree of cytotoxicity that may induce necrosis and increase inflammation in the distal tissue, and we know that even with the best technique, we can loose 70 - 80% of the drop to the distal circulation,
the inference by different factors between them and the calcification of degree of these blood cells. There are adverse events secondary to drug coated balloons that have been reported recently. In animal molders it has shown that Downstream Vascular Changes are more frequent with
Drug Coated Balloons than with Drug-Eluting Stents. In animal molders it has been also shown that there is no evidence of significant downstream emboli or systemic toxicity with DCB's than with patients with controls. This was a study presented yesterday by (mumbles)
with a very nice and elegant study with a good methodology that shows in animals that there are different concentrations of the drug in distal tissue depending on the balloon that you are using. In this case, the range in balloon (mumbles)
those ones have the lowest concentration in the distal tissue. In clinical experience in this meta-analysis amputations and wound healing rate are lower with this series with controls. But there is controversy because
Complete Index Ulcer Healing is higher in this series than with control patients. But there are lower wound healing index in patients compared with drug-eluting stents. In the debate, (mumbles) and also in the dialux which are clinical trials in diuretic patients with CLI,
there we no issues of safety and no impair of the wounds healing. But, remember the negative result of the IN PACT DEEP trial in which there were more amputation at six months that could be influenced, but in all their factors, the lack of standardized
wound care protocols. (mumbles) has also reported recently good survival to 100% in patient treated with DCB's compared with plain balloons and with lutonic balloons. So in our institution, we did a study with the objective to examine
patient outcomes following the use of the drug-coated balloons in patients with CLI and diuretic patients with Complex Real World lesions undergoing endovascular intervention below-the-knee with the Ranger balloon coated with Paclitaxel.
This is a Two-Center Experience that is headed by the National University of Mexico in 30 patients with strict followup. With symptomatic Rutherford four to six. With the Stenosis and occlusion of infrapopliteal vessels and many degrees of calcification.
It was mandatory for all patients to have Pre-dilation before the use of DCB. We studied some endpoints like efficacy. (mumbles) Limb salvage, sustained clinical improvement, wound healing rate
and technical success and some other endpoints of safety. This is an example of multi level disease in a patient that has to be approached by (mumbles) access with a balloon preparation of the artery before the use of the DCB, and after this, we treated the anterior artery
and even to the arch of the foot. This is the way we follow our patient with ultra sound duplex with an index fibular of no more that 2.4. All patients were diabetic with Rutherford 5-6. 77% have a (mumbles) at the initial of the study.
And as you can see there were longer lesions and with higher degree of calcification and stenosis only in two of them we produced (mumbles). There were bailout stent placements in five patients and we did retrograde access in 43 patients.
Subintimal angioplasty was done in 32 patients, and Complete Index Wound Healing was in 93 of our patients. This is our Limb Salvage 94%. The Patency rate was 96% with this Kaplan Meir analysis. And in some patients we did a determination of Paclitaxel concentration in distal tissue
with the High Pressure Liquid Chromatography method. We only did this in five patients because of the lack of financial support, and technical problems. As you can see in three of them we had Complete Wound Healing.
Only one we had major amputation. This was the patient with the higher concentration of Paclitaxel in the distal tissue, and in one patient, we could not determine the concentration of Paclitaxel. This is the way we do this.
They take the sample of the patient at the moment we do the minor amputation. During day 10 after the angioplasty, we also do a (mumbles) analysis of the patient we have a limb salvage we can see arterial and capillar vessel proliferation and hyperplasia of the
arteriole media layer. But, in those patients that have major amputation even when they have a good sterio-graphic result like in this case, we see more fibrinoid necrosis which is a bad determination. So in conclusion,
angioplasty with the (mumbles) balloon maintain clinical efficacy over time is possible. We didn't see No Downstream clinical important or significant effects and high rates of Limb Salvage in complex CLI patients is possible.
Local toxic effects of paclitaxel and significant drug loss on the way to the lesion are theoretical considerations up to now because there is no biological study that can confirm this. Thank you very much.
- [Professor Veith] Laura, Welcome. - Thank you Professor Veith, thank you to everybody and good morning. It's a great pleasure, to have the possibility to present the result of this randomized trial we performed near Rome in Italy.
Risk of CAS-related embolism was maximal during the first phases of the second procedure, the filter positioning predilation and deployment and post dilatation. But it continues over time with nithinol expansion so that we have an interaction between the stent struts
and the plaque that can last up to 28 or 30 days that is the so called plaque healing period. This is why over time different technique and devices have been developed in order to keep to a minimum the rate of perioperative neurological embolization.
This is why we have, nowadays, membrane-covered stent or mesh-covered stent. But a question we have to answer, in our days are, "are mesh covered stents able to capture every kind of embolism?" Even the off-table one.
This is why they have been designed. That is to say the embolism that occurs after the patient has left the operating room. This is why we started this randomized trial with the aim of comparing the rate of off-table subclinical neurological events
in two groups of patients submitted to CAS with CGuard or WALLSTENT and distal embolic protection device in all of them. We enrolled patient affected by asymptomatic carotid stenosis more than 70% and no previous brain ischemic lesion
detected at preoperative DW-MRI. The primary outcome was the rate of perioperative up to 72 hour post peri operatively in neurological ischemic events detected by DW-MRI in the two CAS group. And secondary outcome measure were the rise of (mumbles)
neuro biomarker as one on the better protein in NSE and the variation in post procedural mini mental state examination test in MoCA test score We enrolled 29 patients for each treatment group. The study protocol was composed by a preoperative DW-MRI and neuro psychometrics test assessment
and the assessment of blood levels of this two neuro biomarkers. Then, after the CAS procedure, we performed an immediate postoperative DW-MRI, we collect this sample up to 48 hours post operatively to assess the level of the neuro biomarkers
then assess 72 hour postoperatively we perform a new DW-MRI and a new assessment of neuro psychometric tests. 58 patient were randomized 29 per group. And we found one minor stroke in the CGuard group together with eight clinically silent lesion detected at 72 hours DW-MRI.
Seven patient presented in WALLSTENT group silent 72 DW-MRI lesion were no difference between the two groups but interestingly two patients presented immediately postoperatively DW-MRI lesions. Those lesion were no more detectable at 72 hours
this give doubts to what we are going to see with DW-MRI. When analyzing the side of the lesion, we found four ipsilateral lesion in the CGuard patient and four contra or bilateral lesion in this group while four ipsilateral were encountered in WALLSTENT patient and three contra or bilateral lesion
in the WALLSTENT group were no difference between the two groups. And as for the diameter of the lesion, there were incomparable in the two groups but more than five lesion were found in five CGuard patients, three WALLSTENT patient
with no significant difference within the two groups. A rise doubled of S1 of the better protein was observed at 48 hours in 24 patients, 12 of them presenting new DW-MRI lesions. And this was statistically significant when comparing the 48 level with the bars of one.
When comparing results between the two groups for the tests, we found for pre and post for MMSE and MoCA test no significant difference even if WALLSTENT patients presented better MoCA test post operatively and no significant difference for the postoperative score for both the neuro psychometric test between the two groups.
But when splitting patients not according to the treatment group but according to the presence of more or less than 5 lesion at DW-MRI, we found a significant difference in the postoperative score for both MMSE and MoCA test between both group pf patients.
To conclude, WALLSTENT and CGuard stent showed that not significant differences in micro embolism rate or micro emboli number at 72 postoperative hours DW-MRI, in our experience. 72 hour DW-MMRI lesion were associated to an increase in neuro biomarkers
and more than five lesion were significantly associated to a decrease in neuro psychometric postoperative score in both stent groups. But a not negligible number of bilateral or contralateral lesions were detected in both stent groups This is very important.
This is why, probably, (mumbles) are right when they show us what really happened into the arch when we perform a transfer more CAS and this is why, maybe,
the future can be to completely avoid the arch. I thank you for your attention.
- Thank you. I have two talks because Dr. Gaverde, I understand, is not well, so we- - [Man] Thank you very much. - We just merged the two talks. All right, it's a little joke. For today's talk we used fusion technology
to merge two talks on fusion technology. Hopefully the rest of the talk will be a little better than that. (laughs) I think we all know from doing endovascular aortic interventions
that you can be fooled by the 2D image and here's a real life view of how that can be an issue. I don't think I need to convince anyone in this room that 3D fusion imaging is essential for complex aortic work. Studies have clearly shown it decreases radiation,
it decreases fluoro time, and decreases contrast use, and I'll just point out that these data are derived from the standard mechanical based systems. And I'll be talking about a cloud-based system that's an alternative that has some advantages. So these traditional mechanical based 3D fusion images,
as I mentioned, do have some limitations. First of all, most of them require manual registration which can be cumbersome and time consuming. Think one big issue is the hardware based tracking system that they use. So they track the table rather than the patient
and certainly, as the table moves, and you move against the table, the patient is going to move relative to the table, and those images become unreliable. And then finally, the holy grail of all 3D fusion imaging is the distortion of pre-operative anatomy
by the wires and hardware that are introduced during the course of your procedure. And one thing I'd like to discuss is the possibility that deep machine learning might lead to a solution to these issues. How does 3D fusion, image-based 3D fusion work?
Well, you start, of course with your pre-operative CT dataset and then you create digitally reconstructed radiographs, which are derived from the pre-op CTA and these are images that resemble the fluoro image. And then tracking is done based on the identification
of two or more vertebral bodies and an automated algorithm matches the most appropriate DRR to the live fluoro image. Sounds like a lot of gobbledygook but let me explain how that works. So here is the AI machine learning,
matching what it recognizes as the vertebral bodies from the pre-operative CT scan to the fluoro image. And again, you get the CT plus the fluoro and then you can see the overlay with the green. And here's another version of that or view of that.
You can see the AI machine learning, identifying the vertebral bodies and then on your right you can see the fusion image. So just, once again, the AI recognizes the bony anatomy and it's going to register the CT with the fluoro image. It tracks the patient, not the table.
And the other thing that's really important is that it recognizes the postural change that the patient undergoes between the posture during the CT scan, versus the posture on the OR table usually, or often, under general anesthesia. And here is an image of the final overlay.
And you can see the visceral and renal arteries with orange circles to identify them. You can remove those, you can remove any of those if you like. This is the workflow. First thing you do is to upload the CT scan to the cloud.
Then, when you're ready to perform the procedure, that is downloaded onto the medical grade PC that's in your OR next to your fluoro screen, and as soon as you just step on the fluoro pedal, the CYDAR overlay appears next to your, or on top of your fluoro image,
next to your regular live fluoro image. And every time you move the table, the computer learning recognizes that the images change, and in a couple of seconds, it replaces with a new overlay based on the obliquity or table position that you have. There are some additional advantages
to cloud-based technology over mechanical technology. First of all, of course, or hardware type technology. Excuse me. You can upgrade it in real time as opposed to needing intermittent hardware upgrades. Works with any fluoro equipment, including a C-arm,
so you don't have to match your 3D imaging to the brand of your fluoro imaging. And there's enhanced accuracy compared to mechanical registration systems as imaging. So what are the clinical applications that this can be utilized for?
Fluoroscopy guided endovascular procedures in the lower thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, so that includes EVAR and FEVAR, mid distal TEVAR. At present, we do need two vertebral bodies and that does limit the use in TEVAR. And then angioplasty stenting and embolization
of common iliac, proximal external and proximal internal iliac artery. Anything where you can acquire a vertebral body image. So here, just a couple of examples of some additional non EVAR/FEVAR/TEVAR applications. This is, these are some cases
of internal iliac embolization, aortoiliac occlusion crossing, standard EVAR, complex EVAR. And I think then, that the final thing that I'd like to talk about is the use with C-arm, which is think is really, extremely important.
Has the potential to make a very big difference. All of us in our larger OR suites, know that we are short on hybrid availability, and yet it's difficult to get our institutions to build us another hybrid room. But if you could use a high quality 3D fusion imaging
with a high quality C-arm, you really expand your endovascular capability within the operating room in a much less expensive way. And then if you look at another set of circumstances where people don't have a hybrid room at all, but do want to be able to offer standard EVAR
to their patients, and perhaps maybe even basic FEVAR, if there is such a thing, and we could use good quality imaging to do that in the absence of an actual hybrid room. That would be extremely valuable to be able to extend good quality care
to patients in under-served areas. So I just was mentioning that we can use this and Tara Mastracci was talking yesterday about how happy she is with her new room where she has the use of CYDAR and an excellent C-arm and she feels that she is able to essentially run two rooms,
two hybrid rooms at once, using the full hybrid room and the C-arm hybrid room. Here's just one case of Dr. Goverde's. A vascular case that he did on a mobile C-arm with aortoiliac occlusive disease and he places kissing stents
using a CYDAR EV and a C-arm. And he used five mils of iodinated contrast. So let's talk about a little bit of data. This is out of Blain Demorell and Tara Mastrachi's group. And this is use of fusion technology in EVAR. And what they found was that the use of fusion imaging
reduced air kerma and DSA runs in standard EVAR. We also looked at our experience recently in EVAR and FEVAR and we compared our results. Pre-availability of image based fusion CT and post image based fusion CT. And just to clarify,
we did have the mechanical product that Phillip's offers, but we abandoned it after using it a half dozen times. So it's really no image fusion versus image fusion to be completely fair. We excluded patients that were urgent/emergent, parallel endographs, and IBEs.
And we looked at radiation exposure, contrast use, fluoro time, and procedure time. The demographics in the two groups were identical. We saw a statistically significant decrease in radiation dose using image based fusion CT. Statistically a significant reduction in fluoro time.
A reduction in contrast volume that looks significant, but was not. I'm guessing because of numbers. And a significantly different reduction in procedure time. So, in conclusion, image based 3D fusion CT decreases radiation exposure, fluoro time,
and procedure time. It does enable 3D overlays in all X-Ray sets, including mobile C-arm, expanding our capabilities for endovascular work. And image based 3D fusion CT has the potential to reduce costs
and improve clinical outcomes. Thank you.
- Thanks Bill and I thank Dr. Veith and the organizers of the session for the invitation to speak on histology of in-stent stenosis. These are my disclosures. Question, why bother with biopsy? It's kind of a hassle. What I want to do is present at first
before I show some of our classification of this in data, is start with this case where the biopsy becomes relevant in managing the patient. This is a 41 year old woman who was referred to us after symptom recurrence two months following left iliac vein stenting for post-thrombotic syndrome.
We performed a venogram and you can see this overlapping nitinol stents extending from the..., close to the Iliocaval Confluence down into Common Femoral and perhaps Deep Femoral vein. You can see on the venogram, that it is large displacement of the contrast column
from the edge of the stent on both sides. So we would call this sort of diffuse severe in-stent stenosis. We biopsy this material, you can see it's quite cellular. And in the classification, Doctor Gordon, our pathologist, applies to all these.
Consisted of fresh thrombus, about 15% of the sample, organizing thrombus about zero percent, old thrombus, which is basically a cellular fibrin, zero percent and diffuse intimal thickening - 85%. And you can see there is some evidence of a vascularisation here, as well as some hemosiderin deposit,
which, sort of, implies a red blood cell thrombus, histology or ancestry of this tissue. So, because the biopsy was grossly and histolo..., primarily grossly, we didn't have the histology to time, we judged that thrombolysis had little to offer this patient The stents were angioplastied
and re-lined with Wallstents this time. So, this is the AP view, showing two layers of stents. You can see the original nitinol stent on the outside, and a Wallstent extending from here. Followed venogram, venogram at the end of the procedure, shows that this displacement, and this is the maximal
amount we could inflate the Wallstent, following placement through this in-stent stenosis. And this is, you know, would be nice to have a biological or drug solution for this kind of in-stent stenosis. We brought her back about four months later, usually I bring them back at six months,
but because of the in-stent stenosis and suspecting something going on, we brought her back four months later, and here you can see that the gap between the nitinol stent and the outside the wall stent here. Now, in the contrast column, you can see that again, the contrast column is displaced
from the edge of the Wallstent, so we have recurrent in-stent stenosis here. The gross appearance of this clot was red, red-black, which suggests recent thrombus despite anticoagulation and the platelet. And, sure enough, the biopsy of fresh thrombus was 20%,
organizing thrombus-75%. Again, the old thrombus, zero percent, and, this time, diffuse intimal thickening of five percent. This closeup of some of that showing the cells, sort of invading this thrombus and starting organization. So, medical compliance and outflow in this patient into IVC
seemed acceptable, so we proceeded to doing ascending venogram to see what the outflow is like and to see, if she was an atomic candidate for recanalization. You can see these post-thrombotic changes in the popliteal vein, occlusion of the femoral vein.
You can see great stuffiness approaching these overlapping stents, but then you can see that the superficial system has been sequestered from the deep system, and now the superficial system is draining across midline. So, we planned to bring her back for recanalization.
So biopsy one with diffuse intimal thickening was used to forego thrombolysis and proceed with PTA and lining. Biopsy two was used to justify the ascending venogram. We find biopsy as a useful tool, making practical decisions. And Doctor Gordon at our place has been classifying these
biopsies in therms of: Fresh Thrombus, Organizing Thrombus, Old Thrombus and Diffuse Intimal thickening. These are panels on the side showing the samples of each of these classifications and timelines. Here is a timeline of ...
Organizing Thrombus here. To see it's pretty uniform series of followup period For Diffuse Intimal thickening, beginning shortly after the procedure, You won't see very much at all, increases with time. So, Fresh Thrombus appears to be
most prevalent in early days. Organizing Thrombus can be seen at early time points sample, as well as throughout the in-stent stenosis. Old Thrombus, which is a sort of a mystery to me why one pathway would be Old Thrombus and the other Diffuse Intimal thickening.
We have to work that out, I hope. Calcification is generally a very late feature in this process. Thank you very much.
- So my charge is to talk about using band for steal. I have no relevant disclosures. We're all familiar with steal. The upper extremity particularly is able to accommodate for the short circuit that a access is with up to a 20 fold increase in flow. The problem is that the distal bed
is not necessarily as able to accommodate for that and that's where steal comes in. 10 to 20% of patients have some degree of steal if you ask them carefully. About 4% have it bad enough to require an intervention. Dialysis associated steal syndrome
is more prevalent in diabetics, connective tissue disease patients, patients with PVD, small vessels particularly, and females seem to be predisposed to this. The distal brachial artery as the inflow source seems to be the highest risk location. You see steal more commonly early with graft placement
and later with fistulas, and finally if you get it on one side you're very likely to get it on the other side. The symptoms that we are looking for are coldness, numbness, pain, at the hand, the digital level particularly, weakness in hand claudication, digital ulceration, and then finally gangrene in advanced cases.
So when you have this kind of a picture it's not too subtle. You know what's going on. However, it is difficult sometimes to differentiate steal from neuropathy and there is some interaction between the two.
We look for a relationship to blood pressure. If people get symptomatic when their blood pressure's low or when they're on the access circuit, that is more with steal. If it's following a dermatomal pattern that may be a median neuropathy
which we find to be pretty common in these patients. Diagnostic tests, digital pressures and pulse volume recordings are probably the best we have to assess this. Unfortunately the digital pressures are not, they're very sensitive but not very specific. There are a lot of patients with low digital pressures
that have no symptoms, and we think that a pressure less than 60 is probably consistent, or a digital brachial index of somewhere between .45 and .6. But again, specificity is poor. We think the digital pulse volume recordings is probably the most useful.
As you can see in this patient there's quite a difference in digital waveforms from one side to the other, and more importantly we like to see augmentation of that waveform with fistula compression not only diagnostically but also that is predictive of the benefit you'll get with treatment.
So what are our treatment options? Well, we have ligation. We have banding. We have the distal revascularization interval ligation, or DRIL, procedure. We have RUDI, revision using distal inflow,
and we have proximalization of arterial inflow as the approaches that have been used. Ligation is a, basically it restores baseline anatomy. It's a very simple procedure, but of course it abandons the access and many of these patients don't have a lot of good alternatives.
So it's not a great choice, but sometimes a necessary choice. This picture shows banding as we perform it, usually narrowing the anastomosis near the artery. It restricts flow so you preserve the fistula but with lower flows.
It's also simple and not very morbid to do. It's got a less predictable effect. This is a dynamic process, and so knowing exactly how tightly to band this and whether that's going to be enough is not always clear. This is not a good choice for low flow fistula,
'cause again, you are restricting flow. For the same reason, it's probably not a great choice for prosthetic fistulas which require more flow. So, the DRIL procedure most people are familiar with. It involves a proximalization of your inflow to five to 10 centimeters above the fistula
and then ligation of the artery just below and this has grown in popularity certainly over the last 10 or 15 years as the go to procedure. Because there is no flow restriction with this you don't sacrifice patency of the access for it. It does add additional distal flow to the extremity.
It's definitely a more morbid procedure. It involves generally harvesting the saphenous vein from patients that may not be the best risk surgical patients, but again, it's a good choice for low flow fistula. RUDI, revision using distal inflow, is basically
a flow restrictive procedure just like banding. You're simply, it's a little bit more complicated 'cause you're usually doing a vein graft from the radial artery to the fistula. But it's less complicated than DRIL. Similar limitations to banding.
Very limited clinical data. There's really just a few series of fewer than a dozen patients each to go by. Finally, a proximalization of arterial inflow, in this case rather than ligating the brachial artery you're ligating the fistula and going to a more proximal
vessel that often will accommodate higher flow. In our hands, we were often talking about going to the infraclavicular axillary artery. So, it's definitely more morbid than a banding would be. This is a better choice though for prosthetic grafts that, where you want to preserve flow.
Again, data on this is very limited as well. The (mumbles) a couple years ago they asked the audience what they like and clearly DRIL has become the most popular choice at 60%, but about 20% of people were still going to banding, and so my charge was to say when is banding
the right way to go. Again, it's effect is less predictable than DRIL. You definitely are going to slow the flows down, but remember with DRIL you are making the limb dependent on the patency of that graft which is always something of concern in somebody
who you have caused an ischemic hand in the first place, and again, the morbidity with the DRIL certainly more so than with the band. We looked at our results a few years back and we identified 31 patients who had steal. Most of these, they all had a physiologic test
confirming the diagnosis. All had some degree of pain or numbness. Only three of these patients had gangrene or ulcers. So, a relatively small cohort of limb, of advanced steal. Most of our patients were autogenous access,
so ciminos and brachycephalic fistula, but there was a little bit of everything mixed in there. The mean age was 66. 80% were diabetic. Patients had their access in for about four and a half months on average at the time of treatment,
although about almost 40% were treated within three weeks of access placement. This is how we do the banding. We basically expose the arterial anastomosis and apply wet clips trying to get a diameter that is less than the brachial artery.
It's got to be smaller than the brachial artery to do anything, and we monitor either pulse volume recordings of the digits or doppler flow at the palm or arch and basically apply these clips along the length and restricting more and more until we get
a satisfactory signal or waveform. Once we've accomplished that, we then are satisfied with the degree of narrowing, we then put some mattress sutures in because these clips will fall off, and fix it in place.
And basically this is the result you get. You go from a fistula that has no flow restriction to one that has restriction as seen there. What were our results? Well, at follow up that was about almost 16 months we found 29 of the 31 patients had improvement,
immediate improvement. The two failures, one was ligated about 12 days later and another one underwent a DRIL a few months later. We had four occlusions in these patients over one to 18 months. Two of these were salvaged with other procedures.
We only had two late recurrences of steal in these patients and one of these was, recurred when he was sent to a radiologist and underwent a balloon angioplasty of the banding. And we had no other morbidity. So this is really a very simple procedure.
So, this is how it compares with DRIL. Most of the pooled data shows that DRIL is effective in 90 plus percent of the patients. Patency also in the 80 to 90% range. The DRIL is better for late, or more often used in late patients,
and banding used more in earlier patients. There's a bigger blood pressure change with DRIL than with banding. So you definitely get more bang for the buck with that. Just quickly going through the literature again. Ellen Dillava's group has published on this.
DRIL definitely is more accepted. These patients have very high mortality. At two years 50% are going to be dead. So you have to keep in mind that when you're deciding what to do. So, I choose banding when there's no gangrene,
when there's moderate not severe pain, and in patients with high morbidity. As promised here's an algorithm that's a little complicated looking, but that's what we go by. Again, thanks very much.
- Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for the invitation to this fantastic meeting. Well, CAS has been proposed as a safe alternative to CEA. But the intimal reaction to procedure can cause platelet activation, in-stent thrombosis, restenosis, and ischemic events.
So routine dual antiplatelet regimen, consisting of aspiring plus clopidogrel, has been incorporated in guidelines for CAS since 2009. In a very recent publication comparing CA patients with others treated with CAS out of 4 randomized trials, they noted that there was a greater risk for immediate
procedural events, 4.7 versus 1.8 with OR threshold 2.6, but not for delayed procedural events, 2.5 versus 2%. So a possible explanation could be aspirin and clopidogrel resistance, which is often associated with increased risk of thromboembolic complications. On the other hand dual antiplatelet regimen,
aspirin plus ticagrelor, is an established approach for Acute Coronary Syndrome or PTCA patients and was tested for PAD patients. Mind you that they excluded the poor responders from the trial, but there is a lack of evidence on the use of ticagrelor in CAS.
So comparative evaluation of ASA plus clopidogrel versus ASA plus ticagrelor on carotid in-stent restenosis and thrombosis was tested in a rabbit, I'm afraid, PTA, CAS model. So we enrolled 54 New Zealand white rabbits. We fed them for four weeks with high cholesterol diets,
aspirin 10 milligrams per kilogram per day started seven days prior to injury. This is the power analysis. The animals were divided into four groups. Group of PTA receiving clopidogrel. Group A1, Group PTA, receiving clopidogrel, A2.
Group PTA and stent B1 on clopidogrel and PTA and stent B2 on ticagrelor. The injury technique was done with animals under general anesthesia, right common carotid artery cut down and with 2.25 by 10 millimeters balloon inflated to 10 atmospheres for 30 seconds.
The stenting was done with a Medtronic stent, pure metal stent of 2.25 by 8 millimeters. And this is an example of the right common carotid artery DSA, balloon injury, the stent is deployed, and the post deployment DSA. Laboratory investigation included
platelet aggregation and lipid profile. And 30 day post injury under general anesthesia in OCT, DSA, euthanasia, and harvesting of both common carotid arteries was performed. And this is a DSA. I'm sorry.
The histology, three nonconsecutive slices were taken. You can see here example of the right common carotid. I remind you it was injured carotid. And this is the left common carotid. And remember, these were both clopidogrel. The results regarding technical success, lipid profile,
and platelet aggregation, there was no difference. It was a favorable result in favor of the clopidogrel in platelet activation. No difference in weight. Regarding OCT analysis and balloon injury, no difference between the two groups.
Injury plus stent in OCT analysis in the pre-stent and distal-stent, no difference between the two groups. Injury and stent OCT analysis for the mid-stent and the proximal stent, no difference between the groups. And histology, it was some evidence of improvement for ticagrelor but nothing statistically significant.
And the left common carotid artery, atherosclerotic lesions did not differ between groups. We had three thrombotic conclusions in the clopidogrel group, but the power of the study wasn't enough to show any statistical significance. So coming to my conclusion, in atherosclerotic rabbits
undergoing carotid artery ballon injury, with or without sent implantation, clopidogrel and ticagrelor did not show any differential effects on the degree of neointimal formation. When compared to clopidogrel treatment, ticagrelor prevented thrombotic stent occlusions,
but it was not statistically significant. So overall, I believe the clinical implementation of rapid CYP2C19 genotyping to guide antiplatelet therapy after CAS is probably needed. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much for the kind introduction and thank you very much to you Frank for being here once again to this outstanding symposium. So I have to report a rather rear technique, it's a revival of a technique, and to be honest it's a technique which originally comes from Cardiology. Cardiologist intervented the technique of Crush-Stenting.
Combining balloon expandable stents and we do this also in endovascular therapy for the reconstruction for example of the aortic bifurcation. Combining self expanding stents and balloon expandable stents. We do this sometimes in complications
or for complication management in emergency situations, combining balloon expandable stents, each other. And sometimes we use it if we have malplaced a stent in the distal SFA, we have crush with self expanding stent with another one and we've reported these kind of complications in one of our booklets.
But how to deal with occluded self expanding stents we implanted previous many months ago in the distal popliteal artery or in the SFA, usually we use standard debulking techniques. We use DCBs if we can pass the lesion intraluminally. But if this fails, then we might come into trouble
and then probably we have to go around the stent. That means we have to perform the so called pier technique and probably we have to trespassing pier wise the subintimal space to create a neo-lumen. This was almost reported 10 year ago with one case report but probably it was not that recognized.
There was another case report in Japan some years ago and it was called the |Double-Barrel Restenting technique. We nowadays use this called crush stenting technique with for example Hydrophilic Guide Wires with support catheters, we combine them. Very often we have to use the so called re-entry technique
and then once we have created the neo-lumen, we use balloon angioplasty. Then we implant a stent and we mainly use self expanding stent probably the interwoven nitinol stent. We feel this might be the most appropriate stent to overcome this situation.
But we need to use dual antiplatelet immediately in these cases and this is necessary for the use of self expanding stents, nitinol stents, for carbon stents for example, like the Viabahn as mentioned earlier for the interwoven nitinol stent. Once again dual antiplatelet therapy is of utmost importance
in order to avoid any re-occlusion of these things, you see we always perform different planes of the file angiogram, and at least one plane with the bended knee for 90 degree. And while doing that we can see how the stent works and if we need probably another stent proximally or distally
in order to support this technique for technical successful outcome. So my conclusions are rather clear, crush stenting is really a rear exception, it is a challenge, it can be a challenge. You need to dedicate to technique,
you need dedicated devices, you have to go for the pier technique, you have to be ready for re-entry devices and you need then an aggressive re-stenting of the neo-lumen and we call it crush stenting combined with intermediate dual antiplatelet therapy.
And probably the advantages are clear, you have a high technical success endovascular means. You have high intermediate term patency rates in these small patient populations. And the stents which are required for this are self expanding stents and I probably would go for
interwoven nitinol stent. Thank you very much for your attention high appreciate it. (audience applauds)
- So I'm just going to talk a little bit about what's new in our practice with regard to first rib resection. In particular, we've instituted the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera at times to better visualize the structures. I will give you a little bit of a update
about our results and then I'll address very briefly some controversies. Dr. Gelbart and Chan from Hong Kong and UCLA have proposed and popularized the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for a better visualization of the structures
and I'll show you some of those pictures. From 2007 on, we've done 125 of these procedures. We always do venography first including intervascular intervention to open up the vein, and then a transaxillary first rib resection, and only do post-operative venography if the vein reclots.
So this is a 19 year old woman who's case I'm going to use to illustrate our approach. She developed acute onset left arm swelling, duplex and venogram demonstrated a collusion of the subclavian axillary veins. Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy
and then balloon angioplasty were performed with persistent narrowing at the thoracic outlet. So a day later, she was taken to the operating room, a small incision made in the axilla, we air interiorly to avoid injury to the long thoracic nerve.
As soon as you dissect down to the chest wall, you can identify and protect the vein very easily. I start with electrocautery on the peripheral margin of the rib, and use that to start both digital and Matson elevator dissection of the periosteum pleura
off the first rib, and then get around the anterior scalene muscle under direct visualization with a right angle and you can see that the vein and the artery are identified and easily protected. Here's the 30 degree laparoscopic image
of getting around the anterior scalene muscle and performing the electrocautery and you can see the pulsatile vein up here anterior and superficial to the anterior scalene muscle. Here is a right angle around the first rib to make sure there are no structures
including the pleura still attached to it. I always divide, or try to divide, the posterior aspect of the rib first because I feel like then I can manipulate the ribs superiorly and inferiorly, and get the rib shears more anterior for the anterior cut
because that's most important for decompressing the vein. Again, here's the 30 degree laparoscopic view of the rib shears performing first the posterior cut, there and then the anterior cut here. The portion of rib is removed, and you can see both the artery and the vein
are identified and you can confirm that their decompressed. We insufflate with water or saline, and then perform valsalva to make sure that they're hasn't been any pneumothorax, and then after putting a drain in,
I actually also turn the patient supine before extirpating them to make sure that there isn't a pneumothorax on chest x-ray. You can see the Jackson-Pratt drain in the left axilla. One month later, duplex shows a patent vein. So we've had pretty good success with this approach.
23 patients have requires post operative reintervention, but no operative venous reconstruction or bypass has been performed, and 123 out of 125 axillosubclavian veins have been patent by duplex at last follow-up. A brief comment on controversies,
first of all, the surgical approach we continue to believe that a transaxillary approach is cosmetically preferable and just as effective as a paraclavicular or anterior approach, and we have started being more cautious
about postoperative anticoagulation. So we've had three patients in that series that had to go back to the operating room for washout of hematoma, one patient who actually needed a VATS to treat a hemathorax,
and so in recent times we've been more cautious. In fact 39 patients have been discharged only with oral antiplatelet therapy without any plan for definitive therapeutic anticoagulation and those patients have all done very well. Obviously that's contraindicated in some cases
of a preoperative PE, or hematology insistence, or documented hypercoagulability and we've also kind of included that, the incidence of postop thrombosis of the vein requiring reintervention, but a lot of patients we think can be discharged
on just antiplatelets. So again, our approach to this is a transaxillary first rib resection after a venogram and a vascular intervention. We think this cosmetically advantageous. Surgical venous reconstruction has not been required
in any case, and we've incorporated the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for better intraoperative visualization, thanks.
- Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for the opportunity to present at this great meeting. I have nothing to disclose. Since Dr. DeBakey published the first paper 60 years ago, the surgical importance of deep femoral artery has been well investigated and documented.
It can be used as a reliable inflow for low extremity bypass in certain circumstances. To revascularize the disease, the deep femoral artery can improve rest pain, prevent or delay the amputation, and help to heal amputation stump.
So, in this slide, the group patient that they used deep femoral artery as a inflow for infrainguinal bypass. And 10-year limb salvage was achieved in over 90% of patients. So, different techniques and configurations
of deep femoral artery angioplasty have been well described, and we've been using this in a daily basis. So, there's really not much new to discuss about this. Next couple minutes, I'd like to focus on endovascular invention 'cause I lot I think is still unclear.
Dr. Bath did a systemic review, which included 20 articles. Nearly total 900 limbs were treated with balloon angioplasty with or without the stenting. At two years, the primary patency was greater than 70%. And as you can see here, limb salvage at two years, close to, or is over 98% with very low re-intervention rate.
So, those great outcomes was based on combined common femoral and deep femoral intervention. So what about isolated deep femoral artery percutaneous intervention? Does that work or not? So, this study include 15 patient
who were high risk to have open surgery, underwent isolated percutaneous deep femoral artery intervention. As you can see, at three years, limb salvage was greater than 95%. The study also showed isolated percutaneous transluminal
angioplasty of deep femoral artery can convert ischemic rest pain to claudication. It can also help heal the stump wound to prevent hip disarticulation. Here's one of my patient. As you can see, tes-tee-lee-shun with near
or total occlusion of proximal deep femoral artery presented with extreme low-extremity rest pain. We did a balloon angioplasty. And her ABI was increased from 0.8 to 0.53, and rest pain disappeared. Another patient transferred from outside the facility
was not healing stump wound on the left side with significant disease as you can see based on the angiogram. We did a hybrid procedure including stenting of the iliac artery and the open angioplasty of common femoral artery and the profunda femoral artery.
Significantly improved the perfusion to the stump and healed wound. The indications for isolated or combined deep femoral artery revascularization. For those patient presented with disabling claudication or rest pain with a proximal
or treatable deep femoral artery stenosis greater than 50% if their SFA or femoral popliteal artery disease is unsuitable for open or endovascular treatment, they're a high risk for open surgery. And had the previous history of multiple groin exploration, groin wound complications with seroma or a fungal infection
or had a muscle flap coverage, et cetera. And that this patient should go to have intervascular intervention. Or patient had a failed femoral pop or femoral-distal bypass like this patient had, and we should treat this patient.
So in summary, open profundaplasty remains the gold standard treatment. Isolated endovascular deep femoral artery intervention is sufficient for rest pain. May not be good enough for major wound healing, but it will help heal the amputation stump
to prevent hip disarticulation. Thank you for much for your attention.
So I think when it comes to distal bypasses and ultra-distal bypasses it's all about how we make our decision. We know now that early intervention these patients have better outcome. We use waveform analysis to make our decision about how critical their skin is
we use different topical anesthesia depending the patient's fitness. I think this is just one important point that patient's with dark skin did not show all the full range of skin changes and patients get this dark foot sign
even before they start necrosing their skin. It's very important how we give our anesthetics we use vascular anesthesia with special interest prevascular disease because these patients are quite labile. We use even sometimes inotropes during the procedure
and post operative to maintain a good blood pressure. We believe that short bypasses have got better outcomes. Dr. Veith, have already published in the 80s about short bypasses also doing now the Tibiotibial bypasses on the look anesthetic. Some patients with very high risk for general anesthesia.
And our study we showed that the majority of our patients, who had ultra-distal bypasses had the bypasses from either popliteal or SFA artery. We use different techniques to improve on how to take our bypasses from the proximal anastomosis distally. So we use hybrid revascularization, we use drug-eluting
balloons, and stenting of the SFA and popliteal artery, so we can perform our bypass from the popliteal level. We even use Remote Endarterectomy to improve on our length of the inflow. So by doing remote endarterectomy of the SFA
and popliteal artery, we can take the bypass quite distally from the popliteal artery to the foot level. This is a patient who got critical leg ischaemia on the right side limited, venous conduit. We did remote endarterectomy of her SFA and popliteal artery. And then we can
easily take the bypass from the popliteal artery down to the foot level. On the left side, she had hybrid revascularization with SFA stenting and ultra-distal bypass. We use venous conduit in almost all our patients with ultra-distal bypass.
In distal bypasses we can PTFE but the majority of our patients have long saphenous veins or even arm veins. We started using Omniflow in our infected patients for distal bypasses with quite good results. We scan all our veins prior to the procedure
to make sure that we got good quality vein and amount to perform the procedure. We have published in our small veins series less than 3mm, we still have a very good outcome in distal bypasses. Especially when we do tibial bypasses
or dorsalis pedis bypasses we turn the grafts anatomically. You can see in this angiogram the graft going through the interosseous membrane down to the foot level. We put our incision a bit immediately on the foot level so if there is necrosis of the wound on the foot level that we don't expose the graft, especially when we
knew the patient was coming from the lateral aspect through the interosseous membrane. We select our bypasses especially in the foot level using the duplic scanogram, angiogram or CT angiogram. During the procedure we don't clamp our arteries we use the Flo-Rester and Flo-Through prothesis
to stop patients from bleeding while we're doing it. And we've never used tourniquet before all this has been published. Hand held doppler is the only quality control that we do we don't do on-table angiograms and we find this quite useful for our patients.
We can do the debridement and at the same time while we're doing the bypass at the ankle level. As for anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy We do antiplatelet therapy for all patient with distal and ultra-distal bypass. And we use heparin and warfarin for patients
who have got redo surgery. Graft surveillance for all our patients Unfortunately, we can only afford it in the NHS for one year, but if the patient get an intervention they go for another full year. Salvage angioplasty is essential for these patients
and we treat these patients as quite as a emergency when they present. So, conclusion, Mr. Sherman, ladies and gentlemen, distal and ultra-distal bypasses require good planning. We use veins for all our bypasses when it comes to the foot level and ultra-distal bypasses,
and of course selecting the target vessel in the foot is very important. Graft Surveillance is essential to maintain quality and outcome for these patients. Thank you very much.
- So thank you for the kind introduction and thanks for professor Viet for the invitation again this year. So, if we talk about applicability, of course you have to check the eye views from this device and you're limited by few instructions for users. They changed the lengths between the target vessel
and the orifice and the branch, with less than 50 mm , they used to be less than 25 mm. Also keep in mind, that you need to have a distance of more than 67 mm between your renal artery cuff and your iliac bifurcation. The good thing about branch endografts
is that if you have renal artery which comes ... or its orifice at the same level of the SME, you can just advance and put your endorafts a bit more proximally, of course risking more coverage of your aorta and eventually risking high rate
of paraplegia or spinal cord ischemia. Also if your renal artery on one side or if your target vessel is much lower with longer bridging stent grafts which are now available like the VBX: 79 mm or combination of bridging stem grafts, this can be treated as well.
Proximally, we have short extensions like the TBE which only allows 77 or 81 mm. This can also expand its applicability of this device. The suitability has already been proven in.. or assessed by Gaspar and vistas and it came around plus 60%
of all patients with aortic aneurysms. Majority of them are limitations where the previous EVAR or open AAA repair or the narrow diameter reno visceral segment in case of diabetes sections. So, what about the safety of the T-branch device?
We performed an observational study Mister, Hamburg and Milner group and I can present you here the short term results. We looked at 80 patients in prospective or retro prospective manner with the t-branch as instructed for use.
Majority were aneurysms with the type two or type four Crawford tracheal aneurysms, also a few with symptomatic or ruptured cases. Patient characteristics of course, we have the same of the usual high risk cardiovascular profiling,
this group of patients that has been treated. Majority was performed percutaneously in 55%. The procedure time shows us that there is still a learning curve. I think nowadays we can perform this under 200 minutes. What is the outcome?
We have one patient who died post operative day 30, after experiencing multiorgan failure. These are 30 day results. No rupture or conversion to open surgery. We had one patient with cardiac ischemia, seven patients with spinal cord ischemia
and one patient has early branch occlusion. There was both renal arteries were occluded, he had an unknown heparin induced thrombocytopenia and was treated with endovascular thrombectomy and successfully treated as well. Secondary interventions within 30 days were in one patient
stent placement due to an uncovered celiac stent stenosis In one patient there was a proximal type one endoleak with a proximal extension. One patient who had paraplegia or paraparesis, he had a stenosis of his internal iliac artery which stem was stented successfully,
and the paraparesis resolved later on in this patient. And of course the patient I just mentioned before, with his left and right renal artery occlusion. So to conclude, the T-branch has wide applicability as we've seen also before, up to 80% especially with adjuvant procedures.
Longer, more flexible bridging stent grafts will expand the use of this device. Also the TBE proximal extensions allows aortic treatment of diameters for more than 30 mm and I think the limitations are still the diameter at reno visceral segment,
previous EVAR or open AAA repair and having of course multiple visceral arteries. Thank you.
- Thank you Dr. Veith for this opportunity again, and, like to show you that I have no disclosures relevant to this talk. The objective is to report the management and outcome of five cases of brachial artery injury in children with supracondylar humerus fractures at our institution over the last few years,
and then emphasize the importance of close observation and low threshold for surgical exploration in these cases. The classification of supracondylar fractures is on the Gartland system, and typically the vascular injuries are associated with Type 3, although there are some reported cases with Type 2.
Supracondylar humerus fractures make up about 70% of elbow fractures in children. Displacement and deformity can injure the median nerve, as well as the brachial artery. And up to 20% of children will present with an abnormal vascular exam, on initial evaluation.
There is no doubt what you do for the ischemic hand, is the exploration of the brachial artery. However, for the perfused, pulseless hand, there is considerable controversy as to what one should do. If this is not recognized, and not appropriately treated, there can be significant complications,
which can affect the child for the rest of his life. Physical examination, including neurovascular examination is crucial. These are high-litigation cases, and just writing on your record that neurovascular status is intact, is totally inadequate.
With reference to this particular fracture, evaluation for median nerve intactness, and function of the anterior interosseous nerve in particular, is very important, as I'll show you in just a slide, where they can be associated with arterial injuries. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why
you have the pink pulseless hand, despite obstruction or interruption of the brachial artery, going to these rich collaterals around the elbow. The hand can still be pink, and pulseless. This is a demonstration of the coexisting injury when you have median nerve and brachial artery
damaged by the anteromedial location. This location of the proximal fracture fragment. And many have suggested routine vascular exploration for this sort of injury. The most common finding that we find when we explore the brachial artery
with supracondylar fractures of the humerus, is the artery is tethered between the fracture fragments. This is yet another example, this is the brachialis sign, where the proximal fragment can buttonhole through the brachialis muscle. Most open fractures will need brachial artery exploration
at the time of reduction of the fracture. So, now I would like to share with you these five cases that I mentioned, at Inova Fairfax Hospital. The average age was 5.4 years, and four of them were male, one was a female, and I described to you my personal experience
in taking care of these patients at the hospital, and then following them closely afterwards. Case one was a perfused hand, a pink perfused hand, without a pulse. And this gentleman, this patient presented the next day with compartment syndrome.
On exploration we found a tethered artery, we released it, patient has normal function at two years. Case two, had a positive pulse, positive Doppler signal, nothing was done, other than reducing the fracture, patient sent home, he represented with severe pain, and was found to have compartment syndrome on day three.
On exploration, the artery was tethered. It was released, no thrombectomy was necessary. Patient has been left with slight deficit in two fingers. Third case, perfused pulse, with no pulse was observed, and the last pulse the next day duplex showed that the brachial artery was obstructed.
It was transected, had a vein interposition, I used the basilic vein, and did thrombectomy, and normal function at four months. Fourth case, there was no pulse, no Doppler signal, immediate exploration, tethered artery, no thrombectomy, normal function restored.
Case five had a normal exam, but lost signal the next day, was found to have a massive hematoma. We evacuated the hematoma, normal function. Based on this, the treatment algorithm is when the patient has a positive pulse, has a palpable pulse,
we obviously would do nothing. When it's pulseless and ischemic, immediate surgical exploration. When it's perfused and there's no radial signal, diminished flow, on duplex ultrasound, we explore surgically,
and when there's a positive radial pulse, we observe for 24 to 48 hours before discharge. I have found pulse oximetry, in addition with duplex ultrasound, to be very helpful in this regard. And ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion,
immediate surgical exploration is mandated for the ischemic hand. We recommend close observation after reduction, despite return of palpable pulse or Doppler signal, due to risk of delayed ischemia or compartment syndrome, especially in young children.
Based on our experience, perfused pulseless hand is a consequence of arterial injury or spasm. And, if you use duplex ultrasound, as if we had done, we may have been able to avoid delayed care in three out of the five cases. We recommend immediate exploration, obviously for,
for absent pulse and ischemic hand. And we do recommend that early recognition of ischemia and compartment syndrome is paramount, and patient should be closely observed, even if they have a normal perfusion on reduction of the fracture site. Thank you so much.
- Thank you Dr. Veith, again. So we have a small percentage of patients with contralateral occlusion in some of the earlier randomized trials who might have done a little bit worse than a patient who did not have contralateral occlusion. Then we got studied by Perler, Mattos, and Da Silva
in the early 90s, showing that actually they can do carotid endarterectomy very safely in patients with contralateral occlusion. Sapphire started it all with all the future randomized trial or even the industry sponsored trial showing that contralateral occlusion has a high risk
for carotid endarterectomy, and that's making it an inclusion criteria in carotid stenting. In this particular study for instance you see that patients had about 60% higher risk of stroke, and TIA or death even if they have contralateral occlusion. Further, a newer study by Brewsters and the ICSS,
they really showed no difference as far as the performance of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy. So the Center of Medicare and Medicaid today actually use contralateral occlusion as an indication for carotid artery stenting and reimburse in the United States as a high-risk criteria.
We wanted to see what happened in a real-world outcome, and comparing the safety and efficiency of carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in patients who have contralateral occlusion. So we used the Vascular Quality Initiative with a cut from 2005, 2016, and we included all patients
who underwent carotid endarterectomy who had stenting who also have contralateral occlusion. Our outcome was 30-day stroke, death, MI in combination of all of the above. We also look at two-year ipsilateral stroke and combination of stroke and death.
We did the usual statistical analysis with a regression model and then also long term with Kaplan-Meier up to two years. So that made it the largest study to date on patients with contralateral occlusion, 4300 patients. 1000 of them approximately got a carotid stent,
and the rest received CEA. As you can see here, not a lot of differences except that there was more congestive heart failure, COPD, as expected in the carotid stent. There were a history of stroke, prior stroke, not acute stroke more in the endarterectomy group.
Again, as expected, more people were on dual antiplatelet therapy as required in the carotid stent group, as well as statin, but there was more beta-blockers for instance preoperatively in the group that got endarterectomy.
There was also more prior revascularization in the carotid stent group. Nothing surprising here, but what you can see is within the endarterectomy only about 70% got shunts, so 30% without even a shunt, but 30% had EEG monitoring. This is what the results showed, you can see
that there was really no difference in the outcome as far as stroke in the asymptomatic group, but a very obvious difference in the symptomatic patients with three-fold increase in the risk of stroke at 30 days and six-fold increase in the risk of mortality. These are patients basically
getting stents versus endarterectomy, and if you combine these, that risk was three-fold. In the regression model, you can see here not much of a difference in the asymptomatic patients, not statistically significant, but 2.9 odd ratio for stroke, and six for death.
When we look at the Kaplan-Meiers and the Cox hazard model, you can see in the asymptomatic group as far as ipsilateral stroke there was really no difference, and same with the symptomatic patients. But when we combine stroke and death, that risk was 40% higher in asymptomatic patients
and 90% higher in the symptomatic group. You can see that obviously on the Kaplan-Meier curve. Of course it's a limited study, by nature of retrospective, and selection biases as well as not completely having accurate data entry with any registry. We don't really have any data on what happened in the brain,
we don't have any information on what happens if you do medical management as well. So in conclusion, symptomatic status was an effect modifier here as far as the performance of carotid endarterectomy and stenting in patients with contralateral occlusion.
The two procedures were equivalent in asymptomatic patients except for two-year ipsilateral stroke where the risk was increased with stenting. Endarterectomy is superior to CAS as far as asymptomatic patients. Thank you so much.
- Oh, thank you, dear colleague, that's a very long title. This is my disclosure, this. We are all very efficient for treating all those patient, but sometimes, especially on the very long recanalization, we may fail to reenter into the very precise distal landing zone,
and that's when we fail, please do not panic. That's how to perfectly reenter into the distal lumen and I think that's the retrograde approach. Distal puncturing is very useful and very efficient, very safe technique to increase the long recanalization. And it needs to be consider very, very rapidly,
very quickly, usually in my daily practice this is in less than 10 minutes after failure to rentry into the distal zone. Thus, we have many site of puncture, of distal punctures, and what is also very important,
this is to have the very dedicated devices. Usually I use a 16-gauge needle, and also this is quite always a sheathless technique. Thus, let me share with you this case and answer to all the question. This is a case with an long occlusion
of on the right side of the SFA. This I've used, as maybe many of us, the crossover technique. The crossing was really not a problem. It was quite difficult, we have used many guidewires
and also many support catheter but we crossed finally to the distal zone, but it was impossible to reenter very precisely and very safely into the distal SFA into the P1 popliteal artery. That's once again no hesitation.
We do a direct puncture into the P1 popliteal artery zone. The patient have been always prepared before, and, as you may see, this is an 16-gauge needle. That's after, once again, we inserts the guidewires and note this is a sheathless technique and directly thereafter the support catheter
and this is so very important to inject to be sure that we are very precise for the punctures. After this is a two team work, one from below and one from above,
and this is the mix between two 3D dissection and the main goal, this is to connect one dissection with the other and also thereafter is to insert one guidewire into the other support catheters to have at the end only one guidewires. And after we use a telepherique technique
by pulling the balloon for the predilitation of the first opening of the SFA by pulling on the guidewires that is exiting on the proximal popliteal arteries. And only at the end you may exchange the way of the guidewires to move it distally
and thereafter you push on the balloon that is inflated during at least three minutes for the distal sealing. And this is the initial control that is quite, very, very bad. By the way, I'm answer
to the other question, "When is it important to stent?" And especially I know that we are into a less metal left behind era, but it's a very, very good indication for sustaining these recanalized long lesion,
especially flow limiting dissection and residual stenosis. And this is what we have made for obtaining this by the end very, very good result. Thus, in conclusion, for the long recanalization, especially if it's very, very calcified,
experience is definitely required. And we needs to be familiar with a lot of guidewire and support catheter of a very good portfolio. The retrograde access that made, this is very safe, and that may increase technically the success rate and the stenting, I mean the scaffolding is quite
always necessary on the long recanalization. And keep in mind that the patience is really the key of all those procedures. Thank you.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- These are my disclosure, did not influence my work. I would like to thank you for Dr. Weith for the invitation. And I think this is time we cannot ignore anymore one of our major complication during the procedures not just TAVIing with any other surgeries. My tool is the transcranial doppler and I just call it the
stethoscope to the brain because it's really listen to the flow, measure the speed of the flow, measure the direction of the flow. But it also tells me by the resistance if the vessel in the brain occluded or open.
So this is the example how an embolus traveling in the middle cerebral artery or the ACA look like. And again there's not many of those good emboli. The only good emboli we using for PFO testing. But-- sorry--
My pointer would like to show you that on the right bottom corner this is how an MC occlusion looks like real time when a waveform just disappears. This is the example also a teaching tool that you can was the contrast injection and how the lots of air with the contrast injection look like.
But again going back to the TAVI, you can see that the cerebral DWI lesion 90, 80 almost 86 percent, it's a really high number for this procedure. And when you divide them by the transcranial doppler you can see the balloon valvuloplasty and the placement
of the valve comes with the highest emboli count. During their study in Houston this is how they divided the procedure to different phases. And I just want to walk you through a procedure. And this is one of the first challenge, just crossing the valve.
Look at those white lines on the TCD real time while your wire trying to cross your valve. Those are all microemboli. During the BAV you can see there's a hypoperfusion. So hypoperfusion the brain really doesn't like hypoperfusion too much.
So but when you see the folly sword you can see the microemboli too. So again not just the microembolization but the hemodynamics, how your hypoperfusion is really important. And a successful BAV and a valve placement shows that you
have end diastolic flow. Here comes the arch crossing by the TAVI. And you can see just crossing the arch it's also comes with embolization. And why your positioning? The positioning itself again comes
with a shower of microembolization. And it also see that the diastolic profusion is also suffers. And a low diastolic profusion is hyperprofusion again. And why the placement you see the rapid pacing, this is comes with again hyperprofusion and microemboli.
Those are the incidents how we can see by deflating the balloon you're going to see the incidents of microembolization. The different valves again results of no flow pattern. And this is again, in this moment you can see the flow is gone.
Your concern is this something that we just lost a signal. The flow comes back and these are lack of signals and lack of flow of temporarily. But we can also assess how the AI is treated when there's no diastolic flow. That's not good,
that's correlating nicely. And the final results when finally you have a good end diastolic flow pattern that tells you that your surgery's successful. Again different devices can be studied by the DCD, a low deployment versus the balloon deployment.
And this is my most scary picture when you see that the valve is crossing the arch and one of the signals you're going to see and disappear. So this is why we encourage bilateral signal, bilateral MCM monitoring. And here when the microemboli comes,
your signal disappearing, that resulting in a stroke. And you can again act and go to the neuro angio suite. So our data also showed that despite that we have a really low number of stroke and TIA's, we didn't see too much difference.
But phase five, this is when the deployment happens with the high emboli count. But also you cannot ignore that the phase two, when you just moving your catheter causing the valve come through the high emboli count as well.
And just a different way of showing you that majority of the HITS again comes with the valve deployment. But also the low flow stages when we have hyperprofusion we just cannot ignore. Thank you so much for your attention.
- Thank you very much, so my disclosures, I'm one of the co-PIs for national registry for ANARI. And clearly venous clot is different, requires different solutions for the arterial system. So this is a device that was built ground up to work in the venous system. And here's a case presentation of a 53 year old male,
with a history of spondylolisthesis had a lumbar inner body fusion, he had an anterior approach and corpectomy with application of an inner body cage. And you can see these devices here. And notably he had application of local bone graft and bone powder
and this is part of what happened to this patient. About seven days later he came in with significant left leg swelling and venous duplex showed clot right here, and this extended all the way down to the tibial vessels. And if you look at the CT
you can see extravasation of that bone powder and material obstructing the left iliac vein. And had severe leg swelling so the orthopedic people didn't want us to use TPA in this patient so we considered a mechanical solution. And so at this day and age I think goals of intervention
should be to maximize clot removal of course and minimize bleeding risk and reduce the treatment or infusion time and go to single session therapy whenever possible. Our ICUs are full all the time and so putting a lytic patient in there
reduces our ability to get other patients in. (mouse clicks So this is the ClotTriever thrombectomy device. It has a sheath that is a 13 French sheath and they're developing a 16 French, that opens up with a funnel
after it's inserted into the poplitiel. So the funnel is in the lower femoral vein and this helps funnel clot in when it's pulled down. The catheter has this coring element that abuts the vein wall and carves the thrombus off in a collecting bag
that extends up above to allow the thrombus to go into the bag as you pull it down. So you access the popliteal vein, cross the thrombosed segments with standard techniques and you need to then put an exchange length wire up into the SVC
or even out into the subclavian vein for stability. And then the catheter's inserted above the clot and is gradually pulled down, sort of milking that stuff off of the wall and into the bag that is then taken down to the funnel and out of the leg.
So this is the patient we had, we had thrombus in the femoral and up into the IVC. Extensive, you can see the hardware here. And it was very obstructed right at that segment where it was, had the bone material pushing on the vein it was quite difficult to get through there
but finally we did and we ballooned that to open a channel up large enough to accommodate ClotTriever catheter. We then did multiple passes and we extracted a large amount of thrombus. Some looking like typically acute stuff
and then some more dense material that may have been a few days worth of build up on the wall there. We then stinted with an 18 by 90 across the obstructed segment and this was our completion run.
It's not perfect but it looks like a pretty good channel going through. This is the hardware not obstruction at that level. Hospital course, the patient had significant improvement in their swelling by post-op day one. Was discharged on compression and anti-coagulation.
He returned about two months ago for his three month follow-up and really had very minimal symptoms in the left leg. Venous duplex showed that the left common femoral was partially compressible but did have phasic flow and the stent appeared to be open through it's course.
So of course this is an anecdote, this is early in the experience with this catheter. There have been numerous improvements made to ease the use of it and do it in fewer steps. And so we're starting a ClotTriever outcomes registry
to enroll up to 500 patients to begin to define outcomes with this device. It does offer the promise of single session therapy without lytic administration and we'll see how it performs and which patients it works best in through the registry.
Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Content and materials on Medlantis are provided for educational purposes only, and are intended for use by medical professionals, not to be used self-diagnosis or self-treatment. It is not intended as, nor should it be, a substitute for independent professional medical care. Medical practitioners must make their own independent assessment before suggesting a diagnosis or recommending or instituting a course of treatment. The content and materials on Medlantis should not in any way be seen as a replacement for consultation with colleagues or other sources, or as a substitute for conventional training and study.