- Good morning. I'd like to thank everybody who's in attendance for the 7 A.M. session. So let's talk about a case. 63 year old male, standard risk factors for aneurismal disease. November 2008, he had a 52 mm aneurism,
underwent Gore Excluder, endovascular pair. Follow up over the next five, relatively unremarkable. Sac regression 47 mm no leak. June 2017, he was lost for follow up, but came back to see us. Duplex imaging CTA was done to show the sac had increased
from 47 to 62 in a type 2 endoleak was present. In August of that year, he underwent right common iliac cuff placement for what appeared to be a type 1b endoleak. September, CT scan showed the sac was stable at 66 and no leak was present. In March, six months after that, scan once again
showed the sac was there but a little bit larger, and a type two endoleak was once again present. He underwent intervention. This side access on the left embolization of the internal iliac, and a left iliac limb extension. Shortly thereafter,
contacted his PCP at three weeks of weakness, fatigue, some lethargy. September, he had some gluteal inguinal pain, chills, weakness, and fatigue. And then October, came back to see us. Similar symptoms, white count of 12, and a CT scan
was done and here where you can appreciate is, clearly there's air within the sac and a large anterior cell with fluid collections, blood cultures are negative at that time. He shortly thereafter went a 2 stage procedure, Extra-anatomic bypass, explant of the EVAR,
there purulent fluid within the sac, not surprising. Gram positive rods, and the culture came out Cutibacterium Acnes. So what is it we know about this case? Well, EVAR clearly is preferred treatment for aneurism repair, indications for use h
however, mid-term reports still show a significant need for secondary interventions for leaks, migrations, and rupture. Giles looked at a Medicare beneficiaries and clearly noted, or at least evaluated the effect of re-interventions
and readmissions after EVAR and open and noted that survival was negatively impacted by readmissions and re-interventions, and I think this was one of those situations that we're dealing with today. EVAR infections and secondary interventions.
Fortunately infections relatively infrequent. Isolated case reports have been pooled into multi-institutional cohorts. We know about a third of these infections are related to aortoenteric fistula, Bacteremia and direct seeding are more often not the underlying source.
And what we can roughly appreciate is that at somewhere between 14 and 38% of these may be related to secondary catheter based interventions. There's some data out there, Matt Smeed's published 2016, 180 EVARs, multi-center study, the timing of the infection presumably or symptomatic onset
was 22 months and 14% or greater had secondary endointerventions with a relatively high mortality. Similarly, the study coming out of Italy, 26 cases, meantime of diagnosis of the infection is 20 months, and that 34.6% of these cases underwent secondary endovascular intervention.
Once again, a relatively high mortality at 38.4%. Study out of France, 11 institutions, 33 infective endographs, time of onset of symptoms 414 days, 30% of these individuals had undergone secondary interventions. In our own clinical experience of Pittsburgh,
we looked at our explants. There were 13 down for infection, and of those nine had multiple secondary interventions which was 69%, a little bit of an outlier compared to the other studies. Once again, a relatively high mortality at one year. There's now a plethora of information in the literature
stating that secondary interventions may be a source for Bacteremia in seeding of your endovascular graft. And I think beyond just a secondary interventions, we know there's a wide range of risk factors. Perioperative contamination, break down in your sterile technique,
working in the radiology suite as opposed to the operating room. Wound complications to the access site. Hematogenous seeding, whether it's from UTIs, catheter related, or secondary interventions are possible.
Graft erosion, and then impaired immunity as well. So what I can tell you today, I think there is an association without question from secondary interventions and aortic endograft infection. Certainly the case I presented appears to show causation but there's not enough evidence to fully correlate the two.
So in summary, endograft infections are rare fortunately. However, the incidence does appear to be subtly rising. Secondary interventions following EVAR appear to be a risk factor for graft infection. Graft infections are associated without question
a high morbidity and mortality. I think it's of the utmost importance to maintain sterile technique, administer prophylactic antibiotics for all secondary endovascular catheter based interventions. Thank you.
- Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here today and I wanted to let you know that a lot of this work that was being done earlier were really driven by physician need. As you can see, the trial as well as the EXCEL registry is finally on the way, so it's very exciting.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but everybody knows the primary predictor of EVAR failure is really short necks and angulated necks. The first generations have been pretty good but they were really not intended for this type of anatomy. We see a lot of patients with really distorted anatomy
but they still have a relatively lengthy or 10 mm neck. In fact, about 80% of the EVARs treated in the United States have at least a 10 mm proximal neck. They may not be of the highest quality but they're there. So, how could be achieve better results? Basically we need to use every millimeter
of this landing zone, so that we can use the 10 mm neck to its fullest advantage and I believe when you do that, the results are fairly comparable to doing any type of above renal repair, like a fenestrated or branch graft. The stabilization of the device
during delivery is absolutely crucial. So essentially what you want to do is have a device that is able to utilize every neck angle and every millimeter of that available neck. And we know that 80% of all the patients, do have that neck. So, the new conformable endovascular device
has been around for the last five years or so but recently went into trial in December of last year. It's very different proximally than the current EXCLUDER in that the fixation system is single and it has a series of nested stents very similar to a conformable C-TAC device.
As you can see, this allows the device to conform to the anatomy, but not only that you're able to adjust the device inside too and that's actually Frank Veith's terminology, is that you're able to adjust this so that you can inch it up and utilize the entire neck.
16 French, proximal fixation, trunk length's a little bit longer than the current EXCLUDER at 5.5 to 6.5. This allows further treatment in the future going forward if you need to do a fenestrated device or branch graft device above it.
This device was designed to conform up to 90 degree angles and it's designed to seal at 10 mm necks. And, the most important aspect of it is, you're able to reposition the device once you deploy it. The mechanism is really one of being able to angle the device with a steering system
before the deployment and also afterwards and also be able to restrain the device up and down. Another major difference is that it has a 30% restraining secondary sleeve just like a ZFEN device so you're able to move this device up and down the angulated neck
and I'll show that with a case. The clinical trial in the U.S. began in December of last year and so far, I'll show you the update but unfortunately the FDA disallows us to give you any data. I can give you some of the demographics but I'll show you
that the preliminary results look excellent. The goal is to implant 80 patients in the short arm which is complete and 110 patients in the high neck arm is partially complete at almost 30 patients. The trial update objective is as outlined, there are 48 U.S. sites
and the current study enrollment is 106 patients, the short neck arm again I said is complete. Primary safety endpoints, not unlike any other device. Primary effectiveness endpoints, again freedom from all of these aspects. The first device was in 2017,
this was a relatively straightforward patient. The device performed well, this is a six month follow-up. The device had no migration issues, confirmed beautifully. But this is not really what the device was designed for. So, I'm going to give you a case of a patient that was enrolled in the high risk arm.
This patient had an 8.5 cm aneurism, 82 degree angulation, 11 mm proximal neck, turned down for EVAR or fenestrated at two other institutions in the New York City area and basically came for a third opinion as most New Yorkers do.
The aneurism looks like this and it's kind of a very angulated proximal neck with extremely torturous iliacs. This is the case that we did. You can see the device being configured here with the steering wire and when you do this,
you can see the device being able to be easily moved proximally and distally and the next portion of the video shows that steering wire kind of implanting the device into the lesser curve. - [Moderator] The device is deconstrained right? - Yes.
You can restrain it and it's a combination of being able to restrain it and open it which allows you the flexibility and as you can see with this maneuver, the device looks like it's perfectly opposed but in fact, the posterior aspect did not oppose very well.
So, we adjusted it further by increasing the posterior coverage and this is the post-op and we got a seal. There was no ballooning. This device, the ballooning is optional. So, the results have been excellent so far
with the highly angulated neck arm and we'll only see, there's only 30 patients so far but the results have been excellent so far. - [Panel Member] Rob and for you and for also Mark who presented that last case last week. When you deploy this device
it seems that you have a stiff wire, you're almost fighting the very advantage you're proposing. Do you ever consider swapping out for a floppier wire so you can then really get the native anatomy configuration? Because now that fusion image is presumably the pre-op fusion without the stiff wire.
So, I just wondered whether there's any value to that. - That's a great question. In fact, if you look at this video again, not this one but, let me see, this one, there's no wire, that the tip of the Amplatz wire is right at the tip of the device.
So that device is almost unsupported at this level, so you're able to freely flex that device back and forth without the constraints of a stiff wire. - [Panel Member] Is that your personal style or is that something that's part of it. - It's actually a recommended
and the part of the deployment process is to bring the floppy wire. So, you can use like a Glidewire Advantage or an Amplatz Super Stiff or whatever wire you like to use but it has to have a very floppy unsupported section in the proximal segments
to be able to get this kind of maneuverability. - [Moderator] So for the panel who've used this device, with all this manipulation of the proximal neck and especially in a diseased neck, is there any evidence of embolization of thrombus into the renals or distally?
- [Panel Member] Of course there is the potential for that but we haven't seen it yet and I think that the FDA IDE Trial and the registry will address that. I think that you should be careful. If there is a lot of neural thrombus in that neck
then this manipulation could be a potential risk. Actually what you're doing is, it's not that easy to get it into position in just one angulation. Sometimes you have to angulate, push it a little bit, restrain it again and reposition it to come in the perfect position,
especially for high angulation. - Yes. There's definitely a learning curve here but the learning curve actually can be achieved with just a couple of cases to be able to see how the device behaves
in the human anatomy.
- Our group has looked at the outcomes of patients undergoing carotid-subclavian bypass in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair. These are my obligatory disclosures, none of which are relevant to this study. By way of introduction, coverage of the left subclavian artery origin
is required in 10-50% of patients undergoing TEVAR, to achieve an adequate proximal landing zone. The left subclavian artery may contribute to critical vascular beds in addition to the left upper extremity, including the posterior cerebral circulation,
the coronary circulation if a LIMA graft is present, and the spinal cord, via vertebral collaterals. Therefore the potential risks of inadequate left subclavian perfusion include not only arm ischemia, but also posterior circulation stroke,
spinal cord ischemia, and coronary insufficiency. Although these risks are of low frequency, the SVS as early as 2010 published guidelines advocating a policy of liberal left subclavian revascularization during TEVAR
requiring left subclavian origin coverage. Until recently, the only approved way to maintain perfusion of the left subclavian artery during TEVAR, with a zone 2 or more proximal landing zone, was a cervical bypass or transposition procedure. As thoracic side-branch devices become more available,
we thought it might be useful to review our experience with cervical bypass for comparison with these newer endovascular strategies. This study was a retrospective review of our aortic disease database, and identified 112 out of 579 TEVARs
that had undergone carotid subclavian bypass. We used the standard operative technique, through a short, supraclavicular incision, the subclavian arteries exposed by division of the anterior scalene muscle, and a short 8 millimeter PTFE graft is placed
between the common carotid and the subclavian arteries, usually contemporaneous with the TEVAR procedure. The most important finding of this review regarded phrenic nerve dysfunction. To exam this, all pre- and post-TEVAR chest x-rays were reviewed for evidence of diaphragm elevation.
The study population was typical for patients undergoing TEVAR. The most frequent indication for bypass was for spinal cord protection, and nearly 80% of cases were elective. We found that 25 % of patients had some evidence
of phrenic nerve dysfunction, though many resolved over time. Other nerve injury and vascular graft complications occurred with much less frequency. This slide illustrates the grading of diaphragm elevation into mild and severe categories,
and notes that over half of the injuries did resolve over time. Vascular complications were rare, and usually treated with a corrective endovascular procedure. Of three graft occlusions, only one required repeat bypass.
Two pseudoaneurysms were treated endovascularly. Actuarial graft, primary graft patency, was 97% after five years. In summary then, the report examines early and late outcomes for carotid subclavian bypass, in the setting of TEVAR. We found an unexpectedly high rate
of phrenic nerve dysfunction postoperatively, although over half resolved spontaneously. There was a very low incidence of vascular complications, and a high long-term patency rate. We suggest that this study may provide a benchmark for comparison
with emerging branch thoracic endovascular devices. Thank you.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, first of all, I would like to thank Dr. Veith for the honor of the podium. Fenestrated and branched stent graft are becoming a widespread use in the treatment of thoracoabdominal
and pararenal aortic aneurysms. Nevertheless, the risk of reinterventions during the follow-up of these procedures is not negligible. The Mayo Clinic group has recently proposed this classification for endoleaks
after FEVAR and BEVAR, that takes into account all the potential sources of aneurysm sac reperfusion after stent graft implant. If we look at the published data, the reported reintervention rate ranges between three and 25% of cases.
So this is still an open issue. We started our experience with fenestrated and branched stent grafts in January 2016, with 29 patients treated so far, for thoracoabdominal and pararenal/juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. We report an elective mortality rate of 7.7%.
That is significantly higher in urgent settings. We had two cases of transient paraparesis and both of them recovered, and two cases of complete paraplegia after urgent procedures, and both of them died. This is the surveillance protocol we applied
to the 25 patients that survived the first operation. As you can see here, we used to do a CT scan prior to discharge, and then again at three and 12 months after the intervention, and yearly thereafter, and according to our experience
there is no room for ultrasound examination in the follow-up of these procedures. We report five reinterventions according for 20% of cases. All of them were due to endoleaks and were fixed with bridging stent relining,
or embolization in case of type II, with no complications, no mortality. I'm going to show you a couple of cases from our series. A 66 years old man, a very complex surgical history. In 2005 he underwent open repair of descending thoracic aneurysm.
In 2009, a surgical debranching of visceral vessels followed by TEVAR for a type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In 2016, the implant of a tube fenestrated stent-graft to fix a distal type I endoleak. And two years later the patient was readmitted
for a type II endoleak with aneurysm growth of more than one centimeter. This is the preoperative CT scan, and you see now the type II endoleak that comes from a left gastric artery that independently arises from the aneurysm sac.
This is the endoleak route that starts from a branch of the hepatic artery with retrograde flow into the left gastric artery, and then into the aneurysm sac. We approached this case from below through the fenestration for the SMA and the celiac trunk,
and here on the left side you see the superselective catheterization of the branch of the hepatic artery, and on the right side the microcatheter that has reached the nidus of the endoleak. We then embolized with onyx the endoleak
and the feeding vessel, and this is the nice final result in two different angiographic projections. Another case, a 76 years old man. In 2008, open repair for a AAA and right common iliac aneurysm.
Eight years later, the implant of a T-branch stent graft for a recurrent type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And one year later, the patient was admitted again for a type IIIc endoleak, plus aneurysm of the left common iliac artery. This is the CT scan of this patient.
You will see here the endoleak at the level of the left renal branch here, and the aneurysm of the left common iliac just below the stent graft. We first treated the iliac aneurysm implanting an iliac branched device on the left side,
so preserving the left hypogastric artery. And in the same operation, from a bowl, we catheterized the left renal branch and fixed the endoleak that you see on the left side, with a total stent relining, with a nice final result on the right side.
And this is the CT scan follow-up one year after the reintervention. No endoleak at the level of the left renal branch, and nice exclusion of the left common iliac aneurysm. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the risk of type I endoleak after FEVAR and BEVAR
is very low when the repair is planning with an adequate proximal sealing zone as we heard before from Professor Verhoeven. Much of reinterventions are due to type II and III endoleaks that can be treated by embolization or stent reinforcement. Last, but not least, the strict follow-up program
with CT scan is of paramount importance after these procedures. I thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to present once again, and I have no disclosures. So why do we repair popliteal artery aneurysms? You've already discussed this, it's to avoid complications,
and the real main aim is to prevent limb loss. One of the largest series was published by the SwedVasc Registry looking at over 700 patients having open repair. And wound-associated morbidity was about 10 and 20%, overall risk of limb loss at 11%,
and vein graft is significantly better than the prosthetics. We looked at Australasian data, and we looked at five-year prospectively collected data. We collected data on over 1,300 patients with almost 400 stent grafts and about 900 bypasses.
Prosthetic grafts accounted for about 10% of the prosthetic bypass grafts, and with 400 stents. These are the complication rates when the patients are subdivided for stents and bypasses. And as we can see, all major complications are much higher for bypasses.
We did a multivariate analysis by backward conditional modeling. And for any complication, bypass surgery, ischemic heart disease, and emergency surgery, as expected accounted for higher complication rates. We modeled this data for occlusion or amputation
and the only things that came out significantly were sub-optimal vein or prosthetic graft compared to good quality vein, and compared to stents and single-vessel runoff. Two other large studies that have been published,
and this large study by Professor Puli who just presented, showed no significant differences between open and endovascular repair in about 312 patients. Again, another paper here showed no differences in 186 patients. A meta-analysis data published with 500 patients
again showed no significant difference in the pooled primary data. And the Vascunet Collaboration of Registries also showed that the major amputation rate was only 2%, slightly higher after open surgeries as compared to endovascular.
But with the hybrid repair using prosthetic and other conduits. So, how do we achieve best results? Well, I think first of all we need to do an angiogram, in a neutral position. We do a flexed knee angiogram, which I think is essential
with a calibrated catheter. We find out the positions where we need to deploy the graft, and deploy the graft in a neutral position. And then very importantly, we do a completion angiogram both in the neutral and the flexed-knee position to ensure that we don't have any problems with this graft.
When you have problems here, this is when you have graft occlusion and this gives the procedure a bad name. But if you look at this angiogram in the neutral position, the picture on your left side shows a fabulous result in a neutral position,
but when you do the flexed-knee graft, there is a 60-70% kink at the distal end because of compliance issues, and this will not survive this graft. So which patients do we exclude? We exclude young patients with suitable vein,
patients with low-output heart failure and renal failure, and patients with a contraindication to an antiplatelet agent. This is quite essential, and Clopidogrel particularly is. So, this is a debate and I have got to say something really terrible about the next speaker.
So, I looked at... This is the last paper that they presented, and obviously, they said that the vein was best so I dunno why they were doing the procedure they were doing, really. But I call this procedure (laughs) "The French Fillet"
and as you can see, it involves division of the sartorius, the gracilis, the semitendinosus, and the medial head of the gastrocnemius to do this procedure. I mean, why would you do it? Muscles are important structures in the leg,
and a lot of the patients were aged between 22 and 89. They didn't give a median age, and all patients were very young, fit patients, and probably not able to run or walk again after that procedure with muscle cutting. So, it's a good French recipe
and these are the results of the procedure. In blue, you can see the vein graft, in white you can see the vein graft data, so they should stick to vein grafts or use endovascular repair. You know, get rid of modern technology, that type of
hybrid procedure is really, really old-fashioned. So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, endovascular popliteal artery aneurysm repair has now come of age, I believe. Popliteal aneurysm stenting can deliver results which are comparable to open surgery and vein grafts.
The technique must involve flexed knee completion angiogram, and medically unfit patients are probably not good candidates for endovascular repair, perhaps even open repair. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- Thank you, good morning everybody. Thank you for the kind invitation, Professor Veith, it's an honor for me to be here again this year in New York. I will concentrate my talk about the technical issues and the experience in the data we have already published about the MISACE in more than 50 patients.
So I have no disclosure regarded to this topic. As you already heard, the MISACE means the occlusion of the main stem of several segmental arteries to preserve the capability of the collateral network to build new arteries. And as a result, we developed
the ischemic preconditioning of the spinal cord. Why is this so useful? Because it's an entirely endovascular first stage of a staged approach to treat thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in order to reduce the ischemic spinal cord injury.
How do you perform the MISACE? Basically, we perform the procedure in local anesthesia, through a percutaneous trans-femoral access using a small-bore sheath. The patient is awake, that means has no cerebrospinal fluid damage
so we can monitor the patient's neurological for at least 48 hours after the procedure. So, after the puncture of the common femoral artery, using a technique of "tower of power" in order to cannulate the segmental arteries. As you can see here, we started with a guiding catheter,
then we place a diagnosis catheter and inside, a microcatheter that is placed inside the segmental artery. Then we started occlusion of the ostial segment of the segmental artery. We use coils or vascular plugs.
We don't recommend the use of fluids due to the possible distal embolization and the consequences. Since we have started this procedure, we have gained a lot of experience and we have started to ask,
what is a sufficient coilembolization? As you can see here, this artery, we can see densely packed coils inside, but you can see still blood flowing after the coil. So, was it always occluding, or is it spontaneous revascularization?
That, we do not know yet. The question, is it flow reduction enough to have a ischemic precondition of the spinal cord? Another example here, you can see a densely packed coil in the segmental artery at the thoracic level. There are some other published data
with some coils in the segm the question is, which technique should we use, the first one, the second one? Another question, is which kind of coil to use? For the moment, we can only use the standard coils
in our center, but I think if we have 3-D or volume coils or if you have microvascular plugs that are very compatible with the microcatheter, we have a superior packing density, we can achieve a better occlusion of the segmental artery, and we have less procedure time and radiation time,
but we have to think of the cost. We recommend to start embolization of the segmental artery, of course, at the origin of it, and not too far inside. Here, you can see a patient where we have coiled a segmental artery very shortly after the ostium,
but you can see here also the development of the collaterals just shortly before the coils, leading to the perfusion of segmental artery that was above it. As you can see, we still have a lot of open question. Is it every patent segmental artery
a necessary to coil? Should we coil only the large ones? I show you an example here, you can see this segmental artery with a high-grade stenotic twisted ostium due to aortic enlargement.
I can show you this segmental artery, six weeks after coiling of a segmental artery lower, and you can see that the ostium, it's no more stenotic and you can see also the connection between the segmental artery below to the initial segmental artery.
Another question that we have, at which level should we start the MISACE? Here, can see a patient with a post-dissection aneurysm after pedicle technique, so these are all uncovered dissection stent, and you can see very nicely the anterior spinal artery
feeded by the anterior radiculomedullary artery from the segmental artery. So, in this patient, in fact, we start the coiling exactly at the seat of this level, we start to coil the segmental artery that feeds the anterior spinal artery.
So, normally we find this artery of the Th 9 L1, and you can see here we go upwards and downwards. We have some challenges with aneurysm sac enlargement, in this case, we use this technique to open the angle of the catheter, we can use also deflectable steerable sheath
in order to reach the segmental artery. And you can see here our results, again, I just will go fast through those, we have treated 57 patients, most of them were Type II, Type III aortic aneurysms. We have found in median nine patent segmental artery
at the level of the aorta to be treated, between 2 and 26, and we have coiled in multiple sessions with a mean interval of 60 days between the sessions. No sooner than seven days we perform the complete exclusion of the aneurysm
in order to let the collateral to develop, and you can see our result: at 30 days we had no spinal cord ischemia. So I can conclude that our first experience suggest that MISACE is feasible, safe, and effective, but segmental artery coiling in thoracoabdominal aneurysm
can be challenging, it's a new field with many open questions, and I looking forward for the results with PAPA_ARTiS study. Thank you a lot.
- Thank you, Ulrich. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith so kindly, for this invitation. These are my disclosures and my friends. I think everyone knows that the Zenith stent graft has a safe and durable results update 14 years. And I think it's also known that the Zenith stent graft
had such good shrinkage, compared to the other stent grafts. However, when we ask Japanese physicians about the image of Zenith stent graft, we always think of the demo version. This is because we had the original Zenith in for a long time. It was associated with frequent limb occlusion due to
the kinking of Z stent. That's why the Spiral Z stent graft came out with the helical configuration. When you compare the inner lumen of the stent graft, it's smooth, it doesn't have kink. However, when we look at the evidence, we don't see much positive studies in literature.
The only study we found was done by Stephan Haulon. He did the study inviting 50 consecutive triple A patients treated with Zenith LP and Spiral Z stent graft. And he did two cases using a two iliac stent and in six months, all Spiral Z limb were patent. On the other hand, when you look at the iliac arteries
in Asians, you probably have the toughest anatomy to perform EVARs and TEVARs because of the small diameter, calcification, and tortuosity. So this is the critical question that we had. How will a Spiral Z stent graft perform in Japanese EIA landing cases, which are probably the toughest cases?
And this is what we did. We did a multi-institutional prospective observational study for Zenith Spiral Z stent graft, deployed in EIA. We enrolled patients from June 2017 to November 2017. We targeted 50 cases. This was not an industry-sponsored study.
So we asked for friends to participate, and in the end, we had 24 hospitals from all over Japan participate in this trial. And the board collected 65 patients, a total of 74 limbs, and these are the results. This slide shows patient demographics. Mean age of 77,
80 percent were male, and mean triple A diameter was 52. And all these qualities are similar to other's reporting in these kinds of trials. And these are the operative details. The reason for EIA landing was, 60 percent had Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm.
12 percent had Hypogastric Artery Aneurysm. And 24 percent had inadequate CIA, meaning short CIA or CIA with thrombosis. Outside IFU was observed in 24.6 percent of patients. And because we did fermoral cutdowns, mean operative time was long, around three hours.
One thing to note is that we Japanese have high instance of Type IV at the final angio, and in our study we had 43 percent of Type IV endoleaks at the final angio. Other things to notice is that, out of 74 limbs, 11 limbs had bare metal stents placed at the end of the procedure.
All patients finished a six month follow-up. And this is the result. Only one stenosis required PTA, so the six months limb potency was 98.6 percent. Excellent. And this is the six month result again. Again the primary patency was excellent with 98.6 percent. We had two major adverse events.
One was a renal artery stenosis that required PTRS and one was renal stenosis that required PTA. For the Type IV index we also have a final angio. They all disappeared without any clinical effect. Also, the buttock claudication was absorbed in 24 percent of patients at one month, but decreased
to 9.5 percent at six months. There was no aneurysm sac growth and there was no mortality during the study period. So, this is my take home message, ladies and gentlemen. At six months, Zenith Spiral Z stent graft deployed in EIA was associated with excellent primary patency
and low rate of buttock claudication. So we have most of the patients finish a 12 month follow-up and we are expecting excellent results. And we are hoping to present this later this year. - [Host] Thank you.
- So this was born out of the idea that there were some patients who come to us with a positive physical exam or problems on dialysis, bleeding after dialysis, high pressures, low flows, that still have normal fistulograms. And as our nephrology colleagues teach us, each time you give a patient some contrast,
you lose some renal function that they maintain, even those patients who are on dialysis have some renal function. And constantly giving them contrasts is generally not a good thing. So we all know that intimal hyperplasia
is the Achilles Heel of dialysis access. We try to do surveillance. Debbie talked about the one minute check and how effective dialysis is. Has good sensitivity on good specificity, but poor sensitivity in determining
dialysis access problems. There are other measured parameters that we can use which have good specificity and a little better sensitivity. But what about ultrasound? What about using ultrasound as a surveillance tool and how do you use it?
Well the DOQI guidelines, the first ones, not the ones that are coming out, I guess, talked about different ways to assess dialysis access. And one of the ways, obviously, was using duplex ultrasound. Access flows that are less than 600
or if they're high flows with greater than 20% decrease, those are things that should stimulate a further look for clinical stenosis. Even the IACAVAL recommendations do, indeed, talk about volume flow and looking at volume flow. So is it volume flow?
Or is it velocity that we want to look at? And in our hands, it's been a very, very challenging subject and those of you who are involved with Vasculef probably have the same thing. Medicare has determined that dialysis shouldn't, dialysis access should not be surveilled with ultrasound.
It's not medically necessary unless you have a specific reason for looking at the dialysis access, you can't simply surveil as much as you do a bypass graft despite the work that's been done with bypass graft showing how intervening on a failing graft
is better than a failed graft. There was a good meta-analysis done a few years ago looking at all these different studies that have come out, looking at velocity versus volume. And in that study, their conclusion, unfortunately, is that it's really difficult to tell you
what you should use as volume versus velocity. The problem with it is this. And it becomes, and I'll show you towards the end, is a simple math problem that calculating volume flows is simply a product of area and velocity. In terms of area, you have to measure the luminal diameter,
and then you take the luminal diameter, and you calculate the area. Well area, we all remember, is pi r squared. So you now divide the diameter in half and then you square it. So I don't know about you,
but whenever I measure something on the ultrasound machine, you know, I could be off by half a millimeter, or even a millimeter. Well when you're talking about a four, five millimeter vessel, that's 10, 20% difference.
Now you square that and you've got a big difference. So it's important to use the longitudinal view when you're measuring diameter. Always measure it if you can. It peaks distally, and obviously try to measure it in an non-aneurysmal area.
Well, you know, I'm sure your patients are the same as mine. This is what some of our patients look like. Not many, but this is kind of an exaggerated point to make the point. There's tortuosity, there's aneurysms,
and the vein diameter varies along the length of the access that presents challenges. Well what about velocity? Well, I think most of us realize that a velocity between 100 to 300 is probably normal. A velocity that's over 500, in this case is about 600,
is probably abnormal, and probably represents a stenosis, right? Well, wait a minute, not necessarily. You have to look at the fluid dynamic model of this, and look at what we're actually looking at. This flow is very different.
This is not like any, not like a bypass graft. You've got flow taking a 180 degree turn at the anastomosis. Isn't that going to give you increased turbulence? Isn't that going to change your velocity? Some of the flow dynamic principles that are important
to understand when looking at this is that the difference between plug and laminar flow. Plug flow is where every bit is moving at the same velocity, the same point from top to bottom. But we know that's not true. We know that within vessels, for the most part,
we have laminar flow. So flow along the walls tends to be a little bit less than flow in the middle. That presents a problem for us. And then when you get into the aneurysmal section, and you've got turbulent flow,
then all bets are off there. So it's important, when you take your sample volume, you take it across the whole vessel. And then you get into something called the Time-Averaged mean velocity which is a term that's used in the ultrasound literature.
But it basically talks about making sure that your sample volume is as wide as it can be. You have to make sure that your angle is as normal in 60 degrees because once you get above 60 degrees, you start to throw it off.
So again, you've now got angulation of the anastomosis and then the compliance of a vein and a graft differs from the artery. So we use the two, we multiply it, and we come up with the volume flow. Well, people have said you should use a straight segment
of the graft to measure that. Five centimeters away from the anastomosis, or any major branches. Some people have actually suggested just using a brachial artery to assess that. Well the problems in dialysis access
is there are branches and bifurcations, pseudoaneurysms, occlusions, et cetera. I don't know about you, but if I have a AV graft, I can measure the volume flow at different points in the graft to get different numbers. How is that possible?
Absolutely not possible. You've got a tube with no branches that should be the same at the beginning and the end of the graft. But again, it becomes a simple math problem. The area that you're calculating is half the diameter squared.
So there's definitely measurement area with the electronic calipers. The velocity, you've got sampling error, you've got the anatomy, which distorts velocity, and then you've got the angle with which it is taken. So when you start multiplying all this,
you've got a big reason for variations in flow. We looked at 82 patients in our study. We double blinded it. We used a fistulagram as the gold standard. The duplex flow was calculated at three different spots. Duplex velocity at five different spots.
And then the diameters and aneurysmal areas were noted. This is the data. And basically, what it showed, was something totally non-significant. We really couldn't say anything about it. It was a trend toward lower flows,
how the gradients (mumbles) anastomosis, but nothing we could say. So as you all know, you can't really prove the null hypothesis. I'm not here to tell you to use one or use the other, I don't think that volume flow is something that
we can use as a predictor of success or failure, really. So in conclusion, what we found, is that Debbie Brow is right. Clinical examinations probably still the best technique. Look for abnormalities on dialysis. What's the use of duplex ultrasound in dialysis or patients?
And I think we're going to hear that in the next speaker. But probably good for vein mapping. Definitely good for vein mapping, arterial inflow, and maybe predicting maturation. Thank you very much.
- Good morning. Thank you very much. I realize the audience is a bit thin, but thank you very much Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to talk about this. As we all know, hyperbaric oxygen is a treatment that most of us
don't use in vascular surgery. However, we've been using it as a rescue treatment for spinal cord ischemia after all types of thoraco repair. These are my disclosures. So as we all know,
any type of thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair can result in interruption of the blood supply of the spinal cord. We know that some patients, about 10% will wake up with an immediate spinal cord injury, or often spinal cord injury can be delayed.
And the rates of spinal cord injury vary by both procedure and series. So open repairs, we all know the large experience published by Coselli, he had about a 9.6% total 30 day deficit rate, but ultimately only 2.9% had permanent paraplegia,
and 2.6 with permanent paraparesis. Now, fenestrated and branched cases, depending on which series you look at, and whether you look at meta-analysis, the rates of spinal cord injury rate between eight and 13%.
Now the spinal cord blood flow is a network of blood supply. We've got the anterior spinal artery which is the key collateral in the front of the spinal cord, which supplies the anterior two-thirds of the cord.
And that's where the important tracts that deliver motor and sensory signals to your legs exist. Now, segmental arteries play a key component of this, and we've all heard many years worth of talk about the Artery of Adamkiewicz,
but we know that's not the only artery that's important, and these small segmental vessels that are coming in to supply the spinal cord that you see in the cartoon on the bottom right, are critical in supplying the spinal cord blood flow. The etiology of cord injury is generally ischemic.
However, this can be potentiated by a systemic hypoperfusion. Some people believe that atheromatous embolic infarction is an important mechanism, and thrombosis of radicular arteries. We also have that mechanism of ischemia reperfusion
where there's ischemia during surgery and during clamp or after a deployment of an aortic graft, and that if you don't get reperfusion this proceeds to infarction. This cartoon on the left-hand side is from a recent article by Wynn and Archer
and it's really quite a good description of the mechanisms that lead to a spinal cord injury. Now, conventional therapy once spinal cord injury is discovered is really about maximizing perfusion to the cord by raising the mean blood pressure, optimizing hemoglobin delivery, CSF drainage,
but there are no proven drugs or adjuncts at the moment. Now why did we get interested in hyperbaric oxygen? Well there are many animal models and a lot of animal literature that suggests that hyperbaric oxygen has significant benefits. Now what are the mechanisms?
Well first of all, it's based on the fact that you can increase oxygen delivery to the cord by increasing the amount of dissolved oxygen. That's a fraction of the oxygen usually delivered by hemoglobin, but if you increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in the blood,
it can enhance diffusion into ischemic areas and that can have salutary effects on spinal cord function. The longer lasting effects have been documented in animal studies on anti-oxidant, oxidant mechanisms including nitric oxide, secretion of growth factors, modified inflammation and decreased
ischemia reperfusion injury. This is a recent article that we published based on our early experience, and basically what we do is patients who are identified as having spinal cord injury after thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair
get conventional therapy, with raising of the hemoglobin, raising of the blood pressure and enhanced spinal cord drainage. But if they don't respond and they're not improving, then we take them to the hyperbaric chamber
where they start out at 2.5 atmospheres and then are down to 2.4 for subsequent treatments. The main risk is oxygen toxicity and the patients are actually breathing 100% oxygen either through a hood or an endotracheal tube, and the other people that are monitoring them
in the chamber are at atmospheric pressure at, above atmospheric pressure, but having just regular 21% oxygen. The goal is to achieve supra physiologic concentrations of oxygen in the soluble in the plasma. And our initial therapy,
and this is described in seven patients, both a mixture of open and endovascular cases, and although not all patients recovered, we felt there was an important signal here. We've subsequently treated 18 patients, total of almost 90 therapies.
Average is five treatments per patient and we give it BID for the first two days. Six patients did not survive, but one of those completely recovered. We had nine patients who recovered from paraplegia and can ambulate, and three non, complete non-responders.
So in conclusion, hyperbaric oxygen is an experimental therapy. It raises the level of dissolved oxygen in the blood, potentially reperfusing the cord, and has about a 50% response rate after unresponsiveness to conventional therapy.
It's supported by limited animal data and it obviously requires larger studies and potentially randomized studies to determine its ultimate effectiveness. Thank you.
- Thank you Dr. Albaramum, it's a real pleasure to be here and I thank you for being here this early. I have no disclosures. So when everything else fails, we need to convert to open surgery, most of the times this leads to partial endograft removal,
complete removal clearly for infection, and then proximal control and distal control, which is typical in vascular surgery. Here's a 73 year old patient who two years after EVAR had an aneurism growth with what was thought
to be a type II endoleak, had coiling of the infermius mesenteric artery, but the aneurism continued to grow. So he was converted and what we find here is a type III endoleak from sutures in the endograft.
So, this patient had explantations, so it is my preference to have the nordic control with an endovascular technique through the graft where the graft gets punctured and then we put a 16 French Sheath, then we can put a aortic balloon.
And this avoids having to dissect the suprarenal aorta, particularly in devices that have super renal fixation. You can use a fogarty balloon or you can use the pruitt ballon, the advantage of the pruitt balloon is that it's over the wire.
So here's where we removed the device and in spite of the fact that we tried to collapse the super renal stent, you end up with an aortic endarterectomy and a renal endarterectomy which is not a desirable situation.
So, in this instance, it's not what we intend to do is we cut the super renal stent with wire cutters and then removed the struts individually. Here's the completion and preservation of iliac limbs, it's pretty much the norm in all of these cases,
unless they have, they're not well incorporated, it's a lot easier. It's not easy to control these iliac arteries from the inflammatory process that follows the placement of the endograft.
So here's another case where we think we're dealing with a type II endoleak, we do whatever it does for a type II endoleak and you can see here this is a pretty significant endoleak with enlargement of the aneurism.
So this patient gets converted and what's interesting is again, you see a suture hole, and in this case what we did is we just closed the suture hole, 'cause in my mind,
it would be simple to try and realign that graft if the endoleak persisted or recurred, as opposed to trying to remove the entire device. Here's the follow up on that patient, and this patient has remained without an endoleak, and the aneurism we resected
part of the sack, and the aneurism has remained collapsed. So here's another patient who's four years status post EVAR, two years after IMA coiling and what's interesting is when you do delayed,
because the aneurism sacks started to increase, we did delayed use and you see this blush here, and in this cases we know before converting the patient we would reline the graft thinking, that if it's a type III endoleak we can resolve it that way
otherwise then the patient would need conversion. So, how do we avoid the proximal aortic endarterectomy? We'll leave part of the proximal portion of the graft, you can transect the graft. A lot of these grafts can be clamped together with the aorta
and then you do a single anastomosis incorporating the graft and the aorta for the proximal anastomosis. Now here's a patient, 87 years old, had an EVAR,
the aneurism grew from 6 cm to 8.8 cm, he had coil embolization, translumbar injection of glue, we re-lined the endograft and the aneurism kept enlarging. So basically what we find here is a very large type II endoleak,
we actually just clip the vessel and then resected the sack and closed it, did not remove the device. So sometimes you can just preserve the entire device and just take care of the endoleak. Now when we have infection,
then we have to remove the entire device, and one alternative is to use extra-anatomic revascularization. Our preference however is to use cryo-preserved homograft with wide debridement of the infected area. These grafts are relatively easy to remove,
'cause they're not incorporated. On the proximal side you can see that there's a aortic clamp ready to go here, and then we're going to slide it out while we clamp the graft immediately, clamp the aorta immediately after removal.
And here's the reconstruction. Excuse me. For an endograft-duodenal fistula here's a patient that has typical findings, then on endoscopy you can see a little bit of the endograft, and then on an opergy I series
you actually see extravasation from the duodenal. In this case we have the aorta ready to be clamped, you can see the umbilical tape here, and then take down the fistula, and then once the fistula's down
you got to repair the duodenal with an omental patch, and then a cryopreserved reconstruction. Here's a TEVAR conversion, a patient with a contained ruptured mycotic aneurysm, we put an endovascular graft initially, Now in this patient we do the soraconomy
and the other thing we do is, we do circulatory support. I prefer to use ECMO, in this instances we put a very long canula into the right atrium, which you're anesthesiologist can confirm
with transassof forgeoligico. And then we use ECMO for circulatory support. The other thing we're doing now is we're putting antibiotic beads, with specific antibiotic's for the organism that has been cultured.
Here's another case where a very long endograft was removed and in this case, we put the device offline, away from the infected field and then we filled the field with antibiotic beads. So we've done 47 conversions,
12 of them were acute, 35 were chronic, and what's important is the mortality for acute conversion is significant. And at this point the, we avoid acute conversions,
most of those were in the early experience. Thank you.
- 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.
- Thank you (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- Thank you very much, chairman and ladies and gentlemen. The funding of this trial was from The Academy of Medical Sciences and The Royal College of Surgeons of England. AKI due to the influence EVAR is actually more common than we all think. This is being shown by prospective studies and registries.
Why is it important? Well, it's associated with a higher intra or inter hospital mortality, cardiovascular events and also long term cardiovascular events and longterm mortality. As even more common and complex, EVAR, and this can range from 22% up to 32%.
These are some of our cases, some of our first, including FEN astrate EVAR in 2010 Thoraco-Abdominal Branch repair 2016 and Fen astrated TEVAR 2018. These are longer procedures, usually with more contrast and direct ventilation after removing arteries.
What are the mechanisms for acute kidney injuries due to infer-renal EVAR? While this involves use of contrast, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, due to ischemic re-perfusion injury, manipulation of the thrombus, aorta and catheterizations which will ------ alpha
and also from high prophalinemia. There is no high-quality evidence for AKI prevention in EVAR. What about Sodium Bicarbonate? Well it's been well know to reduce what been used commonly to reduce CIN in high risk patients in perrifical and
corona graphy. There are two main mechanisms as to how this works. Firstly, from reducing renal tubular ischemia. Secondly, by reducing oxygen deprived free radical formation in the tubules. What is the evidence?
Well this is a met analysis, comparing Sodium Bicarbonate directly with hydration with normal saline, as shown in the orange box. There is no difference. We can look at the population ll
mostly CKD patients or diabetic patients, certainly Hartmann's patients but they are not EVAR patients. They are coronary patients or peripheral an-graphy patients. In addition, serum bicarbonate and the urine pH was not reported so we do not know how effective the Bicarbonate was in these RCT's.
The authors went on to look other outcomes including needful hemo dialysis, cardiac events, the mortality and they found no difference but they concluded the strength of this evidence was low and insufficient. A further Meta-analysis this time published in BMJ this time comes in favor of bicarbonate
but again this is comparing bicarbonate with saline no use of combination therapy. There are again no use of EVAR patients and these patients all have a low eGFR. The preserved trial, a large trial published earlier this year in the New England Journal again using various
treatments again comparing sodium bicarbonates and saline again no difference. But again this compares bicarbonate direct with saline with no combination therapies. In addition, there were no EVAR patients, and these are low eGFR patients.
The met-analysis also showed that by using bicarbonates as a bolus dose rather than a continuous infusion, which was actually the way they used bicarbonates in most of these patients might be better. And using a higher dose of bicarbonate may also be better as shown in this Japanese paper.
So we come to HYDRA trial. They're using a high dose bicarbonate in combination with hydration to protect renal function. We did a UK wide survey of anesthetists of day to day and they felt the best volume expander they would like to use was Hartmann's solution.
So we randomized patients between standard hydration with Hartmann's solution verses standard hydration Hartmann's plus high dose bicarbonate per operatively and low slow intravenous infusion bicarbonate during the surgery. Importantly, with these patients,
we kept the map within 80% of baseline, 90% of the time in contrary to all the RCT's coronary and angeo-porphyry. We're going to skip that slide. This is the inclusion criteria, any patient undergoing infra EVAR, with any renal disfunction,
the primary area you must look at is recruitment and the second area you must look at is AKI. We screened 109 patients of which, 58% were randomized and there were only 2 crossovers. There was a willingness for patients to participate and there was also a willingness for PET 4 Clinitions to
recruit as well. This is the demographics, which is typical of aortic patients they are all on by a few MRSA patients, have normal renal function. Most of the patients wear statins and anti pace agent, only 13% were diabetic.
The patients were matched in terms of hypertension and also fluid hydration pre-operatively measures of via impedance. Here are the results of the trial. The AKI instance in the standard hydration group was like 3% and 7.1% with standard hydration plus bicarbonate. And it was similar in terms of organotrophic support into
and postop and also contrast volume used. It's a safe regime with none of the patients suffering as a result of using bicarbonate. So to conclude, to answer professor Veith's question, about how was this trial different to all the other trials? Well, certainly the previous trials have compared
bicarbonate with saline, there's lack of combination studies that involve mostly coronary an peripheral procedures, not EVAR. And the the most only included patient with low eGFR. HYDRA is different, this is not a regime using high dose bolus of sodium bicarb combined with standard hydration.
It shows promise of reducing AKO. This is an EVAR specific pilot RCT. Again, Unlike previous trials using bicarbonate, 90% of the patients had normal or mild impaired renal function. And unlike previous trials, there's more aggressive management of hypertension intra and postoperatively.
Thank you for listening.
- Thanks Dr. Weaver. Thank you Dr. Reed for the invitation, once again, to this great meeting. These are my disclosures. So, open surgical repair of descending aortic arch disease still carries some significant morbidity and mortality.
And obviously TEVAR as we have mentioned in many of the presentations has become the treatment of choice for appropriate thoracic lesions, but still has some significant limitations of seal in the aortic arch and more techniques are being developed to address that.
Right now, we also need to cover the left subclavian artery and encroach or cover the left common carotid artery for optimal seal, if that's the area that we're trying to address. So zone 2, which is the one that's,
it is most commonly used as seal for the aortic arch requires accurate device deployment to maximize the seal and really avoid ultimately, coverage of the left common carotid artery and have to address it as an emergency. Seal, in many of these cases is not maximized
due to the concern of occlusion of the left common carotid artery and many of the devices are deployed without obtaining maximum seal in that particular area. Failure of accurate deployment often leads to a type IA endoleak or inadvertent coverage
of the left common carotid artery which can become a significant problem. The most common hybrid procedures in this group of patients include the use of TEVAR, a carotid-subclavian reconstruction and left common carotid artery stenting,
which is hopefully mostly planned, but many of the times, especially when you're starting, it may be completely unplanned. The left common carotid chimney has been increasingly used to obtain a better seal
in this particular group of patients with challenging arches, but there's still significant concerns, including patients having super-vascular complications, stroke, Type A retrograde dissections and a persistent Type IA endoleak
which can be very challenging to be able to correct. There's limited data to discuss this specific topic, but some of the recent publications included a series of 11 to 13 years of treatment with a variety of chimneys.
And these publications suggest that the left common carotid chimneys are the most commonly used chimneys in the aortic arch, being used 76% to 89% of the time in these series. We can also look at these and the technical success
is very good. Mortality's very low. The stroke rate is quite variable depending on the series and chimney patency's very good. But we still have a relatively high persistent
Type IA endoleak on these procedures. So what can we do to try to improve the results that we have? And some of these techniques are clearly applicable for elective or emergency procedures. In the elective setting,
an open left carotid access and subclavian access can be obtained via a supraclavicular approach. And then a subclavian transposition or a carotid-subclavian bypass can be performed in preparation for the endovascular repair. Following that reconstruction,
retrograde access to left common carotid artery can be very helpful with a 7 French sheath and this can be used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes at the same time. The 7 French sheath can easily accommodate most of the available covered and uncovered
balloon expandable stents if the situation arises that it's necessary. Alignment of the TEVAR is critical with maximum seal and accurate placement of the TEVAR at this location is paramount to be able to have a good result.
At that point, the left common carotid artery chimney can be deployed under control of the left common carotid artery. To avoid any embolization, the carotid can be flushed, primary repaired, and the subclavian can be addressed
if there is concern of a persistent retrograde leak with embolization with a plug or other devices. The order can be changed for the procedure to be able to be done emergently as it is in this 46 year old policeman with hypertension and a ruptured thoracic aneurism.
The patient had the left common carotid access first, the device deployed appropriately, and the carotid-subclavian bypass performed in a more elective fashion after the rupture had been addressed. So, in conclusion, carotid chimney's and TEVAR
combination is a frequently used to obtain additional seal on the aortic arch, with pretty good results. Early retrograde left common carotid access allows safe TEVAR deployment with maximum seal,
and the procedure can be safely performed with low morbidity and mortality if we select the patients appropriately. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much and I would like to thank Dr. Veit for the kind invitation, this is really great meeting. Those are my disclosures. Percutaneous EVAR has been first reported in the late 1990's. However, for many reasons it has not been embraced
by the vascular community, despite the fact that it has been shown that the procedure can be done under local anesthesia and it decreases OR time, time to ambulation, wound complication and length of stay. There are three landmark papers which actually change this trend and make PEVAR more popular.
All of these three papers concluded that failure or observed failure of PEVAR are observed and addressed in the OR which is a key issue. And there was no late failures. Another paper which is really very prominent
is a prospective randomize study that's reported by Endologix and published in 2014. Which revealed that PEVAR closure of the arteriotomy is not inferior to open cut down. Basically, this paper also made it possible for the FDA to approve the device, the ProGlide device,
for closure of large bore arteriotomies, up to 26 in the arterial system and 29 in the venous system. We introduced percutaneous access first policy in our institution 2012. And recently we analyzed our results of 272 elective EVAR performed during the 2012 to 2016.
And we attempted PEVAR in 206 cases. And were successful in 92% of cases. But the question was what happened with the patient that failed PEVAR? And what we found that was significantly higher thrombosis, vessel thrombosis,
as well as blood loss, more than 500 cc in the failed PEVAR group. Similarly, there was longer operative time and post-operative length of stay was significantly longer. However, in this relatively small group of patients who we scheduled for cut-down due to different reasons,
we found that actually there was no difference between the PEVAR and the cut-down, failed PEVAR and cut-down in the terms of blood loss, thrombosis of the vessel, operative time and post-operative length of stay. So what are the predictors of ProGlide failure?
Small vessel calcification, particularly anterior wall calcification, prior cut-down and scarring of the groin, high femoral bifurcation and use of large bore sheaths, as well as morbid obesity. So how can we avoid failures?
I think that the key issue is access. So we recommend that all access now or we demand from our fellow that when we're going to do the operation with them, cut-down during fluoroscopy on the ultra-sound guidance, using micropuncture kits and access angiogram is actually mandatory.
But what happened when there is a lack of hemostasis once we've deployed two PEVARs? Number one, we try not to use more than three ProGlide on each side. Once the three ProGlide failed we use the angioseal. There's a new technique that we can have body wire
and deployed angioseal and still have an access. We also developed a technique that we pack the access site routinely with gelfoam and thrombin. And also we use so-called pull and clamp technique, shown here. Basically what it is, we pull the string of the ProGlide
and clamp it on the skin level. This is actually a very very very good technique. So in conclusion, PEVAR first approach strategy successful in more than 90% of cases, reduced operative time and postoperative length of stay, the failure occurred more commonly when the PEVAR
was completed outside of IFU, and there was no differences in outcome between failed PEVAR and planned femoral cut-down. Thank you.
- [Speaker] Good morning everybody thanks for attending the session and again thanks for the invitation. These are my disclosures. I will start by illustrating one of the cases where we did not use cone beam CT and evidently there were numerous mistakes on this
from planning to conducting the case. But we didn't notice on the completion of geography in folding of the stent which was very clearly apparent on the first CT scan. Fortunately we were able to revise this and have a good outcome.
That certainly led to unnecessary re intervention. We have looked at over the years our usage of fusion and cone beam and as you can see for fenestrated cases, pretty much this was incorporated routinely in our practice in the later part of the experience.
When we looked at the study of the patients that didn't have the cone beam CT, eight percent had re intervention from a technical problem that was potentially avoidable and on the group that had cone beam CT, eight percent had findings that were immediately revised with no
re interventions that were potentially avoidable. This is the concept of our GE Discovery System with fusion and the ability to do cone beam CT. Our protocol includes two spins. First we do one without contrast to evaluate calcification and other artifacts and also to generate a rotational DSA.
That can be also analyzed on axial coronal with a 3D reconstruction. Which essentially evaluates the segment that was treated, whether it was the arch on the arch branch on a thoracoabdominal or aortoiliac segment.
We have recently conducted a prospective non-randomized study that was presented at the Vascular Annual Meeting by Dr. Tenario. On this study, we looked at findings that were to prompt an immediate re intervention that is either a type one
or a type 3 endoleak or a severe stent compression. This was a prospective study so we could be judged for being over cautious but 25% of the procedures had 52 positive findings. That included most often a stent compression or kink in 17% a type one or three endoleak
in 9% or a minority with dissection and thrombus. Evidently not all this triggered an immediate revision, but 16% we elected to treat because we thought it was potentially going to lead to a bad complication. Here is a case where on the completion selective angiography
of the SMA this apparently looks very good without any lesions. However on the cone beam CT, you can see on the axial view a dissection flap. We immediately re catheterized the SMA. You note here there is abrupt stop of the SMA.
We were unable to catheterize this with a blood wire. That led to a conversion where after proximal control we opened the SMA. There was a dissection flap which was excised using balloon control in the stent as proximal control.
We placed a patch and we got a good result with no complications. But considerably, if this patient was missed in the OR and found hours after the procedure he would have major mesenteric ischemia. On this study, DSA alone would have missed
positive findings in 34 of the 43 procedures, or 79% of the procedures that had positive findings including 21 of the 28 that triggered immediate revision. There were only four procedures. 2% had additional findings on the CT
that were not detectable by either the DSA or cone beam CT. And those were usually in the femoro puncture. For example one of the patients had a femoro puncture occlusion that was noted immediately by the femoro pulse.
The DSA accounts for approximately 20% of our total radiation dose. However, it allows us to eliminate CT post operatively which was done as part of this protocol, and therefore the amount of radiation exposed for the patient
was decreased by 55-65% in addition to the cost containment of avoiding this first CT scan in our prospective protocol. In conclusion cone beam CT has allowed immediate assessment to identify technical problems that are not easily detectable by DSA.
These immediate revisions may avoid unnecessary re interventions. What to do if you don't have it? You have to be aware that this procedure that are complex, they are bound to have some technical mistakes. You have to have incredible attention to detail.
Evidently the procedures can be done, but you would have to have a low threshold to revise. For example a flared stent if the dilator of the relic gleam or the dilator of you bifurcated devise encroach the stent during parts of the procedure. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much. It's an hono ou to the committee for the invitation. So, I'll be discussing activity recommendations for our patients after cervical artery dissection. I have no relevant disclosures.
And extracranial cervical artery dissection is an imaging diagnosis as we know with a variety of presentations. You can see on the far left the intimal flap and double lumen in the left vertebral artery
on both coronal and axial imaging, a pseudoaneurysm of the internal carotid artery, aneurysmal degeneration in an older dissection, and an area of long, smooth narrowing followed by normal artery, and finally a flame-tipped occlusion.
Now, this affects our younger patients with really opposity of atherosclerotic risk factors. So, cervical artery dissection accounts for up to 25% of stroke in patients under the age of 45. And, other than hypertension, it's not associated with any cardiovascular risk factors.
There is a male predominance, although women with dissections seem to present about five years younger. And there is an indication that there may be a systemic ateriopathy contributing to this in our patients, and I'll show you some brief data regarding that.
So, in studies that have looked at vessel redundancy, including loops, coils, and in the video image, an S curve on carotid duplex. Patients with cervical artery dissection have a much higher proportion of these findings, up to three to four times more than
age and sex matched controls. They also have findings on histology of the temporal artery when biopsied. So one study did this and these patients had abnormal capillary formation as well as extravasation of blood cells between the median adventitia
of the superficial temporal artery. And there is an association with FMD and a shared genetic polymorphism indicating that there may be shared pathophysiology for these conditions. But in addition, a lot of patients report minor trauma around the time or event of cervical artery dissection.
So this data from CADISP, and up to 40% of cases had minor trauma related to their dissection, including chiropractic neck manipulation, extreme head movements, or stretching, weight lifting, and sports-related injuries. Thankfully, the majority of patients do very well after
they have a dissection event, but a big area of concern for the patient and their provider is their risk for recurrence. That's highest around the original event, about 2% within the first month, and thereafter, it's stable at 1% per year,
although recurrent pain can linger for many years. So what can we tell our patients in terms of reducing their risk for a recurrent event? Well, most of the methods are around reducing any sort of impulse, stress, or pressure on the arteries, both intrinsically and extrinsically,
including blood pressure control. I advise my patients to avoid heavy lifting, and by that I mean more than 30 pounds, and intense valsalva or isometric exercise. So shown here is a photo of the original World's Strongest Man lifting four
adult-sized males in addition to weights, but there's been studies in the physiology literature with healthy, younger males in their 20s, and they're asked to do a double-leg press, or even arm-curls, and with this exercise and repetitions, they can get mean systolic pressures,
or mean pressures up into the 300s, as well as heart rate into the 170s. I also tell my patients to avoid any chiropractic neck manipulation or deep tissue massage of the neck, as well as high G-force activities like a roller coaster.
There are some case reports of cervical artery dissection related to this. And then finally, what can they do about cardio? A lot of these patients are very anxious, they're concerned about re-incorporating exercise after they've been through something like this,
so I try to give them some kind of guidelines and parameters that they can follow when they re institute exercise, not unlike cardiac rehabilitation. So initially, I tell them "You can do light walking, but if you don't feel well,
or something's hurting, neck pain, headache, don't push it." Thereafter, they can intensify to a heart rate maximum of 70-75% of their maximum predicted heart rate, and that's somewhere between months zero and three, and then afterwards when they're feeling near normal,
I give them an absolute limit of 90% of their maximum predicted heart rate. And I advise all of my patients to avoid extreme exercise like Orange Theory, maybe even extreme cycling classes, marathons, et cetera. Thank you.
- Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, thank you very much for the podium. Right, my opponent Professor Hogan, has just given his statement asking you to abandon two fenestrated endovascular repairs in favor of three and four fenestrations, but this picture proves to you that during his spare time,
he's actively promoting single fenestration devices, actually. Just keep that in mind. My contention is that three and four branch fenestrated EVARs result in higher complications and higher mortality, which means that they should be avoided if at all possible.
What exactly are the critical issues that are at question here? Do four fenestrated endovascular repairs carry higher risk of complications compared to simpler devices? If they do, are the worth it? However, my opponent is also one of the world's
experts in this area. We've definitely learned quite a lot from him in the early stage of our program about 10-13 years ago. So, he usually has something sensible to say, has he got a point? My plan for this debate is to give you a very balanced view
based on multicenter data. Don't forget, the very compelling data Eric showed you are his single-center series. It is not easy to replicate his results in most other centers. I also would like to keep the debate clean.
Now, coming to the facts, four fenestrated repairs, beyond a doubt, just take more operating time than simpler devices. They're also technically one of the most challenging of aneurysm repairs that you do. They do test your center and team's experience.
Definitely in extricating oneself from intra-operator difficulties, and also, experience gives you the confidence through the operation that you will see the day through. It's also the case that the greater length of aorta is covered by stent graft fabric,
the more lumbars are taken, compromising the spinal cord blood supply further, which is a significant factor. This is a multicenter series from UK, from Terumo Aortic, their Anaconda Fenestrated platform multicenter series of their first 101 devices.
You notice that when the seals are extended to above celiac axis, which means four fenestrated devices, they had a much higher mortality compared to simpler devices. There's also the British Society of Endovascular Therapies Globalstar registry, which I run, currently has got
just over 850 patients registered, and we had data adequate for analysis in 533 patients. Being a much more spread out multicenter series, the results are worse. And you notice that three and four fenestrated devices in this pragmatic multicenter nationwide series
have got a much higher, substantially higher, death rate compared to simpler devices, which is statistically significant. In the long run, up to about four to five years, you notice that four fenestrated do carry a higher, slightly higher risk of re-intervention,
but the overall mortality is not hugely different. The numbers do dwindle. There are very few numbers up to ten years. So, it's not worth looking after 40 years of research. Paraplegia, the Globalstar registry had a total of six paraplegia occurrences reported.
Five of those are in patients who had four fenestrated devices put in. This is definitely worth remembering. It is a complication that really sinks you hard. So, in conclusion, the complexity of device should actually not be compared
without the context of anatomy. Frequently, to get an adequate and durable seal, you do need four fenestrations. However, remember, multicenter series do conclusively show that four fenestrateds are definitely more dangerous compared to the simpler of the devices.
However, this increased risk has to be compared against the perceived risk of alternative treatments such as open repair. So to conclude, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the primary aim of fenestrated repair is actually to achieve satisfactory seal zone, which I would say,
which I would say probably at least 20 millimeters of aorta, which is relatively free from calcification or thrombus. That is the bare minimum we should be looking at to get a durable seal. While that is the primary concern, and we need to incorporate as many number of fenestrations
as are technically required depending on your platform that you wish to use. The number of fenestrations themselves are, in fact, secondary and less important. However, if you are able to achieve such a good durable seal without using three or four fenestrations,
more complex devices are certainly not worth it. Thank you very much for your attention.
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- Good morning, thank you, Dr. Veith, for the invitation. My disclosures. So, renal artery anomalies, fairly rare. Renal ectopia and fusion, leading to horseshoe kidneys or pelvic kidneys, are fairly rare, in less than one percent of the population. Renal transplants, that is patients with existing
renal transplants who develop aneurysms, clearly these are patients who are 10 to 20 or more years beyond their initial transplantation, or maybe an increasing number of patients that are developing aneurysms and are treated. All of these involve a renal artery origin that is
near the aortic bifurcation or into the iliac arteries, making potential repair options limited. So this is a personal, clinical series, over an eight year span, when I was at the University of South Florida & Tampa, that's 18 patients, nine renal transplants, six congenital
pelvic kidneys, three horseshoe kidneys, with varied aorto-iliac aneurysmal pathologies, it leaves half of these patients have iliac artery pathologies on top of their aortic aneurysms, or in place of the making repair options fairly difficult. Over half of the patients had renal insufficiency
and renal protective maneuvers were used in all patients in this trial with those measures listed on the slide. All of these were elective cases, all were technically successful, with a fair amount of followup afterward. The reconstruction priorities or goals of the operation are to maintain blood flow to that atypical kidney,
except in circumstances where there were multiple renal arteries, and then a small accessory renal artery would be covered with a potential endovascular solution, and to exclude the aneurysms with adequate fixation lengths. So, in this experience, we were able, I was able to treat eight of the 18 patients with a fairly straightforward
endovascular solution, aorto-biiliac or aorto-aortic endografts. There were four patients all requiring open reconstructions without any obvious endovascular or hybrid options, but I'd like to focus on these hybrid options, several of these, an endohybrid approach using aorto-iliac
endografts, cross femoral bypass in some form of iliac embolization with an attempt to try to maintain flow to hypogastric arteries and maintain antegrade flow into that pelvic atypical renal artery, and a open hybrid approach where a renal artery can be transposed, and endografting a solution can be utilized.
The overall outcomes, fairly poor survival of these patients with a 50% survival at approximately two years, but there were no aortic related mortalities, all the renal artery reconstructions were patented last followup by Duplex or CT imaging. No aneurysms ruptures or aortic reinterventions or open
conversions were needed. So, focus specifically in a treatment algorithm, here in this complex group of patients, I think if the atypical renal artery comes off distal aorta, you have several treatment options. Most of these are going to be open, but if it is a small
accessory with multiple renal arteries, such as in certain cases of horseshoe kidneys, you may be able to get away with an endovascular approach with coverage of those small accessory arteries, an open hybrid approach which we utilized in a single case in the series with open transposition through a limited
incision from the distal aorta down to the distal iliac, and then actually a fenestrated endovascular repair of his complex aneurysm. Finally, an open approach, where direct aorto-ilio-femoral reconstruction with a bypass and reimplantation of that renal artery was done,
but in the patients with atypical renals off the iliac segment, I think you utilizing these endohybrid options can come up with some creative solutions, and utilize, if there is some common iliac occlusive disease or aneurysmal disease, you can maintain antegrade flow into these renal arteries from the pelvis
and utilize cross femoral bypass and contralateral occlusions. So, good options with AUIs, with an endohybrid approach in these difficult patients. Thank you.
- These are my disclosures. So central venous access is frequently employed throughout the world for a variety of purposes. These catheters range anywhere between seven and 11 French sheaths. And it's recognized, even in the best case scenario, that there are iatrogenic arterial injuries
that can occur, ranging between three to 5%. And even a smaller proportion of patients will present after complications from access with either a pseudoaneurysm, fistula formation, dissection, or distal embolization. In thinking about these, as you see these as consultations
on your service, our thoughts are to think about it in four primary things. Number one is the anatomic location, and I think imaging is very helpful. This is a vas cath in the carotid artery. The second is th
how long the device has been dwelling in the carotid or the subclavian circulation. Assessment for thrombus around the catheter, and then obviously the size of the hole and the size of the catheter.
Several years ago we undertook a retrospective review and looked at this, and we looked at all carotid, subclavian, and innominate iatrogenic injuries, and we excluded all the injuries that were treated, that were manifest early and treated with just manual compression.
It's a small cohort of patients, we had 12 cases. Eight were treated with a variety of endovascular techniques and four were treated with open surgery. So, to illustrate our approach, I thought what I would do is just show you four cases on how we treated some of these types of problems.
The first one is a 75 year-old gentleman who's three days status post a coronary bypass graft with a LIMA graft to his LAD. He had a cordis catheter in his chest on the left side, which was discovered to be in the left subclavian artery as opposed to the vein.
So this nine French sheath, this is the imaging showing where the entry site is, just underneath the clavicle. You can see the vertebral and the IMA are both patent. And this is an angiogram from a catheter with which was placed in the femoral artery at the time that we were going to take care of this
with a four French catheter. For this case, we had duel access, so we had access from the groin with a sheath and a wire in place in case we needed to treat this from below. Then from above, we rewired the cordis catheter,
placed a suture-mediated closure device, sutured it down, left the wire in place, and shot this angiogram, which you can see very clearly has now taken care of the bleeding site. There's some pinching here after the wire was removed,
this abated without any difficulty. Second case is a 26 year-old woman with a diagnosis of vascular EDS. She presented to the operating room for a small bowel obstruction. Anesthesia has tried to attempt to put a central venous
catheter access in there. There unfortunately was an injury to the right subclavian vein. After she recovered from her operation, on cross sectional imaging you can see that she has this large pseudoaneurysm
coming from the subclavian artery on this axial cut and also on the sagittal view. Because she's a vascular EDS patient, we did this open brachial approach. We placed a stent graft across the area of injury to exclude the aneurism.
And you can see that there's still some filling in this region here. And it appeared to be coming from the internal mammary artery. We gave her a few days, it still was patent. Cross-sectional imaging confirmed this,
and so this was eventually treated with thoracoscopic clipping and resolved flow into the aneurism. The next case is a little bit more complicated. This is an 80 year-old woman with polycythemia vera who had a plasmapheresis catheter,
nine French sheath placed on the left subclavian artery which was diagnosed five days post procedure when she presented with a posterior circulation stroke. As you can see on the imaging, her vertebral's open, her mammary's open, she has this catheter in the significant clot
in this region. To manage this, again, we did duel access. So right femoral approach, left brachial approach. We placed the filter element in the vertebral artery. Balloon occlusion of the subclavian, and then a stent graft coverage of the area
and took the plasmapheresis catheter out and then suction embolectomy. And then the last case is a 47 year-old woman who had an attempted right subclavian vein access and it was known that she had a pulsatile mass in the supraclavicular fossa.
Was noted to have a 3cm subclavian artery pseudoaneurysm. Very broad base, short neck, and we elected to treat this with open surgical technique. So I think as you see these consults, the things to factor in to your management decision are: number one, the location.
Number two, the complication of whether it's thrombus, pseudoaneurysm, or fistula. It's very important to identify whether there is pericatheter thrombus. There's a variety of techniques available for treatment, ranging from manual compression,
endovascular techniques, and open repair. I think the primary point here is the prevention with ultrasound guidance is very important when placing these catheters. Thank you. (clapping)
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- So I'm going to be talking about allografts for peripheral graft infections. This is a femoral artery that's been replaced after a closure device infection and complication, and we've bypassed to the SFA and profunda femoris. These are my disclosures. So peripheral arterial infectious processes,
well the etiology either is primary or secondary. Primary can be from bacteremic states and seeding of ulcerated plaque or thrombus. Secondary reasons for infections can be the vast usage of percutaneous closure devices that really have flooded the market these days.
Prosthetic graft infections after either a bypass or patch in the femoral artery. So early onset infections usually are from break in sterility. Secondary infections can be from either wound breakdowns or late seeding of the prosthetic graft.
The presentation for these patients can be relatively minor such as cellulitis or draining sinus, or much more dramatic, such as sepsis or pseudoaneurysm or mycotic aneurysm. On the CT scan we can see infected mycotic aneurysm after infected closure device and bleeding complications.
The treatment is broad in range. Ligation is obviously one option, but it leads to a very high risk of major limb amputation. So ideally some form of reconstruction, either extra-anatomic through clean planes,
antibiotic graft as we heard from the previous speaker, the use of autologous replacement with deep vein, or we become big proponents of the use of cryopreserved arterial allografts for reconstruction. And much of this stems from our work from about 10 years ago, where we looked
at the use of aortic cryopreserved grafts for aortic graft infections. This was published about 10 years ago but we looked at a small series of patients with aortic infections. You can see the CT scan of an infected stent graft
and associated aneurysm. And then the intraoperative photo after we've resected the stent graft and replaced that segment of the aorta with a cryopreserved aortic segment. So using that as a springboard,
we then decided to look at the outcomes using these types of conduits, arterial conduits, for peripheral arterial reconstructions in contaminated or infected surgical fields. So retrospective review at our tertiary care center, we looked at roughly 60 patients over a 15-year period
and excluded any aortic-based reconstructions. So these are all peripheral reconstructions. Mean follow-up was 28 months. As you would expect, the distribution of treatment zones were primarily in the lower extremities, so 51 cases.
As you can see, there's a list of all the different types of cases that we treated. But then there were a few upper extremity visceral and then carotid. I've shown this slide before at this meeting in the past, with a carotid patch infection
that was treated after it had a blow-out, and it's obviously a infected aneurysm, and this was treated with resection and a cryopreserved arterial segment. Looking at our outcomes, the 30-day outcome showed a mortality rate of 9%.
The 30-day conduit-related complication rate was surprisingly low at 14%. We had four patients that had bleeding complications, four patients with recurrent infectious complications. All eight of those patients required a return back to the operating room for correction.
The late conduit-related complication rate was only 16%. As listed here, you can see there's only one case of reinfection, three cases of graft thrombosis, surprisingly only one major limb amputation, two pseudoaneurysms and one late bleeding complication.
And graphically depicted, you can see here, this area here is looking at the less than 30 days, this is primarily when the complications occur. When you get to six months, fewer complications, and then beyond six months, the primary complications that we would see are either thrombosis of the graft
or the development of late pseudoaneurysms, again relatively low. So in summary, I think peripheral arterial infectious complications can be treated with a cryopreserved arterial allografts. The advantage is it's a single stage operation,
maintains in-line flow, there's a low incidence of repeat infection. I think it's also important to mention that the majority of these patients had adjunctive muscle flap coverage to cover the large soft tissue defect
at the time of the operation. So I think that this is a valuable alternative conduit in a setting of peripheral arterial infections. Thank you.
- So, my topic today is: Antegrade In Situ Fenestration for Fenestrated EVAR: How To Do It. Here are my disclosures. So, Jean Panneton has shown already the validity of retrograde laser fenestration. That is a feasible technique,
an effective option for acute thoracic pathology, with an excellent midterm patency, which it is very easy to do retrograde laser fenestration compared to an anterograde technique. We have done a lot of bench tests to perform all like this (mumbles).
So, the in situ laser fenestration technique is an off-label procedure. It is a bailout solution, and dedicated to emergent cases, patient unfit to open repair, or unfit to CMD device.
And we use this technique for left subclavian arch, and the anterograde technique for visceral arteries, and in a few cases of TEVAR. This is a technique. I use a Heli-FX 16 French. And I use
a 0.9 laser probe. We don't need to use another laser probe for this technique to avoid any larger hole. This is the steps for the technique. I do a primary stenting of the arteries using your effusion.
And then I do the endovascular exclusion. I position the steerable sheath at the level of the targeted artery and then do laser fenestration. This is a pre-stenting. And then the graft deployment
at the level of the seating zone. This was a type 1A endoleak after EVAR. The next step is to do the laser fenestration. You can see the tip of the laser probe. (Mumbles)
You could see the tip of the laser probe coming in the lumen of the SMA. And, we'll then, after this laser fenestration, quite easy, we'll then do
an enlargement of the ULL, using first a small cutting balloon and then do a progressive dilation using a bigger balloon, four millimeter, and then a six millimeter balloon.
The next step is to do, like, what we do for fenestrated cases, we do the bridging covered stent. Yeah, at the level of the SMA, and then the flairing, to have a good sealer
of the proximal part of the bridging stent. After the SMA, we then do the renal fenestration. And we used to stop with the celiac trunk. Our main indications are juxta para renal aneurysm, or type 1A Endoleak when there is a straight aorta. And in a few cases, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.
This is an example of a type 1A endoleak, as I have presented. This is our first trial with 16 patients, treated on between three years. And we have now 29 patients with laser fenestration EVAR,
66 fenestrations, 5% of aortic aneurysm treated in our center. The median ischemic time is 12 minutes for the SMA, one hour for the renal arteries, and around two hours for the celiac trunk. The fenestration success rate is 95%.
Here are the outcomes. There was no mortality, even for very old patients. 16% of transitory dialysis. No spinal cord ischemia, one case of pneumonia, and the short follow-up of 22 months with 24 re-operations
in seven patients. Here are my conclusion. The laser fenestration EVAR must not be used for elective cases. In our strategy, the best options for urgent thoracoabdominal is to use
an off-the-shelf graft, like the T-branch. If a custom-made device graft is not available, the laser fenestration will be our reference treatment, and you don't need any brachial or axillary approach for this technique. Thank you very much.
- Good morning everybody. Here are my disclosures. So, upper extremity access is an important adjunct for some of the complex endovascular work that we do. It's necessary for chimney approaches, it's necessary for fenestrated at times. Intermittently for TEVAR, and for
what I like to call FEVARCh which is when you combine fenestrated repair with a chimney apporach for thoracoabdominals here in the U.S. Where we're more limited with the devices that we have available in our institutions for most of us. This shows you for a TEVAR with a patient
with an aortic occlusion through a right infracrevicular approach, we're able to place a conduit and then a 22-french dryseal sheath in order to place a TEVAR in a patient with a penetrating ulcer that had ruptured, and had an occluded aorta.
In addition, you can use this for complex techniques in the ascending aorta. Here you see a patient who had a prior heart transplant, developed a pseudoaneurysm in his suture line. We come in through a left axillary approach with our stiff wire.
We have a diagnostic catheter through the femoral. We're able to place a couple cuffs in an off-label fashion to treat this with a technically good result. For FEVARCh, as I mentioned, it's a good combination for a fenestrated repair.
Here you have a type IV thoraco fenestrated in place with a chimney in the left renal, we get additional seal zone up above the celiac this way. Here you see the vessels cannulated. And then with a nice type IV repaired in endovascular fashion, using a combination of techniques.
But the questions always arise. Which side? Which vessel? What's the stroke risk? How can we try to be as conscientious as possible to minimize those risks? Excuse me. So, anecdotally the right side has been less safe,
or concerned that it causes more troubles, but we feel like it's easier to work from the right side. Sorry. When you look at the image intensifier as it's coming in from the patient's left, we can all be together on the patient's right. We don't have to work underneath the image intensifier,
and felt like right was a better approach. So, can we minimize stroke risk for either side, but can we minimize stroke risk in general? So, what we typically do is tuck both arms, makes lateral imaging a lot easier to do rather than having an arm out.
Our anesthesiologist, although we try not to help them too much, but it actually makes it easier for them to have both arms available. When we look at which vessel is the best to use to try to do these techniques, we felt that the subclavian artery is a big challenge,
just the way it is above the clavicle, to be able to get multiple devices through there. We usually feel that the brachial artery's too small. Especially if you're going to place more than one sheath. So we like to call, at our institution, the Goldilocks phenomenon for those of you
who know that story, and the axillary artery is just right. And that's the one that we use. When we use only one or two sheaths we just do a direct puncture. Usually through a previously placed pledgeted stitch. It's a fairly easy exposure just through the pec major.
Split that muscle then divide the pec minor, and can get there relatively easily. This is what that looks like. You can see after a sheath's been removed, a pledgeted suture has been tied down and we get good hemostasis this way.
If we're going to use more than two sheaths, we prefer an axillary conduit, and here you see that approach. We use the self-sealing graft. Whenever I have more than two sheaths in, I always label the sheaths because
I can't remember what's in what vessel. So, you can see yes, I made there, I have another one labeled right renal, just so I can remember which sheath is in which vessel. We always navigate the arch first now. So we get all of our sheaths across the arch
before we selective catheterize the visceral vessels. We think this partly helps minimize that risk. Obviously, any arch manipulation is a concern, but if we can get everything done at once and then we can focus on the visceral segment. We feel like that's a better approach and seems
to be better for what we've done in our experience. So here's our results over the past five-ish years or so. Almost 400 aortic interventions total, with 72 of them requiring some sort of upper extremity access for different procedures. One for placement of zone zero device, which I showed you,
sac embolization, and two for imaging. We have these number of patients, and then all these chimney grafts that have been placed in different vessels. Here's the patients with different number of branches. Our access you can see here, with the majority
being done through right axillary approach. The technical success was high, mortality rate was reasonable in this group of patients. With the strokes being listed there. One rupture, which is treated with a covered stent. The strokes, two were ischemic,
one hemorrhagic, and one mixed. When you compare the group to our initial group, more women, longer hospital stay, more of the patients had prior aortic interventions, and the mortality rate was higher. So in conclusion, we think that
this is technically feasible to do. That right side is just as safe as left side, and that potentially the right side is better for type III arches. Thank you very much.
- So Beyond Vascular procedures, I guess we've conquered all the vascular procedures, now we're going to conquer the world, so let me take a little bit of time to say that these are my conflicts, while doing that, I think it's important that we encourage people to access the hybrid rooms,
It's much more important that the tar-verse done in the Hybrid Room, rather than moving on to the CAT labs, so we have some idea basically of what's going on. That certainly compresses the Hybrid Room availability, but you can't argue for more resources
if the Hybrid Room is running half-empty for example, the only way you get it is by opening this up and so things like laser lead extractions or tar-verse are predominantly still done basically in our hybrid rooms, and we try to make access for them. I don't need to go through this,
you've now think that Doctor Shirttail made a convincing argument for 3D imaging and 3D acquisition. I think the fundamental next revolution in surgery, Every subspecialty is the availability of 3D imaging in the operating room.
We have lead the way in that in vascular surgery, but you think how this could revolutionize urology, general surgery, neurosurgery, and so I think it's very important that we battle for imaging control. Don't give your administration the idea that
you're going to settle for a C-arm, that's the beginning of the end if you do that, this okay to augment use C-arms to augment your practice, but if you're a finishing fellow, you make sure you go to a place that's going to give you access to full hybrid room,
otherwise, you are the subservient imagers compared to radiologists and cardiologists. We need that access to this high quality room. And the new buzzword you're going to hear about is Multi Modality Imaging Suites, this combination of imaging suites that are
being put together, top left deserves with MR, we think MR is the cardiovascular imaging modality of the future, there's a whole group at NIH working at MR Guided Interventions which we're interested in, and the bottom right is the CT-scan in a hybrid op
in a hybrid room, this is actually from MD Anderson. And I think this is actually the Trauma Room of the future, makes no sense to me to take a patient from an emergency room to a CT scanner to an and-jure suite to an operator it's the most dangerous thing we do
with a trauma patient and I think this is actually a position statement from the Trauma Society we're involved in, talk about how important it is to co-localize this imaging, and I think the trauma room of the future is going to be an and-jure suite
down with a CT scanner built into it, and you need to be flexible. Now, the Empire Strikes Back in terms of cloud-based fusion in that Siemans actually just released a portable C-arm that does cone-beam CT. C-arm's basically a rapidly improving,
and I think a lot of these things are going to be available to you at reduced cost. So let me move on and basically just show a couple of examples. What you learn are techniques, then what you do is look for applications to apply this, and so we've been doing
translumbar embolization using fusion and imaging guidance, and this is a case of one of my partners, he'd done an ascending repair, and the patient came back three weeks later and said he had sudden-onset chest pain and the CT-scan showed that there was a
sutured line dehiscence which is a little alarming. I tried to embolize that endovascular, could not get to that tiny little orifice, and so we decided to watch it, it got worse, and bigger, over the course of a week, so clearly we had to go ahead and basically and fix this,
and we opted to use this, using a new guidance system and going directly parasternal. You can do fusion of blood vessels or bones, you can do it off anything you can see on flu-roid, here we actually fused off the sternal wires and this allows you to see if there's
respiratory motion, you can measure in the workstation the depth really to the target was almost four and a half centimeters straight back from the second sternal wire and that allowed us really using this image guidance system when you set up what's called the bullseye view,
you look straight down the barrel of a needle, and then the laser turns on and the undersurface of the hybrid room shows you where to stick the needle. This is something that we'd refined from doing localization of lung nodules
and I'll show you that next. And so this is the system using the C-star, we use the breast, and the localization needle, and we can actually basically advance that straight into that cavity, and you can see once you get in it,
we confirmed it by injecting into it, you can see the pseudo-aneurism, you can see the immediate stain of hematoma and then we simply embolize that directly. This is probably safer than going endovascular because that little neck protects about
the embolization from actually taking place, and you can see what the complete snan-ja-gram actually looked like, we had a pig tail in the aura so we could co-linearly check what was going on and we used docto-gramming make sure we don't have embolization.
This patient now basically about three months follow-up and this is a nice way to completely dissolve by avoiding really doing this. Let me give you another example, this actually one came from our transplant surgeon he wanted to put in a vas,
he said this patient is really sick, so well, by definition they're usually pretty sick, they say we need to make a small incision and target this and so what we did was we scanned the vas, that's the hardware device you're looking at here. These have to be
oriented with the inlet nozzle looking directly into the orifice of the mitro wall, and so we scanned the heart with, what you see is what you get with these devices, they're not deformed, we take a cell phone and implant it in your chest,
still going to look like a cell phone. And so what we did, image fusion was then used with two completely different data sets, it mimicking the procedure, and we lined this up basically with a mitro valve, we then used that same imaging guidance system
I was showing you, made a little incision really doing onto the apex of the heart, and to the eur-aph for the return cannula, and this is basically what it looked like, and you can actually check the efficacy of this by scanning the patient post operatively
and see whether or not you executed on this basically the same way, and so this was all basically developed basing off Lung Nodule Localization Techniques with that we've kind of fairly extensively published, use with men can base one of our thoracic surgeons
so I'd encourage you to look at other opportunities by which you can help other specialties, 'cause I think this 3D imaging is going to transform what our capabilities actually are. Thank you very much indeed for your attention.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, and thank you Dr. Veith for the opportunity to present. So, acute aortic syndromes are difficult to treat and a challenge for any surgeon. In regionalization of care of acute aortic syndromes is now a topic of significant conversation. The thoughts are that you can move these patients
to an appropriate hospital infrastructure with surgical expertise and a team that's familiar with treating them. Higher volumes, better outcomes. It's a proven concept in trauma care. Logistics of time, distance, transfer mortality,
and cost are issues of concern. This is a study from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample which basically demonstrates the more volume, the lower mortality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. And this is a study from Clem Darling
and his Albany Group demonstrating that with their large practice, that if they could get patients transferred to their central hospital, that they had a higher incidence of EVAR with lower mortality. Basically, transfer equaled more EVARs and a
lower mortality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Matt Mell looked at interfacility transfer mortality in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms to try to see if actually, transfer improved mortality. The take home message was, operative transferred patients
did do better once they reached the institution of destination, however they had a significant mortality during transfer that basically negated that benefit. And transport time, interestingly did not affect mortality. So, regional aortic management, I think,
is something that is quite valuable. As mentioned, access to specialized centers decrease overall mortality and morbidity potentially. In transfer mortality a factor, transport time does not appear to be. So, we set up a rapid transport system
at Keck Medical Center. Basically predicated on 24/7 coverage, and we would transfer any patient within two hours to our institution that called our hotline. This is the number of transfers that we've had over the past three years.
About 250 acute aortic transfers at any given... On a year, about 20 to 30 a month. This is a study that we looked at, that transport process. 183 patients, this is early on in our experience. We did have two that expired en route. There's a listing of the various
pathologies that we treated. These patients were transferred from all over Southern California, including up to Central California, and we had one patient that came from Nevada. The overall mortality is listed here. Ruptured aortic aneurysms had the highest mortality.
We had a very, very good mortality with acute aortic dissections as you can see. We did a univariate and multivariate analysis to look at factors that might have affected transfer mortality and what we found was the SVS score greater than eight
had a very, very significant impact on overall mortality for patients that were transferred. What is a society for vascular surgery comorbidity score? It's basically an equation using cardiac pulmonary renal hypertension and age. The asterisks, cardiac, renal, and age
are important as I will show subsequently. So, Ben Starnes did a very elegant study that was just reported in the Journal of Vascular Surgery where he tried to create a preoperative risk score for prediction of mortality after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
He found four factors and did an ROC curve. Basically, age greater than 76, creatinine greater than two, blood pressure less than 70, or PH less than 7.2. As you can see, as those factors accumulated there was step-wise increased mortality up to 100% with four factors.
So, rapid transport to regional aortic centers does facilitate the care of acute aortic syndromes. Transfer mortality is a factor, however. Transport mode, time, distance are not associated with mortality. Decision making to deny and accept transfer is evolving
but I think renal status, age, physiologic insult are important factors that have been identified to determine whether transfer should be performed or not. Thank you very much.
- I want to thank the organizers for putting together such an excellent symposium. This is quite unique in our field. So the number of dialysis patients in the US is on the order of 700 thousand as of 2015, which is the last USRDS that's available. The reality is that adrenal disease is increasing worldwide
and the need for access is increasing. Of course fistula first is an important portion of what we do for these patients. But the reality is 80 to 90% of these patients end up starting with a tunneled dialysis catheter. While placement of a tunneled dialysis catheter
is considered fairly routine, it's also clearly associated with a small chance of mechanical complications on the order of 1% at least with bleeding or hema pneumothorax. And when we've looked through the literature, we can notice that these issues
that have been looked at have been, the literature is somewhat old. It seemed to be at variance of what our clinical practice was. So we decided, let's go look back at our data. Inpatients who underwent placement
of a tunneled dialysis catheter between 1998 and 2017 reviewed all their catheters. These are all inpatients. We have a 2,220 Tesio catheter places, in 1,400 different patients. 93% of them placed on the right side
and all the catheters were placed with ultrasound guidance for the puncture. Now the puncture in general was performed with an 18 gauge needle. However, if we notice that the vein was somewhat collapsing with respiratory variation,
then we would use a routinely use a micropuncture set. All of the patients after the procedures had chest x-ray performed at the end of the procedure. Just to document that everything was okay. The patients had the classic risk factors that you'd expect. They're old, diabetes, hypertension,
coronary artery disease, et cetera. In this consecutive series, we had no case of post operative hemo or pneumothorax. We had two cut downs, however, for arterial bleeding from branches of the external carotid artery that we couldn't see very well,
and when we took out the dilator, patient started to bleed. We had three patients in the series that had to have a subsequent revision of the catheter due to mal positioning of the catheter. We suggest that using modern day techniques
with ultrasound guidance that you can minimize your incidents of mechanical complications for tunnel dialysis catheter placement. We also suggest that other centers need to confirm this data using ultrasound guidance as a routine portion of the cannulation
of the internal jugular veins. The KDOQI guidelines actually do suggest the routine use of duplex ultrasonography for placement of tunnel dialysis catheters, but this really hasn't been incorporated in much of the literature outside of KDOQI.
We would suggest that it may actually be something that may be worth putting into the surgical critical care literature also. Now having said that, not everything was all roses. We did have some cases where things didn't go
so straight forward. We want to drill down a little bit into this also. We had 35 patients when we put, after we cannulated the vein, we can see that it was patent. If it wasn't we'd go to the other side
or do something else. But in 35%, 35 patients, we can put the needle into the vein and get good flashback but the wire won't go down into the central circulation.
Those patients, we would routinely do a venogram, we would try to cross the lesion if we saw a lesion. If it was a chronically occluded vein, and we weren't able to cross it, we would just go to another site. Those venograms, however, gave us some information.
On occasion, the vein which is torturous for some reason or another, we did a venogram, it was torturous. We rolled across the vein and completed the procedure. In six of the patients, the veins were chronically occluded
and we had to go someplace else. In 20 patients, however, they had prior cannulation in the central vein at some time, remote. There was a severe stenosis of the intrathoracic veins. In 19 of those cases, we were able to cross the lesion in the central veins.
Do a balloon angioplasty with an 8 millimeter balloon and then place the catheter. One additional case, however, do the balloon angioplasty but we were still not able to place the catheter and we had to go to another site.
Seven of these lesions underwent balloon angioplasty of the innominate vein. 11 of them were in the proximal internal jugular vein, and two of them were in the superior vena cava. We had no subsequent severe swelling of the neck, arm, or face,
despite having a stenotic vein that we just put a catheter into, and no subsequent DVT on duplexes that were obtained after these procedures. Based on these data, we suggest that venous balloon angioplasty can be used in these patients
to maintain the site of an access, even with the stenotic vein that if your wire doesn't go down on the first pass, don't abandon the vein, shoot a little dye, see what the problem is,
and you may be able to use that vein still and maintain the other arm for AV access or fistular graft or whatever they need. Based upon these data, we feel that using ultrasound guidance should be a routine portion of these procedures,
and venoplasty should be performed when the wire is not passing for a central vein problem. Thank you.
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.