- So my charge is to talk about using band for steal. I have no relevant disclosures. We're all familiar with steal. The upper extremity particularly is able to accommodate for the short circuit that a access is with up to a 20 fold increase in flow. The problem is that the distal bed
is not necessarily as able to accommodate for that and that's where steal comes in. 10 to 20% of patients have some degree of steal if you ask them carefully. About 4% have it bad enough to require an intervention. Dialysis associated steal syndrome
is more prevalent in diabetics, connective tissue disease patients, patients with PVD, small vessels particularly, and females seem to be predisposed to this. The distal brachial artery as the inflow source seems to be the highest risk location. You see steal more commonly early with graft placement
and later with fistulas, and finally if you get it on one side you're very likely to get it on the other side. The symptoms that we are looking for are coldness, numbness, pain, at the hand, the digital level particularly, weakness in hand claudication, digital ulceration, and then finally gangrene in advanced cases.
So when you have this kind of a picture it's not too subtle. You know what's going on. However, it is difficult sometimes to differentiate steal from neuropathy and there is some interaction between the two.
We look for a relationship to blood pressure. If people get symptomatic when their blood pressure's low or when they're on the access circuit, that is more with steal. If it's following a dermatomal pattern that may be a median neuropathy
which we find to be pretty common in these patients. Diagnostic tests, digital pressures and pulse volume recordings are probably the best we have to assess this. Unfortunately the digital pressures are not, they're very sensitive but not very specific. There are a lot of patients with low digital pressures
that have no symptoms, and we think that a pressure less than 60 is probably consistent, or a digital brachial index of somewhere between .45 and .6. But again, specificity is poor. We think the digital pulse volume recordings is probably the most useful.
As you can see in this patient there's quite a difference in digital waveforms from one side to the other, and more importantly we like to see augmentation of that waveform with fistula compression not only diagnostically but also that is predictive of the benefit you'll get with treatment.
So what are our treatment options? Well, we have ligation. We have banding. We have the distal revascularization interval ligation, or DRIL, procedure. We have RUDI, revision using distal inflow,
and we have proximalization of arterial inflow as the approaches that have been used. Ligation is a, basically it restores baseline anatomy. It's a very simple procedure, but of course it abandons the access and many of these patients don't have a lot of good alternatives.
So it's not a great choice, but sometimes a necessary choice. This picture shows banding as we perform it, usually narrowing the anastomosis near the artery. It restricts flow so you preserve the fistula but with lower flows.
It's also simple and not very morbid to do. It's got a less predictable effect. This is a dynamic process, and so knowing exactly how tightly to band this and whether that's going to be enough is not always clear. This is not a good choice for low flow fistula,
'cause again, you are restricting flow. For the same reason, it's probably not a great choice for prosthetic fistulas which require more flow. So, the DRIL procedure most people are familiar with. It involves a proximalization of your inflow to five to 10 centimeters above the fistula
and then ligation of the artery just below and this has grown in popularity certainly over the last 10 or 15 years as the go to procedure. Because there is no flow restriction with this you don't sacrifice patency of the access for it. It does add additional distal flow to the extremity.
It's definitely a more morbid procedure. It involves generally harvesting the saphenous vein from patients that may not be the best risk surgical patients, but again, it's a good choice for low flow fistula. RUDI, revision using distal inflow, is basically
a flow restrictive procedure just like banding. You're simply, it's a little bit more complicated 'cause you're usually doing a vein graft from the radial artery to the fistula. But it's less complicated than DRIL. Similar limitations to banding.
Very limited clinical data. There's really just a few series of fewer than a dozen patients each to go by. Finally, a proximalization of arterial inflow, in this case rather than ligating the brachial artery you're ligating the fistula and going to a more proximal
vessel that often will accommodate higher flow. In our hands, we were often talking about going to the infraclavicular axillary artery. So, it's definitely more morbid than a banding would be. This is a better choice though for prosthetic grafts that, where you want to preserve flow.
Again, data on this is very limited as well. The (mumbles) a couple years ago they asked the audience what they like and clearly DRIL has become the most popular choice at 60%, but about 20% of people were still going to banding, and so my charge was to say when is banding
the right way to go. Again, it's effect is less predictable than DRIL. You definitely are going to slow the flows down, but remember with DRIL you are making the limb dependent on the patency of that graft which is always something of concern in somebody
who you have caused an ischemic hand in the first place, and again, the morbidity with the DRIL certainly more so than with the band. We looked at our results a few years back and we identified 31 patients who had steal. Most of these, they all had a physiologic test
confirming the diagnosis. All had some degree of pain or numbness. Only three of these patients had gangrene or ulcers. So, a relatively small cohort of limb, of advanced steal. Most of our patients were autogenous access,
so ciminos and brachycephalic fistula, but there was a little bit of everything mixed in there. The mean age was 66. 80% were diabetic. Patients had their access in for about four and a half months on average at the time of treatment,
although about almost 40% were treated within three weeks of access placement. This is how we do the banding. We basically expose the arterial anastomosis and apply wet clips trying to get a diameter that is less than the brachial artery.
It's got to be smaller than the brachial artery to do anything, and we monitor either pulse volume recordings of the digits or doppler flow at the palm or arch and basically apply these clips along the length and restricting more and more until we get
a satisfactory signal or waveform. Once we've accomplished that, we then are satisfied with the degree of narrowing, we then put some mattress sutures in because these clips will fall off, and fix it in place.
And basically this is the result you get. You go from a fistula that has no flow restriction to one that has restriction as seen there. What were our results? Well, at follow up that was about almost 16 months we found 29 of the 31 patients had improvement,
immediate improvement. The two failures, one was ligated about 12 days later and another one underwent a DRIL a few months later. We had four occlusions in these patients over one to 18 months. Two of these were salvaged with other procedures.
We only had two late recurrences of steal in these patients and one of these was, recurred when he was sent to a radiologist and underwent a balloon angioplasty of the banding. And we had no other morbidity. So this is really a very simple procedure.
So, this is how it compares with DRIL. Most of the pooled data shows that DRIL is effective in 90 plus percent of the patients. Patency also in the 80 to 90% range. The DRIL is better for late, or more often used in late patients,
and banding used more in earlier patients. There's a bigger blood pressure change with DRIL than with banding. So you definitely get more bang for the buck with that. Just quickly going through the literature again. Ellen Dillava's group has published on this.
DRIL definitely is more accepted. These patients have very high mortality. At two years 50% are going to be dead. So you have to keep in mind that when you're deciding what to do. So, I choose banding when there's no gangrene,
when there's moderate not severe pain, and in patients with high morbidity. As promised here's an algorithm that's a little complicated looking, but that's what we go by. Again, thanks very much.
- 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.
- Ladies and gentlemen, I thank Frank Veith and the organizing committee for the invitation. I have no disclosures for this presentation. Dialysis is the life line of patients with end-stage renal failure. Hemodialysis can be done by constructing an A-V fistula, utilizing a graft or through a central venous catheter.
Controversy as to the location of A-V fistula, size of adequate vein and priority of A-V fistula versus A-V graft exists among different societies. Our aims were to present our single center experience with A-V fistulas and grafts. Compare their patency rates,
compare different surgical sites, and come up with preferences to allow better and longer utilization. We collected all patients who underwent A-V fistula or A-V graft between the years 2008 through 2014. We included all patients who had preoperative
duplex scanning or those deemed to have good vessels on clinical examination. Arteries larger than two point five millimeter and veins larger than three millimeter were considered fit. Dialysis was performed three times per week. Follow up included check for a thrill,
distal pulse in the arter non-increased venous pressure or visible effective dialysis and no prolonged bleeding. Any change of one of the above would led to obtaining
fistulogram resulting in either endovascular or open repair of the fistula. We started with 503 patients, 32 of which were excluded due to primary failure within 24 hours. We considered this, of course, the surgeon's blame. So we left with 471 patients with a mean age of 58 years,
51 were older than 60, there was a male predominance of 63%, and over half were diabetics. The type of fistula was 41% brachio-cephalic fistula, 30% radio-cephalic fistula, 16% A-V Graft, and 13% brachio-basilic fistula.
Overall, we had 84% fistulas and 16% grafts. The time to first dialysis and maturation of fistula was approximately six weeks. First use of grafts was after two weeks. 11 patients with A-V fistula needed early intervention prior to or after the first dialysis session.
In sharp contrast, none of the A-V grafts needed early intervention. 68 patients were operated for their first ever fistula without duplex scanning due to clinically good vessels. Their patency was comparable to those who underwent a preoperative scanning.
Looking at complications, A-V grafts needed more reintervention than fistulas. All of them were late. Infection was more prominent in the graft group and pseudoaneurysms were more prominent in the A-V fistula group, some of them occluded
or invaded the skin and resulted in bleeding. Here's a central vein occlusion and you can see this lady is after a brachio-basilic A-V shunt. You can see the swollen arm, the collaterals. Here are multiple venous aneurysms. Here's an ulcer.
When we looked at primary patency of A-V fistulas versus graft, A-V fistulas fared better than grafts for as long as five years. When you looked at 50% patency in grafts, it was approximately 18 months, in Fistula, 13. Here's an assisted primary patency by endovascular technique
and when we looked at the secondary patency for the first 24, two years, months, there was no difference between A-V fistulas and A-V grafts, but there's a large difference afterwards. Comparing radio-cephalic fistula to brachio-cephalic fistula there was really no big difference in maturation.
The time was approximately six weeks. As for primary patency there is a trend towards better patency with brachio-cephalic fistula after six months, one year, and two years, but it didn't reach statistical significance. For patients with diabetes,
differences were statistically significant. Brachio-cephalic fistula showed a trend toward shorter maturation time, needed less reintervention, and had a longer patency rate. In conclusions then, ladies and gentlemen, A-V fistula require a longer maturation time
and have higher pseudoaneurysm formation rate, but better patency rates compared to A-V grafts. A-V grafts have a faster maturation time, but more late interventions are required and infection is more common. Finally, diabetic patients have a better result
with proximal A-V fistulas. Thank you for the opportunity to present our data.
- [C. Keith] Thank you Larry and John. I appreciate the invitation. I do have disclosure that I have consulted for Proteon Therapeutics. Also, some of the data I'm going to talk about today is unpublished and supplied by Proteon. So, Vonapanitase is a recombinant human elastase
and it cleaves elastin peptide bonds. Surgically, this can be applied to the outside of a recently created fistula and it's left on for 10 minutes. It's only active at the site of application, if it gets in the blood, it's deactivated.
Biologically, Vonapanitase may stimulate outward vascular remodeling and also inhibit intimal hyperplasia. I'm going to update you now on the Vonapanitase Fistula Trial Program. These trials have all been multicenter, randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled studies
and each includes a follow up registry. Three of these trials are already in print and one is in press. The phase two trial of which I was an investigator showed a dose dependent improvement in maturation of dialysis access fistulas at the wrist.
And thus, it moved to phase three trials. I'm an investigator in both of those and these are going to be the focus of my comments today. The patency-3 trial is fully completed. The patency-1 trial is fully completed and in press. And the patency-2 is fully enrolled.
Patency-1 enrolled about 300 patients undergoing a radiocephalic fistula and it was randomized two to one vonapanitase to placebo. Follow up was one year. The primary endpoint was primary patency and the secondary endpoint was secondary patency.
Other important endpoints were examined and also, statistically, they looked at these other endpoints beyond just the single primary patency. The primary patency was not statistically different in the trial, though there was a substantial trend. Here you see a p of 0.25 for the difference
between the vonapanitase and the placebo treated patients. However, there was a statistically significant 34% reduction in the risk of secondary patency loss and those receiving the treatment drug and this was statistically significant. It even became more statistically significant
when we discarded those that had early failure of the fistula, certainly showing a biological effect probably of this compound. And then, finally another point that we're very interested in would be actual use of the fistula for hemodialysis
and it was almost a 50% increase in use of the fistula for hemodialysis in those receiving the drug versus those getting placebo. The safety profile looked quite good for this compound and there were basically similar rates between the placebo and vonapanitase for stenosis,
thrombosis, nerve issues and post procedural pain. The patency-2 trial is almost identical but it actually began enrolling during the patency-1 trial and the analysis plan allowed for a sample size adjustment based on results of the patency-1 trial. So in negotiating with the FDA,
they agreed to the validity of reordering the endpoints to create new primary and secondary endpoints or co primary endpoints. And so, for the patency-2 trial, secondary patency and use for hemodialysis were made co primary endpoints. Also, the sample size was increased
to 600 patients to ensure adequate power. Here you're going to see some of the baseline characteristics of these patients that were enrolled in the patency-2 trial. It's a typical age and typical North American body mass index and most of the patients were male in a three to one ratio to females.
There's a nice mix of ethnicities and race. Many of the patients had been former smokers and most had diabetes and hypertension and hyperlipidemia. About half the patients were on hemodialysis at the time of randomization. And interestingly, when you look at
the anesthetic approaches, about half the cases were done under local and the others were done under nerve block or general anesthetic. The actual expose vein length was about three centimeters in this patient cohort. The vein diameters were a little over three millimeters
and the artery diameters a little under three millimeters. Most of the surgeons tended to make an arteriotomy that was about eight millimeters long. The patency-1 results have been accepted or in press in the journal of vascular surgery. The patency-1 registry data with a total of three years
of follow up will be available towards the end of this year. Patency-2 enrollment is completed, that was completed this past March and the top line data will be available in March of 2019. If the data supports these statistical significance on the co primary endpoints in this patency-2 trial,
Proteon intends to file for US approval in 2019 and EU approval shortly thereafter and they're actually planning clinical trials in Europe currently. So in summary, vonapanitase data to date in radiocephalic fistula's, certainly I think,
shows evidence of the biologic signal which I think is quite impressive in view of all the events that go into fistula maturation. The secondary analysis suggests positive impact on things that we find clinically meaningful. That is use for hemodialysis,
unassisted use for hemodialysis and secondary patency. The patency-2 trial data, the big 600 patient cohort will be available in about four months and vonapanitase certainly stands as a potentially novel adjunct to enhance AV fistula use for hemodialysis. Thank you.
- I will be talking about new KDOQI guidelines. I know many of you have heard about KDOQI guidelines being revised for the past maybe over a year or maybe two. Yes, it is being done, and it is going slow only because it's being done in a very different way. It's more than an update.
It's going to be more of an overhaul for the entire KDOQI guidelines. We in KDOQI have looked at access as a solitary problem like we talked about grafts, catheters, fistulas for access, but actually it sort of turns out
that access is part of a bigger problem. Fits into a big ESKD lifeline of a patient. Instated distal patients come in many varieties. It can affect any age, and they have a lot of other problems so once you have chronic renal failure, renal replacement mortality fits in
only when it becomes Stage IV or Stage V. And renal replacement mortality is not just access, it is PD access, it's hemo access, it is transplant. So these things, we need to see how they fit in in a given person. So the new KDOQI guidelines concentrates more
on individualizing care. For example, here the young Darien was an 11 year old with a prune belly syndrome. Now he has failed PD. Then there's another person here who is Lydia who is about 36 or 40 year old lady
with a insulin dependent diabetes. Already has bad vascular pedicle. Lost both legs. Needs access. Now both these patient though they need access, it's not the same.
It's different. For example, if you think of Darien, he was in PD but he has failed PD. We would love to get him transplanted. Unfortunately he's got terrible social situation so we can't get him transplanted.
So he needs hemo. Now if he needs hemo, we need to find an access that lasts for a long time because he's got many years ahead of him. On the other hand we have Lydia, who has got significant vascular disease.
With her obesity and existing infectious status, probably PD won't be a good option for her. So she needs hemo, and she's obviously not a transplant candidate. So how are we going to plan for hemo? So these are things which we are to more concentrate
and individualize when we look at patients, and the new guidelines concentrate more on these sort of aspects. Doing right access for right patient, right time, and for right reasons. And we go about planning this keeping the patient first
then a life plan ESKD lifeline for the patient, and what access we are looking at, and what are the needs of the patient? Now this is also different because it has been done more scientifically. We actually have a evidence review team.
We just poured over pretty much 1500 individual articles. Recent articles. And we have looked through about 4000 abstracts and other articles. And this data is correlated through a workgroup. There a lot of new chapters.
Chapter specific surgery like peri-operative, intra-operative, post-operative, cat issues, managing complication issues. And we started off with the coming up with the Scope of Work. The evidence review team took the Scope of Work
and tried to get all the articles and sift through the articles and came up and rated the evidence using a certain rating system which is very scientific. The workgroup then kind of evaluated the whole system, and then came up with what is clinically relevant.
It's one thing for statisticians to say how strong evidence this is, but it's another thing how it is looked upon by the clinicians. So then we kind of put this into a document. Document went through internal and external review process.
This is the process we have tried to do it. Dr. Lok has been the Chair of the group. Myself and Dr. Yevzlin are the Vice-Chairs. We have incredible workgroup which has done most of the work. And here are the workgroup members.
We comprised of nephrologist, transplant surgeons, vascular surgeons, Allied Health personnel, pediatric nephrologist so it's a multi interventional radiologist and interventional nephrologist. This is a multi disciplinary group which has gone through this process.
Timothy Wilt from Minnesota was the head of the Evidence Review Team, who has worked on the evidence building. And now for the editorial sections we have Dr. Huber, Lee, and Dr. Lok taking care of it. So where are we today?
We have pretty much gone through the first part of it. We are at the place where we are ready for the Internal Review and External Review. So many of you probably will get a chance to look through it when it comes for the External Review and would love
to have your comments on this document. Essentially, we are looking at access in the context of end stage renal disease, and that is new. And obviously we have gone through and done a very scientific review, a very scientific methodology to try
to evaluate the evidence and try to come up with guidelines. Thank you.
- [Presenter] Thanks again, Laurel, for this kind invitation. We're going to discuss about how I do the treatment for varicose veins for the foot. And we're going to show you our experience for that. I have no disclosure. I came from Natal, Brazil.
There's our wonderful beach that we have there, but we don't have time to go there, unfortunately. This is our hospital, and these are the people that worked with us. To do this treatment we have to pay attention of the history and the physical examination.
It's very important to decide what you can do to these patients, because we have to associate some tools to do this kind of treatment. So phleboscopy, transillumination is very important to define the feeder veins,
so it's very important in this case to show us where is the veins that we feed these spider veins to treat that. And of course, the ultrasound associated with all the physical examinations of course and then the black scan. You can see in this case, a patient does not have any
varicose veins on the thigh, of the leg. They have only varicose veins by the foot. If you can see, the reflux of there, comes from the junction to the foot. If you don't have the good ultrasound
or duplex scan it can have a mistake and treat wrong way these patients. So, what are the tools we have to do to treat these patients? A lot of tools, you can see the liquid sclerotherapy with a low concentration of 75%.
Foam polidocanol for these two concentrations. Of course, transdermal laser, hooks that we can apply in the surgery and polidocanol laser. How about this procedure? This paper from the Netherlands, show us patient satisfaction after ambulatory phlebectomy
of varicose veins, what they conclude about that. The most important factors that influence the patient satisfaction is: discoloration, persistent pain, and the perception of varices after surgery. This last one is very important for us,
because the patient comes to us to be cleaning off veins of the foot, if we miss that everything we did, the patient will complain about after their surgery. We have two kinds of treatment, ambulatory treatment being the option
and the hospital we can do the procedures. We have separate patients with CO grade, CEAP classifications and C2 classifications. When we have a C1 grade classification we use transdermal laser and liquid sclerotherapy. You can see one case is a cosmetic
and one is a severe one. A C2 case we have ambulatory treatment, we have transdermal laser and we associate all this with foam sclerotherapy. But the concentrations are 0.5% and 0.25%, you can see its low concentrations.
At the hospital we have can do almost everything nearly in the same day. Transdermal laser, liquid sclerotherapy, foam sclerotherapy. Yes, we can associate liquid sclerotherapy, sometimes the people say that you cannot do that, but we do that.
In case like this, we also say transdermal laser in spider veins, phlebectomy and you can see in this case we have a use for sclerotherapy and is this is the result of 60 days. This other case that we use phlebectomy and we have to be careful because you
can take nerves, the patient will complain about after surgery. And these are the results. Polidocanol with laser tool, yes, but it's not our routine to use that. In conclusion:
Physical exam and a precise diagnosis of the feet varicose veins is essential to do a good surgery. With all these tools, that we have, the treatment of varicose veins of the foot is safe and effective. This is my fugu in Natal, Brazil.
- Thank you so much. We have no disclosures. So I think everybody would agree that the transposed basilic vein fistula is one of the most important fistulas that we currently operate with. There are many technical considerations
related to the fistula. One is whether to do one or two stage. Your local criteria may define how you do this, but, and some may do it arbitrarily. But some people would suggest that anything less than 4 mm would be a two stage,
and any one greater than 4 mm may be a one stage. The option of harvesting can be open or endovascular. The option of gaining a suitable access site can be transposition or superficialization. And the final arterial anastomosis, if you're not superficializing can either be
a new arterial anastomosis or a venovenous anastomosis. For the purposes of this talk, transposition is the dissection, transection and re tunneling of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the arm, either as a primary or staged procedure. Superficialization is the dissection and elevation
of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the upper arm, which may be done primarily, but most commonly is done as a staged procedure. The natural history of basilic veins with regard to nontransposed veins is very successful. And this more recent article would suggest
as you can see from the upper bands in both grafts that either transposed or non-transposed is superior to grafts in current environment. When one looks at two-stage basilic veins, they appear to be more durable and cost-effective than one-stage procedures with significantly higher
patency rates and lower rates of failure along comparable risk stratified groups from an article from the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Meta-ana, there are several meta-analysis and this one shows that between one and two stages there is really no difference in the failure and the patency rates.
The second one would suggest there is no overall difference in maturation rate, or in postoperative complication rates. With the patency rates primary assisted or secondary comparable in the majority of the papers published. And the very last one, again based on the data from the first two, also suggests there is evidence
that two stage basilic vein fistulas have higher maturation rates compared to the single stage. But I think that's probably true if one really realizes that the first stage may eliminate a lot of the poor biology that may have interfered with the one stage. But what we're really talking about is superficialization
versus transposition, which is the most favorite method. Or is there a favorite method? The early data has always suggested that transposition was superior, both in primary and in secondary patency, compared to superficialization. However, the data is contrary, as one can see,
in this paper, which showed the reverse, which is that superficialization is much superior to transposition, and in the primary patency range quite significantly. This paper reverses that theme again. So for each year that you go to the Journal of Vascular Surgery,
one gets a different data set that comes out. The final paper that was published recently at the Eastern Vascular suggested strongly that the second stage does consume more resources, when one does transposition versus superficialization. But more interestingly also found that these patients
who had the transposition had a greater high-grade re-stenosis problem at the venovenous or the veno-arterial anastomosis. Another point that they did make was that superficialization appeared to lead to faster maturation, compared to the transposition and thus they favored
superficialization over transposition. If one was to do a very rough meta-analysis and take the range of primary patencies and accumulative patencies from those papers that compare the two techniques that I've just described. Superficialization at about 12 months
for its primary patency will run about 57% range, 50-60 and transposition 53%, with a range of 49-80. So in the range of transposition area, there is a lot of people that may not be a well matched population, which may make meta-analysis in this area somewhat questionable.
But, if you get good results, you get good results. The cumulative patency, however, comes out to be closer in both groups at 78% for superficialization and 80% for transposition. So basilic vein transposition is a successful configuration. One or two stage procedures appear
to carry equally successful outcomes when appropriate selection criteria are used and the one the surgeon is most favored to use and is comfortable with. Primary patency of superficialization despite some papers, if one looks across the entire literature is equivalent to transposition.
Cumulative patency of superficialization is equivalent to transposition. And there is, appears to be no apparent difference in complications, maturation, or access duration. Thank you so much.
- Thank you (mumbles). The purpose of deep venous valve repair is to correct the reflux. And we have different type of reflux. We know we have primary, secondary, the much more frequent and the rear valve agenesia. In primary deep venous incompetence,
valves are usually present but they are malfunctioning and the internal valvuloplasty is undoubtedly the best option. If we have a valve we can repair it and the results are undoubtedly the better of all deep vein surgery reconstruction
but when we are in the congenital absence of valve which is probably the worst situation or we are in post-thrombotic syndrome where cusps are fully destroyed, the situation is totally different. In this situation, we need alternative technique
to provide a reflux correction that may be transposition, new valve or valve transplants. The mono cuspid valve is an option between those and we can obtain it by parietal dissection. We use the fibrotic tissue determined by the
sickening of the PTS event obtaining a kind of flap that we call valve but as you can realize is absolutely something different from a native valve. The morphology may change depending on the wall feature and the wall thickness
but we have to manage the failure of the mono cuspid valve which is mainly due to the readhesion of the flap which is caused by the fact that if we have only a mono cuspid valve, we need a deeper pocket to reach the contralateral wall so bicuspid valve we have
smaller cusps in mono cuspid we have a larger one. And how can we prevent readhesion? In our first moment we can apply a technical element which is to stabilize the valve in the semi-open position in order not to have the collapse of the valve with itself and then we had decide to apply an hemodynamic element.
Whenever possible, the valve is created in front of a vein confluence. In this way we can obtain a kind of competing flow, a better washout and a more mobile flap. This is undoubtedly a situation that is not present in nature but helps in providing non-collapse
and non-thrombotic events in the cusp itself. In fact, if we look at the mathematical modeling in the flow on valve you can see how it does work in a bicuspid but when we are in a mono cuspid, you see that in the bottom of the flap
we have no flow and here there is the risk of thrombosis and here there is the risk of collapse. If we go to a competing flow pattern, the flap is washed out alternatively from one side to the other side and this suggest us the idea to go through a mono cuspid
valve which is not just opens forward during but is endovascular and in fact that's what we are working on. Undoubtedly open surgery at the present is the only available solution but we realized that obviously to have the possibility
to have an endovascular approach may be totally different. As you can understand we move out from the concept to mimic nature. We are not able to provide the same anatomy, the same structure of a valve and we have to put
in the field the possibility to have no thrombosis and much more mobile flap. This is the lesson we learn from many years of surgery. The problem is the mobile flap and the thrombosis inside the flap itself. The final result of a valve reconstruction
disregarding the type of method we apply is to obtain an anti-reflux mechanism. It is not a valve, it is just an anti-reflux mechanism but it can be a great opportunity for patient presenting a deep vein reflux that strongly affected their quality of life.
- There's a new DCB now on the market just C-marked, and I would like to share you interim data of this brand new Kanshas DCB into the preliminary data so far available. So, as we just heard, DCB is a wide-spread accepted technology, which delivers a durable anti-restenotic efficacy
after single-balloon inflation. I think this is clear, but definitely, as we have just seen from Dr. Vermani, efficacy is not a class effect. It is critical determined by the presence and choice of the excipient of each balloon.
And we know that from different studies like here, from Jopa, we can see that outcome efficacy is different in terms of the different effects of the DCBs. So this new and novel Kanshas Drug-Coated Balloon is covered with a paclitaxel 3.2 micrograms per square millimiter.
There's a unicoat technology, which is a uniform coating with micro-crystal aspects where the Paclitaxel is embedded with micro-crystal, which provides a large surface area, which facilitates a drug transfer to the lesion. It's available up to 200 millimeter.
It is a monorail balloon. You can see that in (mumbles) and some preclinical animal models, the Paclitaxel tissue concentration was definitely different in comparison to other already-established DCB, and of course, this new concept has now
to prove an efficacy and safety in the first human study. So, I can provide you now the six-months primary outcome of that KANSHAS 1 study on behalf of all the investigators. 50 patients were enrolled at six sites in Germany and Belgium. Patients will be followed up up to year, two years.
The primary endpoint is freedom from composite safety at six months. You see all the centers which enrolled patients between April 2017 and January 2018. Main inclusion criteria, Rutherford Clinical Category two to four,
lesion length up to 15 centimeter. Just want to highlight that also popliteal artery segments, could, when moved into study, I will show you also the outcome for the to P3 segment where we planted the balloon. The other baseline and lesion characteristic of the patient.
Typical risk profile, most of the patient had a Rutherford category three. On right side, you see the lesion locations, where the balloon was implanted. I see that 19 patients had a treatment with an popliteal artery.
Cumulative lesion length, 88.6 millimeter. As usual (mumbles) DSB trials classification was more on the lower side. Here the procedural characteristics. DCB per lesion 1.2. Total inflated length 72.1.
(mumbles) 14% of 14 patient, 28%, a little bit more on the higher side for that lesion length. This was due to flow limiting that section and residual stenosis. Here are the six-months outcomes in terms of hemodynamic outcomes
and Rutherford class change from a baseline. As you can see, most of the patients improved during this first six months of followup. Here's the freedom from composite safety and efficacy endpoint within couple of micro curve analyzed. This is a target of 100%,
which means freedom from device and procedure-related deaths through 30 days and freedom from target limb amputation and clinical driven TLR through six months. There were no device and procedure-related Severe (mumbles) during that six months of followup.
So let me conclude the DCB angioplasty for de novo femoropopliteal artery lesions with that new KANSHAS balloon was so far safe and efficient through six months of the procedure. It has a remarkable clinical hemodynamic improvement
at six months, but we have to wait, of course, the further followup 12 and 24 month. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much. So, this audience certainly knows that the higher the triglyceride, the greater the cardiovascular morbidity mortality, similarly if you have a low HDL that same relation holds, and certainly for the non-HDL-C or LDL-C calculated the higher the worse outcome and there's
multiple drugs related to this. Similarly with stroke, triglyceride the same relationship. Ischemic stroke increased with low HDL and again LDL-C correlates. So the historical precedent has been that you should get a fasting lipid level
when you first encounter the patient, but to make this simple that's really probably not true. So there's various things that are measured and that are calculated, but LDL is generally calculated, HDL is measured and then the triglycerides are calculated as remnant cholesterol.
So if you compare just the measured LDL compared to calculated LDL in a non-fasting state, it's a little bit of a wider linear relationship here as compared with the fasting, it's a little bit tighter. But when you look at this in more depth, and this reference here really nicely puts it all together
but the total cholesterol really doesn't vary if you've fasted one hour or 16 hours, similarly between men and women. The only thing that varies a little bit is triglycerides and we'll go on to that in just a little bit of depth.
But again that's variable, triglycerides go up if you eat really not much difference with the other lipid levels. And if you look just in terms of triglycerides, they overlap between non-fasting and fasting, really at almost all levels
so there's not really discrepancy. Similarly with LDL, same amount of overlap here whether or not you have diabetes it doesn't seem to make a difference. So for lipid panels, profile testing, in most patients you can get a non-fasting
initial lipid profile in any patient for cardiovascular risk assessment, I'd say that's where it's most commonly done in most of our practices. Similarly with acute coronary syndrome, if preferred by the patients et cetera.
But really it's where the non-fasting triglycerides are highly elevated that you want to get a fasting lipid panel. So what causes secondary hyperlipidemia related particularly to hypertriglyceridemia? Certainly certain diet factors, certain drugs,
cyclosporins for example, biliary obstruction and hypothyroidism. And so, one algorithm is that in terms of screening with non-fasting, and if it's less than 200 you're good to go, you really don't need to do anything further,
and if it's greater than 200 then probably a fasting lipid profile, lipoprotein panel is indicated. So reasons that non-fasting lipid measurement is fine most of the time is that again most trials have used non-fasting levels for determination of effectiveness of various medications.
This Friedewald formula actually uses total cholesterol, HDL, and triglycerides to calculate LDL-C, and LDL really is not directly measured, it's not standardized by the CDC such as these other cholesterol moieties are. And again most CV risk factor calculators don't use LDL-C.
So again, non-fasting is acceptable for the initial risk estimation in untreated and primary prevention screening. For patients with genetic hyperlipidemia probably fasting is required. Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome, non-fasting is fine.
And again some other more highly specialized scenarios you may want a fasting profile. Thank you.
- First of all I'd like to thank the organizers for inviting me to give this presentation. These are my disclosures. I'm going to divide this presentation into three main parts. I will initially make the case that at the present time we are providing relatively poor value in ESRD and Vascular Access Care.
I'll then submit to you that one way to address this issue is through Patient Centered Device Innovation and then I'll tell you a little bit about some regulatory initiatives in this area. If you define value as being outcomes over cost
then I would argue that in vascular access we actually provide very poor value in that we have pretty bad outcomes and in order to achieve these bad outcomes we actually spend a huge amount of money at about 1.5 billion dollars per year and these is no talk at all
in the construct before you about quality of life. How can we break this cycle of a lack of innovation resulting in poor quality and outcomes and a high cost burden? I would submit to you that one way that we may be able to break the cycle
is through patient centered innovations. Patient centered innovation, whether it's discovery or process of care innovation, is basically innovation that targets the issues that are important to patients, not necessarily the issues that are important to physicians,
or payors, or regulators, or to industry. The reason that this is important is that the things that are relevant and critical to patients are often very different from the things that are important to the other stakeholder groups that I mention. If you look at hemodialysis for example
the things that are important to a patient on hemodialysis are ability to travel, and dialysis free time, and not feeling washed out post dialysis. On the other hand, if you're an nephrologist as I am, the things that are important to me are survival, and hospitalization, and being a nephrologist
I completely obsess about blood pressure which is really not something that patients are that worried or bother about. The next question is, of course, how do we develop therapies that address the issues that are important to patients? I got this slide from Frank Hurst at the FDA.
It basically makes the point that we need to have patient input at every point in the product development process, from initial ideation, to clinical trial design, to patient preferences, to patient centered outcomes. The FDA actually has a number of programs
in this area, one example is their Patient Focused Drug Development Initiative which allows the FDA to speak with patients and patient groups in different therapeutic areas. Closer to home, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium is extremely interested in Patient Preferences
and in a Risk-Benefit analysis. Within the kidney health initiative, which is a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and the FDA, we are also very interested in patient preferences for renal devices, and the background for this is
that an individual patient's tolerance for risk actually varies tremendously. Patients on home hemodialysis, for example, may be happy to sacrifice some degree of safety with regard to, say, vascular access, in order for an improved
or a more independent quality of life. But if you're a regulator there needs to be a way that you can get insight in to how patients perceive the risk/benefit ratio so that it can be incorporated into the regulatory pathway, and at least at the present time
the tools for this do not exist. The Kidney Health Initiative hosted an extremely successful patient preference workshop in the Baltimore area a couple of years ago. We asked three main questions: how can patients assist in the development
of a new medical device? How can they ensure the success of future clinical trials? And how can they help with the decision to make a new device available? The proceedings of this workshop have been published, and I'm really not going to go into details there.
I'm going to share with you a video that was made to try and attract patients to this webinar, and I think it really epitomizes the importance of patient centered innovation. - Hello, I'm CeCe, a fellow kidney disease patient. For 33 years I've done dialysis, both hemo and PD.
I had a transplant for 10 years and as you can imagine too many pills, shots, and accesses to mention. As kidney patients you and I both know that a few things in life are not optional. Strength, courage,
persistence, and determination. No matter what life throws at us, we try to stay balanced, maintain our routine, and remain positive. But let's face it, we are often in a holding pattern. Kidney disease treatments have not
changed much over the years. The options for patients like us have largely remained the same for many years. You want to help change that? We need you. Each day we're asked to share our lives with our treatment. But now, let's share our voice, ideas, opinions.
From patients like us, they matter. Key people are realizing our voices matter too. Here's what I found out. The Food and Drug Administration, often known as the FDA, is looking for patients living with kidney disease like you and me, to provide input
on how potential treatments of the future could look. Picture a big table. Around it are dialysis caregivers, researchers, doctors, nurses, and companies providing new products and treatments. They want us and our families to sit beside them
and have a seat at this table. We'll work together to bring potential new treatment options, safe and effective ones, and ones that patients like you and me want and need. Imagine the future of your treatment. What does it look like?
How does it improve your day-to-day life? This future doesn't have to remain just a dream. Join me and other patients to contribute our thoughts and make our ideas a possible reality. - The driving force and also the voice behind that video was the lady on the right, Celeste Lee.
She was a dialysis patient for over 30 years, she was a member of the KHI board of directors, and Celeste died a year and a half ago, she basically withdrew from dialysis because of bone disease from the 30 years of dialysis. I really think that her death
should be a charge for all of us really to try and develop therapies that target the things that are important to patients. Thank you very much for your attention.
- So, I'm going to probably echo many of the themes that Gary just touched upon here. These are my disclosures. So, if we look at the CHEST guidelines on who should get pharmacomechanical techniques, it is very very very sobering, and I apologize if the previous speakers have shown this slide,
but essentially, what's right now being disseminated to the American College of CHEST Physicians is that nobody should get catheter-directed thrombolysis, the concept of pharmacomechanical technique should really only reserved as a last-ditch effort if nothing else works, if you happen to have somebody
with extraordinary expertise in your institution, it could not be more of a damning recommendation for what I'm about to talk to you about for the next eight or nine minutes or so. So, then the question is, what is the rationale? What are we talking about here?
And again, I'm going to say that Gary and I, I think are sort of kindred spirits in recognizing that we really do need to mature this concept of the catheter-based technique for pulmonary embolism. So, I'm going to put out a hypothetical question, what if there was a single session/single device therapy
for acute PE, Gary showed one, that could avoid high dose lytics, avoid an overnight infusion, acutely on the table lower the PA pressure, acutely improve the function of the right ventricle, rapidly remove, you know, by angiography,
thrombus and clot from the pulmonary artery, and it was extremely safe, what if we had that? Would that change practice? And I would respectfully say, yes it would. And then what if this concept has already been realized, and we're actually using this across the world
for STEMI, for stroke, for acute DVT, and so why not acute pulmonary embolism? What is limiting our ability to perform single session, rapid thrombus removal and
patient stabilization on the table? Gary showed this slide, there's this whole litany of different devices, and I would argue none of them is exactly perfect yet, but I'm going to try and sort of walk you through what has been developed in an attempt
to reach the concept of single session therapy. When we talk about pharmacomechanical thrombectomy or thrombo-aspiration, it really is just one line item on the menu of all the different things that we can offer patients that present with acutely symptomatic PE, but it is important to recognize
what the potential benefits of this technology are and, of course, what the limitations are. When we look at this in distinction to stroke or STEMI or certainly DVT, it's important to recognize that during a surgical pulmonary embolectomy case, the clot that's able to be extracted is quite impressive,
and this is a very very very sobering amount of material that is typically removed from the patient's right heart and their pulmonary circulation, so, in order to innovate and iterate a percutaneous technology based on existing concepts,
it really does demand significant disruption to achieve the goals, we have not tackled this yet in terms of our endovascular tool kit. So, what is the role? Well, it's potentially able to debulk in acute PE, in an intermediate risk patient which would
ideally eliminate the need for overnight lysis, as Gary alluded to, but what if it could actually replace surgical embolectomy in high risk patients? I think many of us have had the conversation where we, we sort of don't know that's there a
experienced, comfortable surgeon to do an embolectomy within the building or within immediate access to the patient that we see crashing in front of our eyes. I'm very very lucky here in New York that I've incredible cardiovascular surgeons that are able to perform this procedure very very safely 24/7,
but I know that's not the case across the country. So, one of our surgeons who actually came from the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston developed this concept, which was the sort of first bridge between surgical embolectomy and percutaneous therapy, which is a large bore aspiration catheter,
it's a 22 French cannula that was originally designed to be placed through a cutdown but can now be placed percutaneously, and I think many of us in the room are familiar with this technology, but essentially you advance this under fluoroscopy into the right heart,
place the patient on venous-venous bypass, and a trap, which is outside the patient, is demonstrated in the lower left portion of the screen here, is able to capture any thrombotic material and then restore the circulation via the contralateral femoral vein,
any blood that is aspirated. Very very scant data on this, here's the experience from Michael and Kenny up in Boston where they tried this technology in just a handful of cases, this was followed by John Moriarty's experience from UCLA, where he actually argued a little bit of caution
using this technology, largely related to its inability to safely and reliably deliver it to the pulmonary circulation. To that end, AngieDynamics is funding a prospective registry really looking at safety and efficacy at delivering this device to the pulmonary circulation
and its ability to treat acute pulmonary embolism as well as any right heart clot, but that data's not commercially available yet. This is just one case that we did recently of a clot in transit, which I would argue could not be treated with any other technology
and the patient was able to be discharged the same day, I personally think this is a wonderful application of this technology and is our default strategy right now for a very large clot in transit. The second entrance to the space is the Inari FlowTriever device, which is a 20 French cannula,
it does not require a perfusion team in vein-vein bypass, the concept is simple, a 20 French guide catheter is advanced into the pulmonary circulation and these trilobed disks, which function like a stentriever for stroke are deployed in the pulmonary circulation, retracted to allow the clot to be delivered to the guide cath,
and then using manual aspiration, the clot is retrieved from the patient. Just a few case reports in small series describing this, this one in JACC two years ago, showing quite robust ability to extract a clot, this company which is a relatively small company funded a
single-arm prospective trial enrolling 168 patients, and not only did they complete enrollment last year, but they actually received FDA approval, now there is no peer-reviewed literature on this, it has undergone public presentation, but we, we really don't know exactly which patients were treated,
and so we really can't dissect this, I think there is a learning curve to this technology, and it's not, certainly, ready for broad dissemination yet, we just don't know which patients are ideal for it currently. Another technology, the Penumbra CAT8 system,
a market reduction in the size, an 8 French catheter based technology, this is exact same technology that's used for thrombo-aspiration for acute ischemic stroke, currently just in a slightly different size, and then a number of cases demonstrating its efficacy at
alleviating the acute nonperfusion of an entire lobe, as Gary was referring to previously, and this is one of our cases from our own lab, where you see there's no perfusion of the right, middle and lower lobe, I'm not sure if I can get these movies to play here, oh here it goes,
and so using sort of a handmade separator, we were able to restore perfusion again to the right, middle and lower lobe here, so just one example where, I think there is a potential benefit of thrombo-aspiration in a completely occluded segment.
There has been a wealth of literature about this technology, mostly demonstrating safety and efficacy, the most recent one on the bottom right in CVIR demonstrates the ability to acutely reduce the PA pressures on the table with the use of this technology, and to that end,
Akhi Sista, our faculty here this morning, is the national principal investigator of a US multicenter prospective study looking at exactly that, to try and prove that this technology is safe and effective in the treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism, so more to come on that.
Lastly, the AngioJet System, probably the most reported and studied technology, this is a 6 French technology by default, a wealth of literature here showing safety and efficacy, however, due to adverse event reporting, this technology currently has black box label warnings
in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism, so clearly this technology should not be used by the novice, and there are significant safety concerns largely related to bradyarrhythmias and hypotension, that being said, again, it is a quite experienced technology for this. So where do we currently stand?
I think we clearly see there are several attributes for thrombo-aspiration including just suction aspiration, a mechanical stent-triever technology, and the ability to not just insanguinate the patient but actually restore circulation and not make the patient anemic, here,
you can see where these technologies are going in terms of very very large bore and very small bore, I placed the question marked right in the center which is where I think this technology needs to converge in order to lead to the disruption for the broad adoption of a single session technology.
So, numerous devices exist, all the devices have been used clinically and have demonstrated the ability to be delivered in aspirary pulmonary embolus, at present, unfortunately there is no consensus regarding which device should be used for which patients and in which clinical presentations,
we need many prospective studies to demonstrate the safety and clinical benefit for our patients, we desperately do need a single session therapy, again, I completely agree with Gary on this, but there is a lot of work yet to do. Thank you for your attention.
- We are talking about the current management of bleeding hemodialysis fistulas. I have no relevant disclosures. And as we can see there with bleeding fistulas, they can occur, you can imagine that the patient is getting access three times a week so ulcerations can't develop
and if they are not checked, the scab falls out and you get subsequent bleeding that can be fatal and lead to some significant morbidity. So fatal vascular access hemorrhage. What are the causes? So number one is thinking about
the excessive anticoagulation during dialysis, specifically Heparin during the dialysis circuit as well as with cumin and Xarelto. Intentional patient manipulati we always think of that when they move,
the needles can come out and then you get subsequent bleeding. But more specifically for us, we look at more the compromising integrity of the vascular access. Looking at stenosis, thrombosis, ulceration and infection. Ellingson and others in 2012 looked at the experience
in the US specifically in Maryland. Between the years of 2000/2006, they had a total of sixteen hundred roughly dialysis death, due to fatal vascular access hemorrhage, which only accounted for about .4% of all HD or hemodialysis death but the majority did come
from AV grafts less so from central venous catheters. But interestingly that around 78% really had this hemorrhage at home so it wasn't really done or they had experienced this at the dialysis centers. At the New Zealand experience and Australia, they had over a 14 year period which
they reviewed their fatal vascular access hemorrhage and what was interesting to see that around four weeks there was an inciting infection preceding the actual event. That was more than half the patients there. There was some other patients who had decoags and revisional surgery prior to the inciting event.
So can the access be salvaged. Well, the first thing obviously is direct pressure. Try to avoid tourniquet specifically for the patients at home. If they are in the emergency department, there is obviously something that can be done.
Just to decrease the morbidity that might be associated with potential limb loss. Suture repairs is kind of the main stay when you have a patient in the emergency department. And then depending on that, you decide to go to the operating room.
Perera and others 2013 and this is an emergency department review and emergency medicine, they use cyanoacrylate to control the bleeding for very small ulcerations. They had around 10 patients and they said that they had pretty good results.
But they did not look at the long term patency of these fistulas or recurrence. An interesting way to kind of manage an ulcerated bleeding fistula is the Limberg skin flap by Pirozzi and others in 2013 where they used an adjacent skin flap, a rhomboid skin flap
and they would get that approximal distal vascular control, rotate the flap over the ulcerated lesion after excising and repairing the venotomy and doing the closure. This was limited to only ulcerations that were less than 20mm.
When you look at the results, they have around 25 AV fistulas, around 15 AV grafts. The majority of the patients were treated with percutaneous angioplasty at least within a week of surgery. Within a month, their primary patency was running 96% for those fistulas and around 80% for AV grafts.
If you look at the six months patency, 76% were still opened and the fistula group and around 40% in the AV grafts. But interesting, you would think that rotating an adjacent skin flap may lead to necrosis but they had very little necrosis
of those flaps. Inui and others at the UC San Diego looked at their experience at dialysis access hemorrhage, they had a total 26 patients, interesting the majority of those patients were AV grafts patients that had either bovine graft
or PTFE and then aneurysmal fistulas being the rest. 18 were actually seen in the ED with active bleeding and were suture control. A minor amount of patients that did require tourniquet for a shock. This is kind of the algorithm when they look at
how they approach it, you know, obviously secure your proximal di they would do a Duplex ultrasound in the OR to assess hat type of procedure
they were going to do. You know, there were inciting events were always infection so they were very concerned by that. And they would obviously excise out the skin lesion and if they needed interposition graft replacement they would use a Rifampin soak PTFE
as well as Acuseal for immediate cannulation. Irrigation of the infected site were also done and using an impregnated antibiotic Vitagel was also done for the PTFE grafts. They were really successful in salvaging these fistulas and grafts at 85% success rate with 19 interposition
a patency was around 14 months for these patients. At UCS, my kind of approach to dealing with these ulcerated fistulas. Specifically if they bleed is to use
the bovine carotid artery graft. There's a paper that'll be coming out next month in JVS, but we looked at just in general our experience with aneurysmal and primary fistula creation with an AV with the carotid graft and we tried to approach these with early access so imagine with
a bleeding patient, you try to avoid using catheter if possible and placing the Artegraft gives us an opportunity to do that and with our data, there was no significant difference in the patency between early access and the standardized view of ten days on the Artegraft.
Prevention of the Fatal Vascular Access Hemorrhages. Important physical exam on a routine basis by the dialysis centers is imperative. If there is any scabbing or frank infection they should notify the surgeon immediately. Button Hole technique should be abandoned
even though it might be easier for the patient and decreased pain, it does increase infection because of that tract The rope ladder technique is more preferred way to avoid this. In the KDOQI guidelines of how else can we prevent this,
well, we know that aneurysmal fistulas can ulcerate so we look for any skin that might be compromised, we look for any risk of rupture of these aneurysms which rarely occur but it still needs to taken care of. Pseudoaneurysms we look at the diameter if it's twice the area of the graft.
If there is any difficulty in achieving hemostasis and then any obviously spontaneous bleeding from the sites. And the endovascular approach would be to put a stent graft across the pseudoaneurysms. Shah and others in 2012 had 100% immediate technical success They were able to have immediate access to the fistula
but they did have around 18.5% failure rate due to infection and thrombosis. So in conclusion, bleeding to hemodialysis access is rarely fatal but there are various ways to salvage this and we tried to keep the access viable for these patients.
Prevention is vital and educating our patients and dialysis centers is key. Thank you.
Thanks very much, Tom. I'll be talking about thermal ablation on anticoagula is it safe and effective? I have no disclosures. As we know, extensive review of both RF and laser
ablation procedures have demonstrated excellent treatment effectiveness and durability in each modality, but there is less data regarding treatment effectiveness and durability for those procedures in patients who are also on systemic anticoagulation. As we know, there's multiple studies have been done
over the past 10 years, with which we're all most familiar showing a percent of the durable ablation, both modalities from 87% to 95% at two to five years. There's less data on those on the anticoagulation undergoing thermal ablation.
The largest study with any long-term follow up was by Sharifi in 2011, and that was 88 patients and follow-up at one year. Both RF and the EVLA had 100% durable ablation with minimal bleeding complications. The other studies were all smaller groups
or for very much shorter follow-up. In 2017, a very large study came out, looking at the EVLA and RF using 375 subjects undergoing with anticoagulation. But it was only a 30-day follow-up, but it did show a 30% durable ablation
at that short time interval. Our objective was to evaluate efficacy, durability, and safety of RF and EVLA, the GSV and the SSV to treat symptomatic reflux in patients on therapeutic anticoagulation, and this group is with warfarin.
The data was collected from NYU, single-center. Patients who had undergone RF or laser ablation between 2011 and 2013. Ninety-two vessels of patients on warfarin at the time of endothermal ablation were selected for study. That's the largest to date with some long-term follow-up.
And this group was compared to a matched group of 124 control patients. Devices used were the ClosureFast catheter and the NeverTouch kits by Angiodynamics. Technical details, standard IFU for the catheters. Tumescent anesthetic.
And fiber tips were kept about 2.5 centimeters from the SFJ or the SPJ. Vein occlusion was defined as the absence of blood flow by duplex scan along the length of the treated vein. You're all familiar with the devices, so the methods included follow-up, duplex ultrasound
at one week post-procedure, and then six months, and then also at a year. And then annually. Outcomes were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots and log rank tests. The results of the anticoagulation patients, 92,
control, 124, the mean follow-up was 470 days. And you can see that the demographics were rather similar between the two groups. There was some more coronary disease and hypertension in the anticoagulated groups, and that's really not much of a surprise
and some more male patients. Vessels treated, primarily GSV. A smaller amount of SSV in both the anticoagulated and the control groups. Indications for anticoagulation.
About half of the patients were in atrial fibrillation. Another 30% had a remote DVT in the contralateral limb. About 8% had mechanical valves, and 11% were for other reasons. And the results. The persistent vein ablation at 12 months,
the anticoagulation patients was 97%, and the controls was 99%. Persistent vein ablation by treated vessel, on anticoagulation. Didn't matter if it was GSV or SSV. Both had persistent ablation,
and by treatment modality, also did not matter whether it was laser or RF. Both equivalent. If there was antiplatelet therapy in addition to the anticoagulation, again if you added aspirin or Clopidogrel,
also no change. And that was at 12 months. We looked then at persistent vein ablation out at 18 months. It was still at 95% for the controls, and 91% for the anticoagulated patients. Still not statistically significantly different.
At 24 months, 89% in both groups. Although the numbers were smaller at 36 months, there was actually still no statistically significant difference. Interestingly, the anticoagulated group actually had a better persistent closure rate
than the control group. That may just be because the patients that come back at 36 months who didn't have anticoagulation may have been skewed. The ones we actually saw were ones that had a problem. It gets harder to have patients
come back at three months who haven't had an uneventful venous ablation procedure. Complication, no significant hematomas. Three patients had DVTs within 30 days. One anticoagulation patient had a popliteal DVT, and one control patient.
And one control patient had a calf vein DVT. Two EHITs. One GSV treated with laser on anticoagulation noted at six days, and one not on anticoagulation at seven days. Endovenous RF and EVLA can be safely performed
in patients undergoing long-term warfarin therapy. Our experience has demonstrated a similar short- and mid-term durability for RF ablation and laser, and platelet therapy does not appear to impact the closer rates,
which is consistent with the prior studies. And the frequency of vein recanalization following venous ablation procedures while on ACs is not worse compared to controls, and to the expected incidence as described in the literature.
This is the largest study to date with follow-up beyond 30 days with thermal ablation procedures on anticoagulation patients. We continue to look at these patients for even longer term durability. Thanks very much for your attention.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- Good morning, I would like to thank Dr. Veith, and the co-chairs for inviting me to talk. I have nothing to disclose. Some background on this information, patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are at least three times more likely to suffer a thrombo-embolic event, when compared to the general population.
The incidence is 0.1 - 0.5% per year. Overall mortality associated with these events can be as high as 25%, and postmortem exams reveal an incidence of 39-41% indicating that systemic thrombo-embolism is probably underdiagnosed. Thrombosis mainly occurs during disease exacerbation,
however proctocolectomy has not been shown to be preventative. Etiology behind this is not well known, but it's thought to be multifactorial. Including decrease in fibrinolytic activity, increase in platelet activation,
defects in the protein C pathway. Dyslipidemia and long term inflammation also puts patients at risk for an increase in atherosclerosis. In addition, these patients lack vitamins, are often dehydrated, anemic, and at times immobilized. Traditionally, the venous thrombosis is thought
to be more common, however recent retrospective review of the Health Care Utilization Project nationwide inpatient sample database, reported not only an increase in the incidence but that arterial complications may happen more frequently than venous.
I was going to present four patients over the course of one year, that were treated at my institution. The first patient is 25 year old female with Crohn's disease, who had a transverse colectomy one year prior to presentation. Presented with right flank pain, she was found to have
right sided PE, a right sided pulmonary vein thrombosis and a left atrial thrombosis. She was admitted for IV heparin, four days later she had developed abdominal pains, underwent an abdominal CTA significant for SMA occlusion prompting an SMA thrombectomy.
This is a picture of her CAT scan showing the right PE, the right pulmonary vein thrombosis extending into the left atrium. The SMA defect. She returned to the OR for second and third looks, underwent a subtotal colectomy,
small bowel resection with end ileostomy during the third operation. She had her heparin held post-operatively due to significant post-op bleeding, and over the next three to five days she got significantly worse, developed progressive fevers increase found to have
SMA re-thrombosis, which you can see here on her CAT scan. She ended up going back to the operating room and having the majority of her small bowel removed, and went on to be transferred to an outside facility for bowel transplant. Our second patient is a 59 year old female who presented
five days a recent flare of ulcerative colitis. She presented with right lower extremity pain and numbness times one day. She was found to have acute limb ischemia, category three. An attempt was made at open revascularization with thrombectomy, however the pedal vessels were occluded.
The leg was significantly ischemic and flow could not be re-established despite multiple attempts at cut-downs at different levels. You can see her angiogram here at the end of the case. She subsequently went on to have a below knee amputation, and her hospital course was complicated by
a colonic perforation due to the colitis not responding to conservative measures. She underwent a subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy. Just in the interest of time we'll skip past the second, third, and fourth patients here. These patients represent catastrophic complications of
atypical thrombo-embolic events occurring in IBD flares. Patients with inflammatory disease are at an increased risk for both arterial and venous thrombotic complications. So the questions to be answered: are the current recommendations adequate? Currently heparin prophylaxis is recommended for
inpatients hospitalized for severe disease. And, if this is not adequate, what treatments should we recommend, the medication choice, and the duration of treatment? These arterial and venous complications occurring in the visceral and peripheral arteries
are likely underappreciated clinically as a risk for patients with IBD flares and they demonstrate a need to look at further indications for thrombo-prophylaxis. Thank you.
- Thank you, Dr. Ouriel, Dr. Lurie. Ladies and gentlemen. Brian, that was a very fair overview of the ATTRACT trial as it was published in the New England Journal, so thank you. And these are my disclosures. So Dr. DeRubertis did a very nice review of this paper
that was published in the New England Journal December 7th of last year. He went over very nicely that it was NIH sponsored, phase III, randomized, controlled, multicenter, 692 patients randomized, anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation plus catheter-based techniques.
Now one thing I want to call your attention to is the fact that patients with deep venous thrombosis, acute deep venous thrombosis, who were eligible for randomization, were stratified before they were randomized into two different groups, iliofemoral DVT or fem-pop DVT.
So in my opinion, these are not subgroups because the randomization of one group had no effect on the randomization of another, so I would argue that these are independent groups. That makes a big difference when you do statistical analyses.
The other important issue that I want to point out is that the outcomes were pre-determined to what we were going to analyze. We had to choose one as a primary endpoint and the others as secondary, but these were pre-determined end points that were up for analysis, not post hoc analyses.
And post-thrombotic syndrome was determined at the time, 12 years ago when we wrote the protocol, to be the primary end point. I would submit that we would not choose that as a primary end point if we wrote the protocol today. Moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome
certainly would be more appropriate. Leg pain, swelling, health-related quality of life, certainly important. This is the outcome, and unfortunately, it did not reach significance. There was no difference between the two groups
and there was an increased risk of bleeding, but this is the outcome that drove opinion about ATTRACT, but we don't really do catheter-directed thrombolysis for fem-pop DVT. Therefore, the results of the iliofemoral patients will be the most meaningful and that paper was written
and that paper has been accepted by circulation. It should be out shortly, but there were 391 iliofemoral DVT patients and the primary outcome was no different than the primary outcome in the overall trial. But are they?
If we had chosen the Venous Clinical Severity Score in place of the Villalta score for analysis of that primary end point, it would've been a positive study. So if we chose a different tool to analyze, our primary end point would've been positive for the iliofemoral DVT patients.
If we look at moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome, a significant difference. Control patients had a 56% increased risk of moderate to severe PTS versus the control patients. If we look at severe post-thrombotic syndrome, control patients had a 72% increased risk
of severe PTS versus control. If we look at the overall severity of the Villalta score in PTS, we can see that there is a significant difference favoring percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis. When we look at pain, the patient's pain was significantly reduced in the PCDT patients compared to control.
We look at edema, significant reduction in edema at day 10 and day 30 in patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis compared to control. Disease-specific quality of life significantly favored patients who had PCDT compared to control. So we look at moderate to severe, severe, pain,
quality of life. There was a price to pay. Major bleeding was increased, but the P-value was no different. I will not argue that patients are not at increased risk. They are at increased risk for bleeding,
but this is an historically low bleeding rate for catheter-directed thrombolysis and there were no intracranial bleeds. No difference in recurrent deep venous thrombosis. No difference in mortality at 24 months between the two groups.
So in conclusion, the primary end point, reduction of any PTS defined by a Villalta score of 5 or more, no difference, but an item that has not reached the level of discussion that we will need to consider is that 14% of our patients had a normal Villalta score coming into the study.
It's impossible to improve upon that, but there is a significant reduction in any PTS if you use the Venous Clinical Severity Score, reduction of moderate and severe post-thrombotic syndrome, reduction of pain and swelling, and improved disease-specific quality of life compared to controls.
And I think these are the meaningful end points that patients appreciate and these are the points of discussion that will be covered in the article in circulation that will be published very soon. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you. Here are my disclosures. Our preferred method for zone one TAVR has evolved to a carotid/carotid transposition and left subclavian retro-sandwich. The technique begins with a low transverse collar incision. The incision is deepened through the platysma
and subplatysmal flaps are then elevated. The dissection is continued along the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid entering the carotid sheath anteromedial to the jugular vein. The common carotid artery is exposed
and controlled with a vessel loop. (mumbling) The exposure's repeated for the left common carotid artery and extended as far proximal to the omohyoid muscle as possible. A retropharyngeal plane is created using blunt dissection
along the anterior border of the cervical vertebra. A tunneling clamp is then utilized to preserve the plane with umbilical tape. Additional vessel loops are placed in the distal and mid right common carotid artery and the patient is systemically anticoagulated.
The proximal and distal vessel loops are tightened and a transverse arteriotomy is created between the middle and distal vessel loops. A flexible shunt is inserted and initially secured with the proximal and middle vessel loops. (whistling)
It is then advanced beyond the proximal vessel loop and secured into that position. The left common carotid artery is then clamped proximally and distally, suture ligated, clipped and then transected. (mumbling)
The proximal end is then brought through the retropharyngeal tunnel. - [Surgeon] It's found to have (mumbles). - An end-to-side carotid anastomosis is then created between the proximal and middle vessel loops. If preferred the right carotid arteriotomy
can be made ovoid with scissors or a punch to provide a better shape match with the recipient vessel. The complete anastomosis is back-bled and carefully flushed out the distal right carotid arteriotomy.
Flow is then restored to the left carotid artery, I mean to the right carotid artery or to the left carotid artery by tightening the middle vessel loop and loosening the proximal vessel loop. The shunt can then be removed
and the right common carotid artery safely clamped distal to the transposition. The distal arteriotomy is then closed in standard fashion and flow is restored to the right common carotid artery. This technique avoids a prosthetic graft
and the retropharyngeal space while maintaining flow in at least one carotid system at all times. Once, and here's a view of the vessels, once hemostasis is assured the platysma is reapproximated with a running suture followed by a subcuticular stitch
for an excellent cosmetic result. Our preferred method for left subclavian preservation is the retro-sandwich technique which involves deploying an initial endograft just distal to the left subclavian followed by both proximal aortic extension
and a left subclavian covered stent in parallel fashion. We prefer this configuration because it provides a second source of cerebral blood flow independent of the innominate artery
and maintains ready access to the renovisceral vessels if further aortic intervention is required in the future. Thank you.
- So this is what I've been assigned to do, I think this is a rich topic so I'll just get into it. Here are my disclosures. So I hope to convince you at the end of this talk that what we need for massive PE when we're talking about catheter based therapy is a prospective registry. And what we need for catheter based therapy for
submassive PE is a randomized controlled trial. So we'll start with massive PE and my rational for this. So you know, really as you've heard, the goal of massive PE treatment is to rescue these patients from death. They have a 25 to 65% chance of dying
so our role, whatever type of physician we are, is to rescue that patient. So what are our tools to rescue that patient? You've heard about some of them already, intravenous thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, and catheter directed therapy.
The focus of my talk will be catheter directed therapy but let's remember that the fastest and easiest thing to do for these patients is to give them intravenous thrombolysis. And I think we under utilize this therapy and we need to think about this as a first line therapy for massive PE.
However, there's some patients in whom thrombolytics are contraindicated or in whom they fail and then we have to look at some other options. And that's where catheter directed therapy may play a role. So I want to show you a pretty dramatic case and this was an eye-opening case for me
and sort of what launched our PERT when I was at Cornell. It's a 30 year old man, transcranial resection of a pituitary tumor post-op seizures and of course he had a frontal lobe hemorrhage at that time. Sure enough, four or five days after this discovery
he developed hypertension and hypoxia. And then is he CT of the chest, which I still remember to this day because it was so dramatic. You see this caval thrombosis right, basically a clot in transit
and this enormous clot in the right main pulmonary artery. And of course he was starting to get altered, tachycardiac and a little bit hypotensive. So the question is, what to do with this patient with an intracranial hemorrhage? Obviously, systemic thrombolytics are
contraindicated in him. His systolics were in the 90 millimeter of mercury ranged, getting more altered and tachycardiac. He was referred for a CDT and he was brought to the IR suite. And really, at this point,
you could see the multidisciplinary nature of PE. The ICU attending was actively managing him while I was getting access and trying to do my work. So this was the initial pulmonary angiogram you can see there's absolutely no flow to the right lung even with a directed injection
you see this cast of thrombus there. Tried a little bit of aspiration, did a little bit of maceration, even injected a little TPA, wasn't getting anywhere. I was getting a little bit more panicked as he was getting more panicked
and I remembered this device that I had used in AV fistula work called the Cleaner. Totally off label use here, I should disclose that and I have no interest in the company, no financial interest in the company. And so we deployed this thing, activate it a few times,
it spins at 3,000 rpm's, he coughed a little bit, and that freaked us all out also. But low and behold we actually started seeing some profusion. And you can see it in the aortogram actually in this and that's the whole point of massive PE treatment with CDT,
is try to get forward flow into the left ventricle so that you have a systemic blood pressure. Now, you know, when we talk about catheter based therapies we have all sorts of things at our disposal. And my point to you is that you know really, thank you...
You guys can see that, great. So really, the point of these catheter therapies is that you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE because basically your role is to try to help this patient live. So, if I can get this thing to show up again.
There we go. It's not working very well, sorry. So, from clockwise we have the AngioVac circuit, you have, let's see if this will work again, okay. Nope, it's got a delay. So then you have your infusion catheter,
then you have the Inari FlowTriever, you saw the Cleaner in the previous cast, and you have the Penumbra aspiration device the CAT 8. And some of these will be spoken about in more detail in subsequent talks. But really, you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE
just to do whatever it takes to get profusion to the left side. So, the best analysis that has been done so far was Will Kuo in 2009. He conducted a meta-analysis of about 594 patients and he found this clinical success rate of 86.5%.
This basically meant these patients survived to 30 days. Well, if that we're the case, that's a much lower mortality than we've seen historically we should basically be doing catheter directed therapy for every single massive PE that comes into the hospital. But I think we have to remember with this meta-analysis
that only 94 of these patients came from prospective studies, 500 came from retrospective, single center studies. So even though it was a very well conducted meta-analysis, the substrate for this meta-analysis wasn't great. And I think my point to you is that
we really are going to have a hard time studying this in a prospective fashion. So what is the data, as far as massive PE tell us and not tell us? Techniques are available to remove thrombus, it can be used if systemic lysis is contraindicated,
but it doesn't tell us whether catheter based therapies are better than the other therapies. Whether they should be used in combination with them and which patients should get catheter based therapy, which should get surgery and which techniques are most effective and safe.
Now, I think something we have to remember is that massive PE has a 5% incidence which is probably a good thing, if this was even higher than that we would have even more of an epidemic on our hand. But this is what makes massive PE very difficult to study.
So, if you looked at a back of the envelope calculation an RCT is just not feasible. So in an 800 bed hospital, you have 200 PE's per year, 5% are massive which means you get 10 per year in that hospital, assume 40% enroll which is actually generous,
that means that 4 massive PE's per year per institution. And then what are you going to do? Are you going to randomize them to IV lytics versus surgery versus interventional therapy, a three arm study, what is the effect size, what difference do you expect between these therapies
and how would you power it? It's really an impossible question. So I do want to make the plug for a Massive PE Prospective Registry. I think something like the PERT consortium is very well-suited to run something like this
especially with this registry endeavors. Detailed baseline characteristics including all these patients, detailing the intervention and looking at both short and long-term outcomes. Moving on to submassive PE. As you've heard much more controversial,
a much more difficult question. ICOPER as you already heard from the previous talk, alerted the world to RV dysfunction which this right ventricular hypokinesis conferring a higher mortality at 90 days than no RV dysfunction. And that's where PEITHO came in as you heard.
This showed that the placebo group met the primary endpoint of hemodynamic decompensation more commonly than the Tenecteplase group. Of course, coming at the risk of higher rate of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. So I just want to reiterate what was just said
which is that systemic thrombolysis has a questionable risk benefit profile and most patients with submassive PE, as seen in the guideline documents as well. So that sort of opens a sort of door for catheter directed therapy.
Is this the next therapy to overcome some of the shortcomings of systemic thrombolysis? Well what we have in terms of CDT is these four trials, Ultima, Seattle II, Optalyse, and Perfect. Three of these trails were the ultrasound assisted catheter, the Ekos catheter.
And only one of them is randomized and that's the Ultima trial. I'm going to show you just one slide from each one of them. The Ultima trial is basically the only randomized trial and it showed that if you put catheters in these patients 24 hours later their RV to LV ratio will be lower
than if you just treat them with Heparin. Seattle II is a single arm study and there was an association with the reduction in the RV to LV ratio at 48 hours by CTA. PERFECT, I found this to be the most interesting figure from PERFECT which is that you're going to start it at
systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 51 and you're going to come down to about 37. Optalyse, a brand new study that was just published, four arms each arm has increasing dose associated with it and at 48 hours it didn't matter, all of these groups had a reduction in the RV to LV ratio.
And there was no control group here as well. What is interesting is that the more thrombolytics you used the more thrombus you cleared at 48 hours. What that means clinically is uncertain at this point. There is bleeding with CDT. 11% major bleeding rate in Seattle II,
no intracranial hemorrhages. Optalyse did have five major bleeds, most of the major bleeds happened in the highest dosed arms. So we know that thrombolytics cause bleeding that's still an issue. Now, clot extraction minus fibrinolytic,
this is an interesting question. We do have devices, you're going to hear about the FLARE trial later in this session. EXTRACT-PE is ongoing which we have enrolled about 75 patients into. What the data does and does not tell us
when it comes to CDT for submassive PE it probably reduces the RV to LV ratio at 24 hours, it's associated with a reduction at 48 hours, major bleeding is seen, we do not know what the short and long-term clinical outcomes are
following CDT for submassive PE. Whether it should be routinely used in submassive PE and in spite of the results of Optalyse this is a preliminary trial, we don't know the optimal dose and duration of thrombolytic drug. And even is spite of these early trials
on these non-lytic techniques, we don't know their true role yet. I'd liked to point out that greater than 1,600 patients have been randomized in systemic lytic trails yet only 59 have been randomized in a single, non-U.S. CDT trial.
So this means that you can randomize patients with submassive PE to one treatment or the other. And we want to get away from this PERT CDT roller coaster where you get enthusiasm, you do more cases, then you have a complication, then the number of cases drops.
You want that to be consistent because you're basing it on data. And that's where we're trying to come up with a way of answering that with this PE-TRACT trial. Which is a RCT of CDT versus no-CDT. We're looking at clinical endpoints
rather than radiographic ones greater than 400 patients, 30 to 50 sites across the country. So in summary I hope I've convinced you that we need a Prospective Registry for massive PE and a Randomized Controlled Trail for submassive PE. Thank you.
- Thank you, Larry, thank you, Tony. Nice to be known as a fixture. I have no relevant disclosures, except that I have a trophy. And that's important, but also that Prabir Roy-Chaudhury, who's in this picture, was the genesis of some of the thoughts that I'm going to deliver here about predicting renal failure,
so I do want to credit him with bringing that to the vascular access space. You know, following on Soren's talk about access guidelines, we're dealing with pretty old guidelines, but if you look at the 2006 version, you know, just the height--
The things that a surgeon might read in his office. CKD four, patients there, you want a timely referral, you want them evaluated for placement of permanent access. The term "if necessary" is included in those guidelines, that's sometimes forgotten about.
And, of course, veins should be protected. We already heard a little bit about that, and so out our hospital, with our new dialysis patients, we usually try to butcher both antecubital veins at the same time. And then, before we send them to surgery
after they've been vein-marked, we use that vein to put in their preoperative IV, so that's our vascular access management program at Christiana Care. - [Male Speaker] That's why we mark it for you, Teddy. (laughing)
- So, you know, the other guideline is patients should have a functional permanent access at the initiation of dialysis therapy, and that means we need a crystal ball. How do we know this? A fistula should be placed at least six months
before anticipated start of dialysis, or a graft three to six weeks. Anybody who tells you they actually know that is lying, you can't tell, there's no validated means of predicting this. You hear clinical judgment, you can look at
all sorts of things. You cannot really make that projection. Now there is one interesting study by Tangri, and this is what Premier brought to our attention last year at CIDA, where this Canadian researcher and his team developed a model for predicting
progression of chronic kidney disease, not specifically for access purposes, but for others. They looked at a large number of patients in Canada, followed them through chronic kidney disease to ESRD, and they came up with a model. If you look at a simple model that uses age, sex,
estimated GFR from MDRD equation and albuminuria to predict when that patient might develop end stage renal disease, and there's now nice calculators. This is a wonderful thing, I keep it on my phone, this Qx Calculate, I would recommend you do the same,
and you can put those answers to the questions, in this app, and it'll give you the answer you're looking for. So for instance, here's a case, a 75-year-old woman, CKD stage four, her creatinine's 2.7, not very impressive,
eGFR's 18. Her urine protein is 1200 milligrams per gram, that's important, this is kind of one of the major variables that impacts on this. So she's referred appropriately at that stage to a surgeon for arteriovenous access,
and he finds that she really has no veins that he feels are suitable for a fistula, so an appropriate referral was made. Now at that time, if you'd put her into this equation with those variables, 1200, female, 75-year-old, 18 GFR, at two years, her risk of ESRD is about 30%,
and at five years about 66%, 67%. So, you know, how do you use those numbers in deciding if she needs an access? Well, you might say... A rational person might say perhaps that patient should get a fistula,
or at least be put in line for it. Well, this well-intentioned surgeon providing customer service put in a graft, which then ended up with some steal requiring a DRIL, which then still had steal, required banding, and then a few months, a year later
was thrombosed and abandoned because she didn't need it. And I saw her for the first time in October 2018, at which time her creatinine is up to 3.6, her eGFR's down to 12, her protein is a little higher, 2600, so now she has a two-year risk of 62%, and a five-year risk of 95%,
considerably more than when this ill-advised craft was created. So what do you do with this patient now? I don't have the answer to that, but you can use this information at least to help flavor your thought process,
and what if you could bend the curve? What if you treated this patient appropriately with ACE inhibitors and other methods to get the protein down? Well, you can almost half her two-year risk of renal failure with medical management.
So these considerations I think are important to the team, surgeon, nurses, nephrologists, etc., who are planning that vascular access with the patient. When to do and what to do. And then, you know, it's kind of old-fashioned to look at the trajectory.
We used to look at one over creatinine, we can look at eGFR now, and she's on a trajectory that looks suspicious for progression, so you can factor that into your thought process as well. And then I think this is the other very important concept, I think I've spoken about this here before,
is that there's no absolute need for dialysis unless you do bilateral nephrectomies. Patients can be managed medically for quite a while, and the manifestations of uremia dealt with quite safely and effectively, and you can see that over the years, the number of patients
in this top brown pattern that have been started on dialysis with a GFR of greater than 15 has fallen, or at least, stopped rising because we've recognized that there's no advantage, and there may be disadvantages to starting patients too early.
So if your nephrologist is telling I've got to start this patient now because he or she needs dialysis, unless they had bilateral nephrectomies that may or may not be true. Another case,
64-year-old male, CKD stage four, creatinine about four, eGFR 15, 800 milligrams of proteinuria, referred to a vascular access surgeon for AV access. Interesting note, previous central lines, or AICD, healthy guy otherwise.
So in April 2017 he had a left wrist fistula done, I think that was a very appropriate referral and a very appropriate operation by this surgeon. At that time his two-year risk was 49, 50%, his five-year risk 88%. It's a pretty good idea, I think, to get a wrist fistula
in that patient. Once again, this is not validated for that purpose. I can't point you to a study that says by using this you can make well-informed predictions about when to do vascular access, but I do think it helps to flavor the judgment on this.
Also, I saw him for the first time last month, and his left arm is like this. Amazing, that has never had a catheter or anything, so I did his central venogram, and this is his anatomy. I could find absolutely no evidence of a connection between the left subclavian and the superior vena cava,
I couldn't cross it. Incidentally, this was done with less than 20 CCs of dye of trying to open this occlusion or find a way through, which was unsuccessful. You can see all the edema in his arm. So what do you do with this guy now?
Well, up, go back. Here's his trajectory of CKD four from the time his fistula is done to the time I'm seeing him now, he's been pretty flat. And his proteinuria's actually dropped
with medical management. He's only got 103 milligrams per gram of proteinuria now, and his two-year risk is now 23%, his five-year risk is 56%, so I said back to the surgeon we ligate this damn thing, because we can't really do much to fix it,
and we're going to wait and see when it's closer to time to needing dialysis. I'm not going to subject this guy to a right-arm fistula with that trajectory of renal disease over the past two years. So combining that trajectory with these predictive numbers,
and improved medical care for proteinuria I think is a good strategy. So what do you do, you're weighing factors for timing too early, you've got a burden of fistula failure, interventions you need to use to maintain costs, morbidity, complications,
steal, neuropathy that you could avoid versus too late and disadvantages of initiating hemodialysis without a permanent access. And lastly, I'm going to just finish with some blasphemy. I think the risk of starting dialysis with a catheter is vastly overstated.
If you look at old data and patient selection issues, and catheter maintenance issues, I think... It's not such an unreasonable thing to start a patient with a catheter. We do it all the time and they usually live.
And even CMS gives us a 90-day grace period on our QIP penalties, so... If you establish a surgeon and access plan, I think you're good to go. So who monitors access maturation? I don't know, somebody who knows what they're doing.
If you look at all the people involved, I know some of these individuals who are absolute crackerjack experts, and some are clueless. It has nothing to do with their age, their gender, their training, their field. It's just a matter of whether they understand
what makes a good fistula. You don't have to be a genius, you just can't be clueless. This is not a mature usable fistula, I know that when I see it. Thank you.
- Thank you, thank you. Dear Colleagues, I have no Financial Disclosures. If we look at the old randomized stroke trials, mainly NASCET and ECST, we had a combined any stroke and death rate within 30 days of 7%, and there were some clinical and morphological arrivals that were associated
with an higher or a lower risk. The Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration was established to perform pooled individual patient data analysis from the major carotid randomized trials of the last year, ICSS, SPACE, EVA-3S, CREST and now also GALA.
And the aim of this study was to look at the impact of clinical characteristics and perioperative measures on the 30-day risk of stroke and death, and whether the risk of CEA for symptomatic patients has changed since since ECST and NASCET. And I'll jump directly into the results,
the primary outcome, any stroke or death within 30 days occurred in 4.3% of the patients, disabling stroke and death, 2.1, any stroke 4%, all-cause death 0.8%. If we looked at the multi-variable analyses, these are the impact of the clinical characteristics,
no clinical factor was associated with the lower or bigger risk, with the exception of a contralateral stenosis or occlusion. This was statically significant, with an risk increase of almost 60% relative risk increase. We looked at the clinical signs of the patients.
There was a tendency that stroke patients had a bit worse results, but again, statistically not significant, however patients who had an disabling stroke, namely a modified Rankin scale of 3 to 5, had a significantly higher risk of a repetitive stroke or death.
Time interval didn't play a role, at any time interval, nothing there, and also the in-trial center volume. The techniques, a tendency that CR without patch, and interestingly Eversion-CEA had worse results in this big data cohort, but again, statistically not significant.
Shunt use was a bit biased, that was associated with an increased risk, and we looked also at the type of anesthesia, this is I think the most important result of this study, and we were able to show that local anesthesia had better outcomes as compared
to general anesthesia, with a 30% relative risk reduction in these patients. So, summing up and comparing the data with the ECST and NASCET trial, we had a reduction from 7% down to 4.3% and also for the other single end points, disabling stroke, death, any stroke, all-cause death, et cetera.
There was a reduction in the overall complication rate with the exception of, in most cases Passager cranial nerve palsy. So in conclusion, we found a higher surgical risk in patients with a contralateral high grade stenosis or occlusion, we also found a higher risk in patients
with a modified Rankin Scale of 3 to 5 at randomization, so disabling strokes. Lower surgical risk if surgery was done under loco-regional anesthesia, and no significant effects for surgical technique, co-morbidities, gender or age. Thank you very much 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 very much. Let's see, no disclosures related to this issue. I think, we are, now, talking about a lot of physical measurements, and trying to figure out what's best for the patient but, in fact, the evaluation of the quality of care has changed, and we are now more related
to value-based healthcare. And that relates to the fact that you measure the outcome of your treatment, and you divide it by the costs. This is me in the old days that I thought, what's outcome? Well, I have a perfect technical result.
I have no complications and a 99% success rate. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't stand anymore. We have to do other things to prove that we're doing well. We need patient-reported outcomes, we need clinical-reported outcomes.
That value comes to outcome, and that you divide to the cost of the treatment. These are the arrows are the patient-reported outcomes. First, of course, you have the quality of care. That's the patient mentions how he evaluates the quality of the care that he had got.
The other thing is the quality of life. Those are the patient-reported outcomes. On the other side are the clinical-reported outcomes. That's the clinical opinion, which is the VCSS, the CF, and the other classification that we have, are clinical measurements, of course,
which are duplex outcomes, MRVs, CTVs, etc. So, as said Patient Reported Experience Measurements PREMs as called, is something which you collect alongside with the PROMs, Patient Reported Outcome Measures and that tells you something about how the patient evaluates the care that he got.
Then of course, quality of life, there's a huge amount of things out there. We analyzed the overview of the most commonly used. We came in fact to the conclusion that VEINES-QOL/Sym is the only quality of life, disease-specific quality of life score,
which, let's say quantifies the disease from varicose veins up to ulcer disease. All the specific scores and the others which are out there unfortunately only do it, going to quantify the quality of life in a segment of the venous disease, which you can see here.
So we have C(EAP) for clinical, Villalta, VCSS, AVVQ, CIVIQ and VEINES-QOL/Sym. And the VEINES-QOL/Sym is something which is around there in lot of languages and tells you something about the disease of the patient. Of course you need to take generic quality of life,
a lot of people use the SF-36 but unfortunately, that's not the value that you can use to quantify the care you need. The EQ-5D-5L to economically evaluate and calculate for qualities. And that said if we do the VEINES-QOL/Sym.
Well, clinical outcomes, C(EAP), VCSS, Villalta scale, venous claudication, which are all there, venous claudication is not in the other three. So we need, at least, a quantification of venous claudication in a new one. And we know that aspects of venous claudication,
pain during exercise, pain subsides at rest, leg-elevation decreases the pain, and it correlated with a pain-free walking distance. And as Gerry O'Sullivan just mentioned, that there is no arterial brachial pressure index, or whatever physically to measure this.
Of course we have clinical measurements like the duplex and the MRVs, etc., and so in fact what we are used to and we are aware of is that you have quality of care, quality of life, clinical opinion, and clinical measures. But we need something else.
There is also a case-mix variable, which is not in these systems, and it influences the outcome significantly. If you look at these two patients, which are not shown yet, but they have the same VEINES-QOL/Sym, they have the same CF, they have the same VCSS, and same Villalta,
but unfortunately they can be very, very different. So this relates to the fact that you also have to look at age, gender, and the co-morbidity. And that altogether influences the measures that you need to quantify the outcome of your treatment. So, as said, we have patient-reported experience measures,
you have quality of life, clinical opinion, clinical measures, and the case-mix variables. That should be the venous outcome set. And we are working now closely with ICHOM, which is the International Consortium for Heath Outcomes Measurement
with Michael Porter and try to come up with a data set for all venous disease, which we can use in the future to measure the outcome of the patients that we treat. Thank you very much.
- Thank you to the moderators, thank you to Dr. Veith for having me. Let's go! So my topic is to kind of introduce the ATTRACT trial, and to talk a little bit about how it affected, at least my practice, when it comes to patients with acute DVT.
I'm on the scientific advisory board for a company that makes IVC filters, and I also advise to BTG, so you guys can ask me about it later if you want. So let's talk about a case. A 50-year-old man presents
from an outside hospital to our center with left lower extremity swelling. And this is what somebody looks like upon presentation. And pulses, motor function, and sensation are actually normal at this point.
And he says to us, "Well, symptoms started "three days ago. "They're about the same since they started," despite being on anticoagulation. And he said, "Listen guys, in the other hospital, "they wouldn't do anything.
"And I want a procedure because I want the clot "out of me." so he's found to have this common femoral vein DVT. And the question is should endovascular clot removal be performed for this patient?
Well the ATTRACT trial set off to try and prevent a complication you obviously all know about, called the post-thrombotic syndrome, which is a spectrum from sort of mild discomfort and a little bit of dyspigmentation and up
to venous ulcerations and quite a lot of morbidity. And in ATTRACT, patients with proximal DVT were randomized to anticoagulation alone or in combination with pharma mechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis.
And the reason I put proximal in quotes is because it wasn't only common sort of femoral vein clots, but also femoral vein clots including the distal femoral vein were included eventually. And so patients with clots were recruited,
and as I said, they were randomized to those two treatments. And what this here shows you is the division into the two groups. Now I know this is a little small, but I'll try and kind of highlight a few things
that are relevant to this talk. So if you just read the abstract of the ATTRACT trial published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, it'll seem to you that the study was a negative study.
The conclusion and the abstract is basically that post-thrombotic syndrome was not prevented by performing these procedures. Definitely post-thrombotic syndrome is still frequent despite treatment. But there was a signal for less severe
post-thrombotic syndrome and for more bleeding. And I was hoping to bring you all, there's an upcoming publication in circulation, hopefully it'll be online, I guess, over the weekend or early next week, talking specifically about patients
with proximal DVT. But you know, I'm speaking now without those slides. So what I can basically show you here, that at 24 months, unfortunately, there was no, well not unfortunately,
but the fact is, it did cross the significance and it was not significant from that standpoint. And what you can see here, is sort of a continuous metric of post-thrombotic syndrome. And here there was a little bit of an advantage
towards reduction of severe post-thrombotic syndrome with the procedure. What it also shows you here in this rectangle, is that were more bleeds, obviously, in the patients who received the more aggressive therapy.
One thing that people don't always talk about is that we treat our patients for two reasons, right? We want to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome but obviously, we want to help them acutely. And so what the study also showed,
was that acute symptoms resolved more quickly in patients who received the more aggressive therapy as opposed to those who did not. Again, at the price of more bleeding. So what happened to this patient? Well you know,
he presented on a Friday, obviously. So we kind of said, "Yeah, we probably are able "to try and do something for you, "but let's wait until Monday." And by Monday, his leg looked like this, with sort of a little bit of bedrest
and continued anticoagulation. So at the end of the day, no procedure was done for this particular patient. What are my take home messages, for whatever that's worth? Well I think intervention for DVT
has several acute indications. Restore arterial flow when phlegmasia is the problem, and reduce acute symptoms. I think intervention for common femoral and more proximal DVT likely does have long-term benefit, and again, just be
on the lookout for that circ paper that's coming out. Intervention for femoral DVT, so more distal DVT, in my opinion, is rarely indicated. And in the absence of phlegmasia, for me, thigh swelling is a good marker for a need
for a procedure, and I owe Dr. Bob Schainfeld that little tidbit. So thank you very much for listening.
- Thank you very much. Well this is a series that was actually published five years ago. And it outlined 45,000 patients after carotid endarterectomy, as well as open and closed thoracic abdominal procedures and infrainguinal bypasses.
And you can see here, that the VTE rate, and this is emblematic of a lot of studies. If you take everything together in a ball, you get an average result. And as you can see, the peripheral bypasses had a low incidence.
Carotids, very low incidence. But open procedures had a higher incidence than endovascular procedures. But here is the nub. Here is what's really important and why you need to do risk assessment.
Look at what happened to these percentages if the patients had any morbidity during hospitalization, as high as 7.8%. And here's the list after they went home. Again, it's not the .5 tenths of a percent or 1%, and this is what it's all about.
It's about the extra risk factors that the patient has. So now, anybody that's starting to do work with the Caprini Score, you've got to go to the patient-friendly form. Because we don't just do it,
if the patient comes in for surgery, and somebody does a preoperative evaluation in the holding area, stop it! It's ridiculous! Have you ever been in the holding area? What are you worried about?
You're worried about having the operation. Are they going to find cancer? Will the surgeon have a bad day? How much pain am I going to be in? How long am I going to be out of work? They're not going to talk to you
about their family history or their obstetrical misadventures. So you have them fill a form out ahead of time with their family, and then when they come in, you just double-check it. And we've studied this, it's in five languages,
and it's got perfect correlation with trained observers doing the same thing. And remember, if you fail to carefully interrogate your patients regarding the history or family history of venous thromboembolism, vascular surgery or not, sooner or later you may
be faced with a fatal PE. And the idea that you're giving anticoagulants during your procedure that's going to protect them is not valid. The relative risk of thrombosis increases with the number of risk factors identified.
A combination of genetic and acquired risk factors in a person without a history of a thrombosis personally, but with a family history, has a 60-fold higher chance than those that have a negative family history. And a positive family history increased
the risk of venous thrombosis more than 2-fold, regardless of the other risk factors. Don't forget the history of thrombosis. You won't need to look this article up. It's 183,000 patients over 25 years and it shows that both in first, second,
and third-degree relatives, as well as cohabitants in the household, there's an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Lowering down, getting lower for each degree of a relative.
But a DVT in a cousin, there may also be a thrombopathic condition in that patient. So you better pay attention to that. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, wonderful program. The database has no information on history
or family history of VTE, use of perioperative VTE prophylaxis, intraoperative anticoagulation, or perioperative use of antiplatelet agents. How are you supposed to make any sense out of DVT-related studies?
Finally, due to the lack of routine screening for VTE, the incidence of VTE may be underestimated in this NSQIP database, which only makes the need for further study more pressing. This is an important consideration because
more recent data indicates that two-thirds of the patients are found to have DVT during screening and after vascular operations, have no signs or symptoms of the problem. And I'd like to remind you, so this is based on the Boston data, which is the best data.
Patients with a low score pneumatic compression during hospitalization. Moderate score, of 7-10 days of anticoagulation. Don't make any difference if they're inpatient or outpatient. And 28 days if their score is over nine.
They lowered their incidence on the surgical services from 2.2% to a tenth of a percent at 30 days. And finally, and I think this is really, really important. Take a look at all these risk assessment scores.
To my knowledge, there's only two scores. It's not the Padua, it's not the IMPROVE that have a history of obstetrical misadventures which can reflect antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, as well as family history
in various degrees of relatives. So with that, 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.
- This one is an easier publication we did, but I do think it's interesting because there are no data for real in the use of the aquatic environment for our lymphedema patients. I have no conflicts of interest to declare, but I declare that I'm really interested in this topic because if you look at the Global Spa & Wellness Summit report,
every single year this is the amount of money that are spent in the business of the aquatic environment and of the spa centers. And we are not behaving so well as vascular specialists because what you're looking at over here is a vision of the literature showing that muscle skeleton system data
are out there in the literature for the benefits of the effects of the aquatic environment, but we as vascular specialists are not producing so much data. Before the publication we put on Phlebology on this topic, just these six papers were dealing with the use
of the aquatic environment for lymphedema patients, and all of them are basically on quality of life measurements, not really on objective data of drainage, so every single day in nice hotels also like this one, you have people going inside the pool
and doing all of these activities, not really knowing what's going on inside their venous system, and something cool could actually happen because if you really think about that every single centimeter of water is performing 0.7 millimeters of mercury in terms of standing load,
so when I have a patient standing up inside the pool at 120 centimeters of depth, his feet is actually over one by 88 millimeters of mercury, so four times the stockings we are usually prescribing. We also know that, of course, activating the muscle pump is fundamental, so what we did was activating
the muscle pump inside the aquatic environment, creating a standardized protocol of exercises that we tested on 32 lower limbs of 16 patients affected by bilateral lymphedema. These patients went inside the pool for doing the standardized protocol:
50 minutes per session, twice per week, for a total of five sessions. The protocol is published on Phlebology, so you can download that for free. Basically it's an activation of all the joints of the lower limb.
What you can have after five sessions of this protocol is a significant reduction of the lower limb volume, that by more than 300 mils. The circumferences of the leg and the subcutaneous thickness measured by ultrasound is significantly decreasing, but the interesting part is this one, I think.
You see over there Michael Jackson with the Moonwalk because we were having patients walking backward because you have the biggest activation of the ankle at that point, and it was interesting to notice that the range of motion of the ankle was increase of up to four degrees, and if you put that into statistics,
it's really interesting to notice that the volume reduction was directly related with a 0.4 correlation to the increase in the ankle motion. The evidence of feeling of the leg was decreased from 7.3 to 5.5 out of ten as a score. The functional ambulation classification,
which is a score for debility of walking, was not significantly changed. Again, everything is on Phlebology if you want to download it, and now we are doing other investigations because of course we could bring some about not just the physical property
of the aquatic environment, but also the chemical properties of the kind of water we are using and on the temperature that we want to use over that. So at the current moment I cannot discuss that. We are under a grant of investigation, but for sure I do think this is a way to go
because it's like killing two birds with one stone because indeed you can have patients that are hypomobile or that are, for example, obese that can perform exercises inside the aquatic environment that they could not perform outside the pool, but I have to say that we didn't find anything new because the guy you see
over there is Conrad Jobst. There is a nice quote by van der Stricht. He was saying we should know the history so to avoid wasting our time trying to open doors that were already opened by others, and the door was already opened by Jobst
because as you know he was an engineer. He was affected by an ulcer and in reality he noticed that when he was standing inside his pool, his ulcers was getting better. Being an engineer he understood that it was related to the standing though and so he created the concept
of the graduated pressure that you have inside the water in the stockings we are now prescribing that are then son of the aquatic environment.
- [Evan] So today I'm going to talk about Episode Based C because a hemodialysis access measure is currently under development as we speak. This is not technically a disclosure but I do represent the SVS and serve as a co-chair for the Peripheral Vascular Disease Management Clinical subcommittee for Acumen, who's
consultants to CMS, and that will become clear in a minute. In the past, all of us had our cost accountability through the Value-based Modifiers in the old system, but going forward with MACRA, physicians have to choose to participate in an Alternative Payment Model or in a Merit-based Incentive Payment System.
Now in Alternative Payment Models, this is where, as a physician or a group, you share the risk for the possibility of higher gains, and this is exemplified by such things as Accountable Care Organizations, it requires a rather hefty investment of resources, time in order to do this, so most of us will wind up in the MIPS, the Merit-based Incentive
Payment System, and if you do wind up there, your cost accountability is going to be a composite score in these four areas: Quality, Resource Use, which is cost and that's what we're talkin actice Improvement, and Advancing Care.
So by way of background, CMS contracted with Acumen to develop episode-based cost measures. They established Clinical Disease Management Subcommittees, who received input from a Technical Expert Panel, Person-Family committee, which is patients and their families, as well as public commentary with
the goal of selecting one to two episode groups. The measures were developed in waves, which correspond to a given year, and these measures should be high impact. In other words, they should encompass a large number of Medicare beneficiaries, a large number of providers, and have a significant cost impact.
Measures are then eligible for the MIPS cost performance category in the Quality Payment Program, and the Peripheral Vascular Disease group was tasked with choosing between Limb ischemia, Aneurysms, Carotids, Filters, and Hemodialysis Access. In the first wave, which occurred in 2017, you can see there
were seven Disease Management Subcommittees. The Vascular subcommittee chose to focus on Critical Limb Ischemia, the committee had 22 members representing 19 specialty areas, and for this year, the second wave in 2018, Hemodialysis Access Creation was chosen as the measure. So what's an episode group? An episode group is
defined by an acute inpatient condition, like an MI, a chronic condition like COPD, or a procedure, Hemodialysis Access Creation. Cost Measures are Medicare payments during this entire episode and informs clinicians of the cost they're responsible for and allows for
comparison between physicians. It's calculated using Medicare claims data only, so there's no additional reporting burden. These are the basic steps in Cost Measure Development. There are some others, but we'll go through them one by one. The first is to define the episode group,
and for surgical procedures it's more or less straightforward, because you wind up with the CPT codes for the procedures that are encompassed, and you can see these are the CPT codes here that were chosen for this measure. Next, because episodes include more than just the day of
surgery, you have to establish pre- and post-trigger episode windows. These are look back and look forward periods for which related services are included. The Hemodialysis Measure actually has some variability here in that the pre-trigger window can extend as far back as
three days for things like basic labs, all the way back to 60 days for things like a cardiac echo, and the post-trigger window can go forward one day for something like anemia, but up to 180 days for a re-do procedure. Then, because these groups or the procedures tend to be somewhat heterogeneous, you have to define subgroups.
In other words, make the groups more homogeneous while maintaining enough episodes to make the measures meaningful, and in this case we have two basic subgroups: fistulas and grafts. Then you go ahead and define exclusions. So HeRO grafts really can't be compared to either these two
basic groups, so they're excluded, although any excluded procedure is eligible for use in future waves. The next steps include attributing episodes to given clinicians, so the responsibilities assigned based on either Tax Identification Number of groups or ind
e episode are assigned, these are the costs included within the episode and these are based on the role of the attributed clinician, and then risk adjusted for factors that are outside the clinician's control, such as the patient's medical status. This is kind of a schematic of the Hemodialysis episode.
Here in the big, blue triangle this is the trigger service, so is either the creation of a graft or a fistula (HeROs are lated to this can then either be assigned to the episode or not assigned to the episode, and all services that are assigned can either
be attributed to the clinician performing the procedure, or to other clinicians. For example, a balloon maturation or a de-clot done by another physician is attributed as part of the cost to the service, but not the attributed clinician. Services that are not assigned to an episode are generally
only attributable to other clinicians and providers, and the pre-trigger window as we mentioned three to 60 days, post-trigger one to 180 days. Then a score is reported, and in general before the measures go live, there's a field testing period, and this is a sample field test, it's actually
for Hip Arthroplasty, and what you see here is a couple of things: first of all, this particular group has 161 episodes, usually the minimum is somewhere between ten and 30 episodes that are required. The Risk Adjusted Expected National costs here are estimated, about $19,000, and then the actual costs for this
group were estimated here, and you see this group had a cost of $21,000, so their relative performance is 12% more expensive than the national average. There are other details in these reports that get dri n see they
break out your costs by different aspects of care. Then the next thing is what's the timeline of all of this? Here in the orange brackets you see this is the MIPS, these are the four elements for which your composite score is based, and again we're talking about cost here. So in 2019, for providers participating in the MIPS,
you are eligible either for a four percent bonus, or a four percent penalty based on this performance score. And as you march this out to 2022, that increases to plus or minus nine percent. And the APMs you see here are in a separate category. In summary, these measures are part of the MIPS cost
performance category, they are based only on claims data, the Peripheral Vascular Disease Management subcommittee was charged with measure development, the Wave One measure for chronic Critical Limb Ischemia has been proposed for use in the Quality Payment Program in 2019. Ultimately, all these measures are to align
with quality measures, but of course this depends upon either the presence or development of quality measures that are meaningful and can correlate with some of these specific episodes. I can tell you the measure development is tedious, it's complex, you go very deep in the weeds,
and a big point for CMS and for those developing has been to avoid creating unwanted incentives which result in unintended consequences, and if you'd like more information, these articles in the JVS "Under the Macroscope" can give you more detail into this and other programs. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, I'm going to try to move forward with some of my slides. There we go. And, again, in order to avoid that, we're just going to move through the cases. I have some cases that are different
to the ones presented before. It seems that everybody's happy with this technology. This is a CTO recanalization of a patient with subacute total occulsion of the SFA that previously had a stent in place,
in the distal SFA. And here you can see how we are able to reopen the vessel and look at the clot in the entire length at the end of the catheter there. So, this technology really works.
Let me show you now an acute bowel ischemia case. A patient that comes with abdominal pain. A CTA shows that the patient has an occlusion of the proximal SMA. We put a catheter there,
we do a diagnostic angiogram confirming the occlusion, then we cross the lesion and we inject distali showing that the branches are patent. And then we put in place
an oscar directional sheath that will give us great stability to work and through that one we use a Cat Eight, from Penumbra. As you can see here, advancing the catheter in combination with the separator,
and this is the final angiogram showing complete opening of the main SMA and you can see very clearly the elements that were occluding the MSL. We are also using this technology in DVT, acute DVT, with proprietal access
and here you can see the before, and then, sometimes we use it alone, sometimes we use it in combination with angiojet and with the bull spray, followed by this technology for the areas that did not respond.
But this is usually a technology that is helping us to get rid of most of the clot. Like here, you see there is some residual clot. And after Penambra, you can direct the catheter and you can really clean the entire vein. Same here, before and after.
We are also using it for PE. I know that you guys in Miami are doing the same and we are happy with the results. And then, just to finish, I think this is a really nice case that was done by one of our partners in vascular surgery.
A patient with an occluded carotid subclavial bypass. So you see access from the brachial artery on one side. And this person, the person who did this, was smart enough to also came from the groin
and put the filter in the internal carotid artery, just in case. So then he starts to manipulate that occluded subclavial carotid bypass. As you can see here. And at a certain point,
he does a follow-up angiogram showing that the entire carotid, including the internal and external, is totally occluded. So, because he was prepared, he had a filter,
he didn't panic, he went and used the indigo device, and he was able to get all that clot out and re-establish nice anterial flowing in the carotid artery,
completely clean. The carotid subclavial bypass. And he did a final angiogram in AP and lateral view, confirming that there is no distimbolisation at the intercranial level. So, this technology really works.
I think that we all agree. And these are good examples on how we can help patients with that technology. Thank you for your attention.
- I'll address a recipe for functional and financial success with smoking cessation for our tobacco addicted patients. We're all very acutely aware of the financial, physical and psychological devastation of tobacco. For our vascular patients it's the most important modifiable risk factor.
Most vascular patients have a high level of initial smoking, it's characterized by failed efforts, and there really are very rare evidence-based cessation programs in place. This was confirmed recently by a publication, American Heart or the PORTRAIT Trial.
I said to myself, "well if I wanted to do counseling "I should have been a psychologist "but I want to be a surgeon, I like to operate." And operating vascular surgery we do, at the middle point of my career
it felt like a revolving door. The right carotid, the left carotid, the left fem-pop, the right fem-pop. And a little more senior in my career as I started the restenosis I felt like I was doomed to the myth of Sisyphus where I just
have to keep pushing that rock up to the top of the hill, only to have it roll down again. I submit to you that if all we do is operate for our patients, our field will be disrupted the same way our cardiac surgical colleagues
have been disrupted. A few years ago, Medicare and many private insurances assigned a payment to smoking cessation counseling, that a ICD10 diagnosis needs to be linked to a tobacco disorder, like vascular disease. Their time based codes for intermed and extensive--
the 99406 is 3-10 minutes, the 99407 is greater than 10 minutes. Now, if you link that to Medicare dollars, it's pretty meager, at $38 per RVU, that's $9 and $19 at additional, respectively. Say your hospital employ at $50 an RVU,
that ups a bit to $12 and $25, respectively. And that's how before you read the Medicare guidelines they say that you have to document that a patient is mentally competent, it needs to be done by a physician or Advanced Care Provider.
You get two attempts per year, four sessions per attempt, or eight sessions per year. About this point I felt like I was reading out of this book instead of the Medicare guidelines. But there is a recipe, and I think it's an important recipe. What we do is put take-away literature
printed ahead of time, in all the patients' rooms, including our online resources, we have the prescriptions and pads pre-printed, and then we have the templates of electronic documentation so we're able to claim the payment for the work that we do do.
We point out to our patients the benefit of smoking cessation, we rely heavily on the CDC website for resources, and the pharmacotherapy really boils down to three:
you need to be careful that you don't double up on your patients who are smoking. Zyban is mor it's basically an extended-release antidepressant and it works on the craving related chemicals in the brain.
It reduces withdrawal symptoms and cravings. You need to start it a couple weeks in advance. You have to be careful with drinkers or cirrhotics, people who have seizures or prior head injuries, and anyone with a psychiatric history. Chantix is the most successful,
it interferes with the nicotine receptors, it lessens the pleasure, and reduces withdrawal symptoms. You also need to start this in advance of cessation efforts. It has GI, headache, sleep disorders, seizures, mood changes, and it got a black-box warning for
suicidal ideations and suicide. Now, at the Harvard School of Business, professor Christensen pointed out that if all we do is operate, we'll be at risk to be disrupted, and he's done business analysis, so he's successful and he's got collabs, such as
Borders, Detroit Auto, stock brokers, and travel agents, and I submit vascular surgeries on that list. He points out that high achievers are the most vulnerable that's because all we do is focus on the highest ROI, that would be that all we do is operate. So how can we avoid being devoured by the next disruptor,
whether it's a cardiologist, new technology, or an overbearing hospital administrator? And he describes this as he evaluates healthcare by saying "What we need to do is focus on the job to be done." We need to say "What does a patient need from us?", not frame them with our attributes.
So we should say they hire us to fix their broken blood vessels, and we should do this whether it's a scalpel, prolene, a stent, a statin, or Chantix. I have (mumbles), but I submit that if we answer what the patient needs, and not what we do for them
that will leave us in a position of leadership where we can make important contributions for our patients.
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.