- Thank you Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. These are my disclosure. Open repair is the gold standard for patient with arch disease, and the gupta perioperative risk called the mortality and major morbidity remain not negligible.
Hybrid approach has only slightly improved these outcomes, while other off-the-shelf solution need to be tested on larger samples and over the long run. In this scenario, the vascular repair would double in the branch devices as emerging, as a tentative option with promising results,
despite addressing a more complex patient population. The aim of this multi-center retrospective registry is to assess early and midterm results after endovascular aortic arch repair. using the single model of doubling the branch stent graft in patient to fit for open surgery.
All patient are treated in Italy, with this technique. We're included in this registry for a total of 24 male patient, fit for open surgery. And meeting morphological criteria for double branch devices.
This was the indication for treatment and break-down by center, and these were the main end points. You can see here some operative details. Actually, this was theo only patient that did not require the LSA
re-revascularization before the endovascular procedure, because the left tibial artery rising directly from the aortic arch was reattached on the left common carotid artery. You can see here the large window in the superior aspect of the stent graft
accepting the two 13 millimeter in the branches, that are catheterized from right common carotid artery and left common carotid artery respectively. Other important feature of this kind of stent graft is the lock stent system, as you can see, with rounded barbs inside
the tunnels to prevent limb disconnection. All but one patient achieved technical success. And two of the three major strokes, and two retrograde dissection were the cause of the four early death.
No patient had any type one or three endoleak. One patient required transient dialysis and four early secondary procedure were needed for ascending aorta replacement and cervical bleeding. At the mean follow-up of 18 months,
one patient died from non-aortic cause and one patient had non-arch related major stroke. No new onset type one or three endoleak was detected, and those on standard vessel remained patent. No patient had the renal function iteration or secondary procedure,
while the majority of patients reported significant sac shrinkage. Excluding from the analysis the first six patients as part of a learning curve, in-hospital mortality, major stroke and retrograde dissection rate significant decrease to 11%, 11% and 5.67%.
Operative techniques significantly evolve during study period, as confirmed by the higher use of custom-made limb for super-aortic stenting and the higher use of common carotid arteries
as the access vessels for this extension. In addition, fluoroscopy time, and contrast median's significantly decrease during study period. We learned that stroke and retrograde dissection are the main causes of operative mortality.
Of course, we can reduce stroke rate by patient selection excluding from this technique all those patient with the Shaggy Aorta Supra or diseased aortic vessel, and also by the introduction and more recent experience of some technical points like sequentIal clamping of common carotid arteries
or the gas flushing with the CO2. We can also prevent the retrograde dissection, again with patient selection, according to the availability of a healthy sealing zone, but in our series, 6 of the 24 patients
presented an ascending aorta larger than 40 millimeter. And on of this required 48-millimeter proximal size custom-made stent graft. This resulted in two retrograde dissection, but on the other hand, the availability on this platform of a so large proximal-sized,
customized stent graft able to seal often so large ascending aorta may decrease the incidence of type I endoleak up to zero, and this may make sense in order to give a chance of repair to patients that we otherwise rejected for clinical or morphological reasons.
So in conclusion, endovascular arch repair with double branch devices is a feasible approach that enrich the armamentarium for vascular research. And there are many aspects that may limit or preclude the widespread use of this technology
with subsequent difficulty in drawing strong conclusion. Operative mortality and major complication rates suffer the effect of a learning curve, while mid-term results of survival are more than promising. I thank you for your attention.
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank the organizers once again for the opportunity to present at this meeting. And I have no disclosures. As we know the modern option for treating Truncal Varices includes Thermal Ablation. Major Venous Tributaries are treated
with phlebectomies, ligation, and foam sclerotherapy using sodium tetradecyl sulfate and polidocanol. The mechanism of action of these agents includes lysis of endothelium, and it takes a very short time to work. And most people use the Tessari technique,
which induces these agents and uses fibrosis of the veins and obliteration of the lumen. And this is how it's done. One of the risks of sclerotherapy may include deep vein thrombosis.
And as we've just heard, the perforator veins are variable anatomy and function, works in very amazing ways. So, what happens to the below knee veins after sclerotherapy? Well the NICE guidelines does not address this issue, and nowhere really is it addressed.
The NICE guidelines reported one of almost 1000 patients with a pulmonary embolism after Ultrasound Guided Sclerotherapy. So, we'd like to propose the term Deep Vein Sclerosis, or Deep Vein Sclerosae, rather than Deep Vein Thrombosis after Sclerotherapy
because it's caused by Sclerotherapy. The veins that they affected are usually patent, but non-compressible on ultrasound. Thrombus is usually absent, but it may be present, and it resolves quite quickly. We treated 386 legs in 267 patients
with CEAP III-VI disease. They had pre-intervention duplex, marking, and identification of perforators, they were treated with compression stockings and low-molecular weight Heparin, and they had serial ultrasound scanning.
Despite meticulous scanning, we identified deep vein sclerosis in 90 of our patients. So 23, almost a quarter. Perforating veins were identified with ultrasound in only 27 of this group, and forgive the mathematics there.
And perforating vein was seen in the post-intervention scans in almost a half after treatment. This is detailed list of the findings. The perforators alone were affected in 41 of these patients. And in 49% of patients, tibial veins and other
below knee deep veins were affected. Interestingly enough, in 24 of these 44 perforators were unidentified prior to treatment. And of these, a total of 49 patients of DVS involved the tibial veins and/or perforators. And, DVS involved the perforator only in 41 patients,
and this is thought to be adequate treatment of the superficial tributaries. 55% of the patients of previously unidentified perforator veins had DVS involved in the tibial veins. Treatment after we've identified this included compression stockings for at least six weeks,
aspirin for 12 weeks, and surveillance scanning. We found that no lesions actually progressed. They were unchanged in about 27%, completely resolved in 51%, and much smaller in about 22%. So, we'd like to propose that these changes
post-sclerotherapy in the below knee veins are different to deep vein thrombosis. The changes are provoked, there's a limited duration of the insult, most patients are low-risk and ambulant, and the patients are generally asymptomatic.
The veins that are non-compressible on ultrasound usually have no thrombus. In conclusion with the chairman ladies and gentlemen, Deep Vein Sclerosae occurs in almost 25% of patients having ultrasound-guided Foam Sclerotherapy, the lesions are of short length,
the course of these lesions appear fairly benign, and are adequately treated with stockings and aspirin, and the majority of these cases resolved or decreased in length within six to twelve weeks, and no lesions progressed. Thank you very much.
- Good morning everybody. Here are my disclosures. So, upper extremity access is an important adjunct for some of the complex endovascular work that we do. It's necessary for chimney approaches, it's necessary for fenestrated at times. Intermittently for TEVAR, and for
what I like to call FEVARCh which is when you combine fenestrated repair with a chimney apporach for thoracoabdominals here in the U.S. Where we're more limited with the devices that we have available in our institutions for most of us. This shows you for a TEVAR with a patient
with an aortic occlusion through a right infracrevicular approach, we're able to place a conduit and then a 22-french dryseal sheath in order to place a TEVAR in a patient with a penetrating ulcer that had ruptured, and had an occluded aorta.
In addition, you can use this for complex techniques in the ascending aorta. Here you see a patient who had a prior heart transplant, developed a pseudoaneurysm in his suture line. We come in through a left axillary approach with our stiff wire.
We have a diagnostic catheter through the femoral. We're able to place a couple cuffs in an off-label fashion to treat this with a technically good result. For FEVARCh, as I mentioned, it's a good combination for a fenestrated repair.
Here you have a type IV thoraco fenestrated in place with a chimney in the left renal, we get additional seal zone up above the celiac this way. Here you see the vessels cannulated. And then with a nice type IV repaired in endovascular fashion, using a combination of techniques.
But the questions always arise. Which side? Which vessel? What's the stroke risk? How can we try to be as conscientious as possible to minimize those risks? Excuse me. So, anecdotally the right side has been less safe,
or concerned that it causes more troubles, but we feel like it's easier to work from the right side. Sorry. When you look at the image intensifier as it's coming in from the patient's left, we can all be together on the patient's right. We don't have to work underneath the image intensifier,
and felt like right was a better approach. So, can we minimize stroke risk for either side, but can we minimize stroke risk in general? So, what we typically do is tuck both arms, makes lateral imaging a lot easier to do rather than having an arm out.
Our anesthesiologist, although we try not to help them too much, but it actually makes it easier for them to have both arms available. When we look at which vessel is the best to use to try to do these techniques, we felt that the subclavian artery is a big challenge,
just the way it is above the clavicle, to be able to get multiple devices through there. We usually feel that the brachial artery's too small. Especially if you're going to place more than one sheath. So we like to call, at our institution, the Goldilocks phenomenon for those of you
who know that story, and the axillary artery is just right. And that's the one that we use. When we use only one or two sheaths we just do a direct puncture. Usually through a previously placed pledgeted stitch. It's a fairly easy exposure just through the pec major.
Split that muscle then divide the pec minor, and can get there relatively easily. This is what that looks like. You can see after a sheath's been removed, a pledgeted suture has been tied down and we get good hemostasis this way.
If we're going to use more than two sheaths, we prefer an axillary conduit, and here you see that approach. We use the self-sealing graft. Whenever I have more than two sheaths in, I always label the sheaths because
I can't remember what's in what vessel. So, you can see yes, I made there, I have another one labeled right renal, just so I can remember which sheath is in which vessel. We always navigate the arch first now. So we get all of our sheaths across the arch
before we selective catheterize the visceral vessels. We think this partly helps minimize that risk. Obviously, any arch manipulation is a concern, but if we can get everything done at once and then we can focus on the visceral segment. We feel like that's a better approach and seems
to be better for what we've done in our experience. So here's our results over the past five-ish years or so. Almost 400 aortic interventions total, with 72 of them requiring some sort of upper extremity access for different procedures. One for placement of zone zero device, which I showed you,
sac embolization, and two for imaging. We have these number of patients, and then all these chimney grafts that have been placed in different vessels. Here's the patients with different number of branches. Our access you can see here, with the majority
being done through right axillary approach. The technical success was high, mortality rate was reasonable in this group of patients. With the strokes being listed there. One rupture, which is treated with a covered stent. The strokes, two were ischemic,
one hemorrhagic, and one mixed. When you compare the group to our initial group, more women, longer hospital stay, more of the patients had prior aortic interventions, and the mortality rate was higher. So in conclusion, we think that
this is technically feasible to do. That right side is just as safe as left side, and that potentially the right side is better for type III arches. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Professor Veith. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present on behalf of my chief the results of the IRONGUARD 2 study. A study on the use of the C-Guard mesh covered stent in carotid artery stenting. The IRONGUARD 1 study performed in Italy,
enrolled 200 patients to the technical success of 100%. No major cardiovascular event. Those good results were maintained at one year followup, because we had no major neurologic adverse event, no stent thrombosis, and no external carotid occlusion. This is why we decided to continue to collect data
on this experience on the use of C-Guard stent in a new registry called the IRONGUARD 2. And up to August 2018, we recruited 342 patients in 15 Italian centers. Demographic of patients were a common demographic of at-risk carotid patients.
And 50 out of 342 patients were symptomatic, with 36 carotid with TIA and 14 with minor stroke. Stenosis percentage mean was 84%, and the high-risk carotid plaque composition was observed in 28% of patients, and respectively, the majority of patients presented
this homogenous composition. All aortic arch morphologies were enrolled into the study, as you can see here. And one third of enrolled patients presented significant supra-aortic vessel tortuosity. So this was no commerce registry.
Almost in all cases a transfemoral approach was chosen, while also brachial and transcervical approach were reported. And the Embolic Protection Device was used in 99.7% of patients, with a proximal occlusion device in 50 patients.
Pre-dilatation was used in 89 patients, and looking at results at 24 hours we reported five TIAs and one minor stroke, with a combined incidence rate of 1.75%. We had no myocardial infection, and no death. But we had two external carotid occlusion.
At one month, we had data available on 255 patients, with two additional neurological events, one more TIA and one more minor stroke, but we had no stent thrombosis. At one month, the cumulative results rate were a minor stroke rate of 0.58%,
and the TIA rate of 1.72%, with a cumulative neurological event rate of 2.33%. At one year, results were available on 57 patients, with one new major event, it was a myocardial infarction. And unfortunately, we had two deaths, one from suicide. To conclude, this is an ongoing trial with ongoing analysis,
and so we are still recruiting patients. I want to thank on behalf of my chief all the collaborators of this registry. I want to invite you to join us next May in Rome, thank you.
- Thanks Dr. Weaver. Thank you Dr. Reed for the invitation, once again, to this great meeting. These are my disclosures. So, open surgical repair of descending aortic arch disease still carries some significant morbidity and mortality.
And obviously TEVAR as we have mentioned in many of the presentations has become the treatment of choice for appropriate thoracic lesions, but still has some significant limitations of seal in the aortic arch and more techniques are being developed to address that.
Right now, we also need to cover the left subclavian artery and encroach or cover the left common carotid artery for optimal seal, if that's the area that we're trying to address. So zone 2, which is the one that's,
it is most commonly used as seal for the aortic arch requires accurate device deployment to maximize the seal and really avoid ultimately, coverage of the left common carotid artery and have to address it as an emergency. Seal, in many of these cases is not maximized
due to the concern of occlusion of the left common carotid artery and many of the devices are deployed without obtaining maximum seal in that particular area. Failure of accurate deployment often leads to a type IA endoleak or inadvertent coverage
of the left common carotid artery which can become a significant problem. The most common hybrid procedures in this group of patients include the use of TEVAR, a carotid-subclavian reconstruction and left common carotid artery stenting,
which is hopefully mostly planned, but many of the times, especially when you're starting, it may be completely unplanned. The left common carotid chimney has been increasingly used to obtain a better seal
in this particular group of patients with challenging arches, but there's still significant concerns, including patients having super-vascular complications, stroke, Type A retrograde dissections and a persistent Type IA endoleak
which can be very challenging to be able to correct. There's limited data to discuss this specific topic, but some of the recent publications included a series of 11 to 13 years of treatment with a variety of chimneys.
And these publications suggest that the left common carotid chimneys are the most commonly used chimneys in the aortic arch, being used 76% to 89% of the time in these series. We can also look at these and the technical success
is very good. Mortality's very low. The stroke rate is quite variable depending on the series and chimney patency's very good. But we still have a relatively high persistent
Type IA endoleak on these procedures. So what can we do to try to improve the results that we have? And some of these techniques are clearly applicable for elective or emergency procedures. In the elective setting,
an open left carotid access and subclavian access can be obtained via a supraclavicular approach. And then a subclavian transposition or a carotid-subclavian bypass can be performed in preparation for the endovascular repair. Following that reconstruction,
retrograde access to left common carotid artery can be very helpful with a 7 French sheath and this can be used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes at the same time. The 7 French sheath can easily accommodate most of the available covered and uncovered
balloon expandable stents if the situation arises that it's necessary. Alignment of the TEVAR is critical with maximum seal and accurate placement of the TEVAR at this location is paramount to be able to have a good result.
At that point, the left common carotid artery chimney can be deployed under control of the left common carotid artery. To avoid any embolization, the carotid can be flushed, primary repaired, and the subclavian can be addressed
if there is concern of a persistent retrograde leak with embolization with a plug or other devices. The order can be changed for the procedure to be able to be done emergently as it is in this 46 year old policeman with hypertension and a ruptured thoracic aneurism.
The patient had the left common carotid access first, the device deployed appropriately, and the carotid-subclavian bypass performed in a more elective fashion after the rupture had been addressed. So, in conclusion, carotid chimney's and TEVAR
combination is a frequently used to obtain additional seal on the aortic arch, with pretty good results. Early retrograde left common carotid access allows safe TEVAR deployment with maximum seal,
and the procedure can be safely performed with low morbidity and mortality if we select the patients appropriately. Thank you very much.
- Thank you (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- I'd like to thank Larry and John for the opportunity to speak today. This really is kind of an exciting time in Vascular Access 'cause you know this whole session's devoted to all the new tools and technologies, and they're really a lot of different options
that are available to us now to create functioning fistulas in patients. Those are my disclosures. I just want to mention one thing, when I was asked to give this talk, the name of the device was the Everlink device then,
and that was first developed by TBA Medical at Austin, Texas. Eventually the company was bought by Bard, and then Beckett Dickinson bought Bard, and then they changed the name of the device to the WaveLinq device,
just so that we're all on the same page here. The basic gyst of this system basically it's a two-catheter system, it involves punctures in the brachial artery and brachial vein above the elbow over wires, the catheters are then aligned
in the ulnar artery and ulnar vein. The venous catheter has an RF electrode on it, the arterial component has a ceramic foot plate, and there's rare earth magnets in the catheters that help them align in the artery and vein. They'll coapt, you deploy the foot plate,
and then you fire the RF energy from the RF generator, and the RF energy then creates a four millimeter hole between the artery and vein. This is just what it looks like under fluoroscopy, this is the arterial catheter going in here's the footplate here
this is the venous catheter then being directed and you can see the magnets on these they look like Lincoln Logs they'll kind of line up. You rotate the catheters 'til the foot plate aligns, you do some flyovers with the II make sure everything's lined up,
and then you create the fistula with the RF energy. Then this is just what Fistulagram looks like once the fistula's created. At the completion of that, for this device we then place coils, occluding coils, in the deep vein which was just beyond the sheath
where we accessed the brachial vein. And by putting those plugs in there, coils in there, It helps to direct the flow up to through the superficial veins which we cannulated for dialysis, and much like the other device
that Dr. Malia was talking before, this creates essentially a split vein fistula, it's going to mature both the cephalic and basilic if those veins are available through that from the perforator coming on out. This is just what it looks like you know,
this was in some early studies in the animal model, you can see that it creates exactly a four millimeter hole between the artery and vein. Eventually this will re-endothelialize they had endothelialization at 30 days. So really the nice thing about it is
it standardizes the size of the arteriotomy because it makes exactly a four millimeter fistula. Now, as I mention this is created at the level of the ulnar artery and ulnar vein, so the requirements basically to do this you need a adequate size obviously ulnar artery and vein,
but the big component is to have that adequate perforator vein that's going to help feed the superficial veins to mature that fistula. And then it's just creating a side to side fistula between the ulnar artery and vein.
This is just a composite of all the data that's been collected on the device so far so this is what the global registry looks like. The FLEX study was kind of the first studies in man. The NEAT trial was run in the Canada and the UK, that was one of the earlier trials.
Then there's a post-market registry, uh, in Europe that's being run now. The EASE trial is the trial with the Four French device and I'll share a little bit about that at one of the slides at the end. But basically pull all the data from this
there's almost 157 patients that they collected data on. And, you can see that with this the primary patency, or the primary patency's on at 75 percent, and the accumulative patency's almost 80 percent, and then the number of fistulas that were cannulated at six months successfully with two needles was 75 percent.
If you look at some of the interventions that've had to be done it really seems to be a lower number of interventions that have to be done to get a mature functioning fistula, uh, using this device. I just want to point out a couple things on this slide,
there was never any requirement for angioplasty at the uh, the ulnar artery the ulnar vein anastomosis, and there was, you know, with these embolizations that were performed, 12 of these were performed on patients prior to incorporating that into the procedure itself,
so right now in the IFU it says that the deep veins should be coiled to help direct that flow up into the superficial veins. Now as, uh, was alluded to earlier with the Ellipsys device this kind of falls somewhere between, uh, the radiocephalic fistula and a brachiocephalic fistula,
and again comparing these two devices basically you're creating, this is the Ellipsys device is radial-radial, and this device is really ulnar-ulnar, but again you're creating that split-flow fistula it's going to allow flow both up
into the basilic and cephalic veins. So, where can this be used? It can be used for primary access creation so that's the first option to provide a patient with a functioning fistula. It can be a secondary option to radiocephalic fistula,
or those that have failed the radiocephalic fistula, and it also is an alternative to surgery so there are patients that may not want to have open surgery to have a fistula created, and this obviously provides an option for those patients. In the UK now they're using it to condition veins,
so they'll create the fistula hoping to condition the cephalic and basilic veins to allow them to become usable for dialysis, and they're also using it in patients that have no superficial veins actually using it to mature the brachial vein
or the deeper veins, uh, and then superficializing the brachial vein to create a native fistula for patients who don't have adequate superficial veins. Now I mentioned the Four French device and what the Four French device allows is basically access
from a lot of different points. So now because it's a smaller device, we can place it, if the vein and artery are large enough, it can be placed at the wrists, so radial-radial fistula, so you come in from the wrist, put both catheters up, create the fistula at the radial-radial,
you can do it from the ulnar-ulnar, so it's just two catheters up from the wrist. And these cases are nice, the other option is you can come arterial from the wrist and you can come from the vein at the top, match up the catheters in a parallel
and create that fistula at the ulnar-ulnar level. And the nice thing about this is it really makes managing the puncture very easy you just put a TR band on 'em, and then you're good to go. So it really kind of opens up a lot of different options for creating fistulas.
So in summary this device seems to create a functional fistula without the need for open surgery. It has very good primary and cumulative patencies and seems to take fewer interventions to maintain and mature the functioning fistula, and this may add another tool that we have to create
functioning fistulas in patients who are on dialysis. So thank you very 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.
- Thank you. I have a little disclosure. I've got to give some, or rather, quickly point out the technique. First apply the stet graph as close as possible to the hypogastric artery.
As you can see here, the end of distal graft. Next step, come from the left brachial you can lay the catheter in the hypogastric artery. And then come from both
as you can see here, with this verge catheter and you put in position the culver stent, and from the femoral you just put in position the iliac limb orthostatic graft.
The next step, apply the stent graft, the iliac limb stent graft, keep the viabahn and deployed it in more the part here. What you have here is five centimeter overlap to avoid Type I endoleak.
The next step, use a latex balloon, track over to the iliac limb, and keep until the, as you can see here, the viabahn is still undeployed. In the end of the procedure,
at least one and a half centimeters on both the iliac lumen to avoid occlusion to viabahn. So we're going to talk about our ten years since I first did my first description of this technique. We do have the inclusion criteria
that's very important to see that I can't use the Sandwich Technique with iliac lumen unless they are bigger than eight millimeters. That's one advantage of this technique. I can't use also in the very small length
of common iliac artery and external iliac artery and I need at least four millimeters of the hypogastric artery. The majority patients are 73 age years old. Majority males. Hypertension, a lot of comorbidity of oldest patients.
But the more important, here you can see, when you compare the groups with the high iliac artery and aneurismal diameter and treat with the Sandwich Technique, you can see here actually it's statistically significant
that I can treat patient with a very small real lumen regarding they has in total diameter bigger size but I can treat with very small lumen. That's one of the advantages of this technique. You can see the right side and also in the left side. So all situations, I can treat very small lumen
of the aneurysm. The next step so you can show here is about we performed this on 151 patients. Forty of these patients was bilateral. That's my approach of that. And you can see, the procedure time,
the fluoroscope time is higher in the group that I performed bilaterally. And the contrast volume tends to be more in the bilateral group. But ICU stay, length of stay, and follow up is no different between these two groups.
The technical success are 96.7%. Early mortality only in three patients, one patient. Late mortality in 8.51 patients. Only one was related with AMI. Reintervention rate is 5, almost 5.7 percent. Buttock claudication rate is very, very rare.
You cannot find this when you do Sandwich Technique bilaterally. And about the endoleaks, I have almost 18.5% of endoleaks. The majority of them was Type II endoleaks. I have some Type late endoleaks
also the majority of them was Type II endoleaks. And about the other complications I will just remark that I do not have any neurological complications because I came from the left brachial. And as well I do not have colon ischemia
and spinal cord ischemia rate. And all about the evolution of the aneurysm sac. You'll see the majority, almost two-thirds have degrees of the aneurysm sac diameter. And some of these patients
we get some degrees but basically still have some Type II endoleak. That's another very interesting point of view. So you can see here, pre and post, decrease of the aneurysm sac.
You see the common iliac artery pre and post decreasing and the hypogastric also decreasing. So in conclusion, the Sandwich Technique facilitates safe and effective aneurysm exclusion
and target vessel revascularization in adverse anatomical scenarios with sustained durability in midterm follow-up. Thank you very much for attention.
- Thank you very much and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invite. Here's my disclosures, clearly relevant to this talk. So we know that after EVAR, it's around the 20% aortic complication rate after five years in treating type one and three Endoleaks prevents subsequent
secondary aortic rupture. Surveillance after EVAR is therefore mandatory. But it's possible that device-specific outcomes and surveillance protocols may improve the durability of EVAR over time. You're all familiar with this graph for 15 year results
in terms of re-intervention from the EVAR-1 trials. Whether you look at all cause and all re-interventions or life threatening re-interventions, at any time point, EVAR fares worse than open repair. But we know that the risk of re-intervention is different
in different patients. And if you combine pre-operative risk factors in terms of demographics and morphology, things are happening during the operations such as the use of adjuncts,
or having to treat intro-operative endoleak, and what happens to the aortic sac post-operatively, you can come up with a risk-prediction tool for how patients fare in the longer term. So the LEAR model was developed on the Engage Registry and validated on some post-market registries,
PAS, IDE, and the trials in France. And this gives a predictive risk model. Essentially, this combines patients into a low risk group that would have standard surveillance, and a higher risk group, that would have a surveillance plus
or enhanced surveillanced model. And you get individual patient-specific risk profiles. This is a patient with around a seven centimeter aneurysm at the time of repair that shows sac shrinkage over the first year and a half, post-operatively. And you can see that there's really a very low risk
of re-intervention out to five years. These little arrow bars up here. For a patient that has good pre-operative morphology and whose aneurysm shrinks out to a year, they're going to have a very low risk of re-intervention. This patient, conversely, had a smaller aneurysm,
but it grew from the time of the operation, and out to two and a half years, it's about a centimeter increase in the sac. And they're going to have a much higher risk of re-intervention and probably don't need the same level of surveillance as the first patient.
and probably need a much higher rate of surveillance. So not only can we have individualized predictors of risk for patients, but this is the regulatory aspect to it as well.
Multiple scenario testing can be undertaken. And these are improved not only with the pre-operative data, but as you've seen with one-year data, and this can tie in with IFU development and also for advising policy such as NICE, which you'll have heard a lot about during the conference.
So this is just one example. If you take a patient with a sixty-five millimeter aneurysm, eighteen millimeter iliac, and the suprarenal angle at sixty degrees. If you breach two or more of these factors in red, we have the pre-operative prediction.
Around 20% of cases will be in the high risk group. The high risk patients have about a 50-55% freedom from device for related problems at five years. And the low risk group, so if you don't breach those groups, 75% chance of freedom from intervention.
In the green, if you then add in a stent at one year, you can see that still around 20% of patients remain in the high risk group. But in the low risk group, you now have 85% of patients won't need a re-intervention at five years,
and less of a movement in the high risk group. So this can clearly inform IFU. And here you see the Kaplan-Meier curves, those same groups based pre-operatively, and at one year. In conclusion, LEAR can provide
a device specific estimation of EVAR outcome out to five years. It can be based on pre-operative variables alone by one year. Duplex surveillance helps predict risk. It's clearly of regulatory interest in the outcomes of EVAR.
And an E-portal is being developed for dissemination. Thank you very much.
- 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 so much for the opportunity to present our experience. You are all familiar in this place with the SVS classification for blunt aortic injury, and you all know that it doesn't tell you what to do with each patient,
it doesn't guide treatment. A few years ago we presented a simple, practical grading system based on CAT scan findings for the management of these patients. When a patient has a minimal aortic injury, it's a patient with no aortic contour abnormality,
they have either an intimal flap or a small thrombus less than 10 mm. These patients we don't do any interventions. Patient's that present with an aortic contour abnormality or a large intimal flap or large thrombus have a moderate injury.
These patients get repair in a semi-elective manner once they have stabilized further injuries. One the other hand, persons that present with a severe injury, persons with active extravasation, this patient need to go to the OR because he's dying
and this takes precedence above any other injuries. So, since we implemented this system we took a three years look from 2014 to 2017 to see how are our results. We have 87 patients, 63 percent were moderate, 28 percent minimal, and nine percent severe.
None of the patients underwent open repair, and none of the patients with a minimal got fix. All but three of the patients with a moderate, and all but one of the patients with a severe have TEVAR as a repair method. These are very sick patients, high in the severity scores,
with high rates of intracranial hemorrhages and associated injuries. When we look at the anatomy, the patient with a severe injury are more likely to have a bovine arch anatomy. These are young patients with small aortas,
with a median aortic diameter of 23. The operative timing is the time since the patient hit the door of the emergency room to the patient getting to the OR, was 53 hours for a patient with a moderate injury, and three hours for a patient with a severe.
These are short procedures that can be done in less than 90 minutes with minimal contrast used, and around five minutes of fluoro time. We used intravascular ultrasound very widely. We have covered the subclavian artery
in around 40 percent of the patients. We do all this percutaneously. We are successful in around 86 percent of the cases. We have not had to revascularize any subclavian artery. We had one patient that required a plaque during the index case of the subclavian,
one patient that had a femoral pseudoaneurysm that we treated with thrombin, one patient that was already on a heparin drip for a PE. We took her to the OR more than 24 hours after the heparin drip was started, fixed the TEVAR.
After that the patient had a complete normal CAT scan. More than 12 hours after the heparin drip being restarted for the PE she had a worsening intracranial bleed. We don't know that was related to our procedure. We have no patient with new stroke
or worsening spinal cord injury for the procedure. 30-day followup CT scan had excellent remodeling in every single patient. We have not performed any delay interventions. Our 30-day mortality is very low. There is only one patient with an aortic-related mortality.
This is a patient that presented with a severe injury. She was more than 90 years old and the family elected to don't proceed with any treatment. So in conclusions, we consider the patients with minimal aortic injury do not require surgical treatment or followup imaging.
Patient with a moderate can be safely undergo TEVAR in a semi-elective manner once they are stable from other injuries, but the patient with a severe aortic injury require emergent repair. These procedures are very fast
and can be successfully performed percutaneously. Complications are rare, and the followup reveal excellent remodeling of the aorta that will likely result in longer interval surveillance requirements. Thank you.
- Well, thank you Frank and Enrico for the privilege of the podium and it's the diehards here right now. (laughs) So my only disclosure, this is based on start up biotech company that we have formed and novel technology really it's just a year old
but I'm going to take you very briefly through history very quickly. Hippocrates in 420 B.C. described stroke for the first time as apoplexy, someone be struck down by violence. And if you look at the history of stroke,
and trying to advance here. Let me see if there's a keyboard. - [Woman] Wait, wait, wait, wait. - [Man] No, there's no keyboard. - [Woman] It has to be opposite you. - [Man] Left, left now.
- Yeah, thank you. Are we good? (laughs) So it's not until the 80s that really risk factors for stroke therapy were identified, particularly hypertension, blood pressure control,
and so on and so forth. And as we go, could you advance for me please? Thank you, it's not until the 90s that we know about the randomized carotid trials, and advance next slide please, really '96 the era of tPA that was
revolutionary for acute stroke therapy. In the early 2000s, stroke centers, like the one that we have in the South East Louisiana and New Orleans really help to coordinate specialists treating stroke. Next slide please.
In 2015, the very famous HERMES trial, the compilation of five trials for mechanical thrombectomy of intracranial middle and anterior cerebral described the patients that could benefit and we will go on into details, but the great benefit, the number needed to treat
was really five to get an effect. Next slide. This year, "wake up" strokes, the extension of the timeline was extended to 24 hours, increase in potentially the number of patients that could be treated with this technology.
Next please. And the question is really how can one preserve the penumbra further to treat the many many patients that are still not offered mechanical thrombectomy and even the ones that are, to get a much better outcome because not everyone
returns to a normal function. Next, so the future I think is going to be delivery of a potent neuroprotection strategy to the penumbra through the stroke to be able to preserve function and recover the penumbra from ongoing death.
Next slide. So that's really the history of stroke. Advance to the next please. Here what you can see, this is a patient of mine that came in with an acute carotid occlusion that we did an emergency carotid endarterectomy
with an neuro interventionalist after passage of aspiration catheter, you can see opening of the middle cerebral M1 and M2 branches. The difference now compared to five, eight, 10 years ago is that now we have catheters in the middle cerebral artery,
the anterior cerebral artery. After tPA and thrombectomy for the super-selective, delivery of a potent neuroprotective agent and by being able to deliver it super-selectively, bioavailability issues can be resolved, systemic side effects could be minimized.
Of course, it's important to remember that penumbra is really tissue at risk, that's progression towards infarction. And everybody is really different as to when this occurs. And it's truly all based on collaterals.
So "Time is brain" that we hear over and over again, at this meeting there were a lot of talks about "Time is brain" is really incorrect. It's really "Collaterals are brain" and the penumbra is really completely based on what God gives us when we're born, which is really
how good are the collaterals. So the question is how can the penumbra be preserved after further mechanical thrombectomy? And I think that the solution is going to be with potent neuroprotection delivery to the penumbra. These are two papers that we published in late 2017
in Nature, in science journals Scientific Reports and Science Advances by our group demonstrating a novel class of molecules that are potent neuroprotective molecules, and we will go into details, but we can discuss it if there's interest, but that's just one candidate.
Because after all, when we imaged the penumbra in acute stroke centers, again, it's all about collaterals and I'll give you an example. The top panel is a patient that comes in with a good collaterals, this is a M1 branch occlusion. In these three phases which are taken at
five second intervals, this patient is probably going to be offered therapy. The patients that come in with intermediate or poor collaterals may or may not receive therapy, or this patient may be a no-go. And you could think that if neuroprotection delivery
to the penumbra is able to be done, that these patients may be offered therapy which they currently are not. And even this patient that's offered therapy, might then leave with a moderate disability, may have a much better functional
independence upon discharge. When one queries active clinical trials, there's nothing on intra arterial delivery of a potent neuroprotection following thrombectomy. These are two trials, an IV infusion, peripheral infusion, and one on just verapamil to prevent vasospasm.
So there's a large large need for delivery of a potent neuroprotection following thrombectomy. In conclusion, we're in the door now where we can do mechanical thrombectomy for intracranial thrombus, obviously concomitant to what we do in the carotid bifurcation is rare,
but those patients do present. There's still a large number of patients that are still not actively treated, some estimate 50 to 60% with typical mechanical thrombectomy. And one can speculate how ideally delivery of a potent neuroprotection to this area could
help treat 50, 60% of patients that are being denied currently, and even those that are being treated could have a much better recovery. I'd like to thank you, Frank for the meeting, and to Jackie for the great organization.
- Thank you Dr. Albaramum, it's a real pleasure to be here and I thank you for being here this early. I have no disclosures. So when everything else fails, we need to convert to open surgery, most of the times this leads to partial endograft removal,
complete removal clearly for infection, and then proximal control and distal control, which is typical in vascular surgery. Here's a 73 year old patient who two years after EVAR had an aneurism growth with what was thought
to be a type II endoleak, had coiling of the infermius mesenteric artery, but the aneurism continued to grow. So he was converted and what we find here is a type III endoleak from sutures in the endograft.
So, this patient had explantations, so it is my preference to have the nordic control with an endovascular technique through the graft where the graft gets punctured and then we put a 16 French Sheath, then we can put a aortic balloon.
And this avoids having to dissect the suprarenal aorta, particularly in devices that have super renal fixation. You can use a fogarty balloon or you can use the pruitt ballon, the advantage of the pruitt balloon is that it's over the wire.
So here's where we removed the device and in spite of the fact that we tried to collapse the super renal stent, you end up with an aortic endarterectomy and a renal endarterectomy which is not a desirable situation.
So, in this instance, it's not what we intend to do is we cut the super renal stent with wire cutters and then removed the struts individually. Here's the completion and preservation of iliac limbs, it's pretty much the norm in all of these cases,
unless they have, they're not well incorporated, it's a lot easier. It's not easy to control these iliac arteries from the inflammatory process that follows the placement of the endograft.
So here's another case where we think we're dealing with a type II endoleak, we do whatever it does for a type II endoleak and you can see here this is a pretty significant endoleak with enlargement of the aneurism.
So this patient gets converted and what's interesting is again, you see a suture hole, and in this case what we did is we just closed the suture hole, 'cause in my mind,
it would be simple to try and realign that graft if the endoleak persisted or recurred, as opposed to trying to remove the entire device. Here's the follow up on that patient, and this patient has remained without an endoleak, and the aneurism we resected
part of the sack, and the aneurism has remained collapsed. So here's another patient who's four years status post EVAR, two years after IMA coiling and what's interesting is when you do delayed,
because the aneurism sacks started to increase, we did delayed use and you see this blush here, and in this cases we know before converting the patient we would reline the graft thinking, that if it's a type III endoleak we can resolve it that way
otherwise then the patient would need conversion. So, how do we avoid the proximal aortic endarterectomy? We'll leave part of the proximal portion of the graft, you can transect the graft. A lot of these grafts can be clamped together with the aorta
and then you do a single anastomosis incorporating the graft and the aorta for the proximal anastomosis. Now here's a patient, 87 years old, had an EVAR,
the aneurism grew from 6 cm to 8.8 cm, he had coil embolization, translumbar injection of glue, we re-lined the endograft and the aneurism kept enlarging. So basically what we find here is a very large type II endoleak,
we actually just clip the vessel and then resected the sack and closed it, did not remove the device. So sometimes you can just preserve the entire device and just take care of the endoleak. Now when we have infection,
then we have to remove the entire device, and one alternative is to use extra-anatomic revascularization. Our preference however is to use cryo-preserved homograft with wide debridement of the infected area. These grafts are relatively easy to remove,
'cause they're not incorporated. On the proximal side you can see that there's a aortic clamp ready to go here, and then we're going to slide it out while we clamp the graft immediately, clamp the aorta immediately after removal.
And here's the reconstruction. Excuse me. For an endograft-duodenal fistula here's a patient that has typical findings, then on endoscopy you can see a little bit of the endograft, and then on an opergy I series
you actually see extravasation from the duodenal. In this case we have the aorta ready to be clamped, you can see the umbilical tape here, and then take down the fistula, and then once the fistula's down
you got to repair the duodenal with an omental patch, and then a cryopreserved reconstruction. Here's a TEVAR conversion, a patient with a contained ruptured mycotic aneurysm, we put an endovascular graft initially, Now in this patient we do the soraconomy
and the other thing we do is, we do circulatory support. I prefer to use ECMO, in this instances we put a very long canula into the right atrium, which you're anesthesiologist can confirm
with transassof forgeoligico. And then we use ECMO for circulatory support. The other thing we're doing now is we're putting antibiotic beads, with specific antibiotic's for the organism that has been cultured.
Here's another case where a very long endograft was removed and in this case, we put the device offline, away from the infected field and then we filled the field with antibiotic beads. So we've done 47 conversions,
12 of them were acute, 35 were chronic, and what's important is the mortality for acute conversion is significant. And at this point the, we avoid acute conversions,
most of those were in the early experience. Thank you.
- Thank you. No relevant disclosures to this presentation. The means to the end is removing Uremic toxins. That's what we want to do. That's what this is all about. We don't really know all the Uremic toxins and how they inter-relate, but there are a bunch
of compounds that have been identified. Urea obviously being one of them, although not necessarily being a particularly toxic compound. It's a small molecular weight marker of Uremia, which is convenient to use
if not clinically meaningful. We've developed, or Frank Gotch and Sargent developed this dimensionless concept of the Kt/V, an index of the body volume water space, which has been cleared fully of Urea and this index has been the standard for comparing dosing of dialysis for about 30 years now.
Since the National Cooperative Dialysis Study in the 80's. And the most recent iteration of this study has been the HEMO study in 2002, I believe this was published. Where they compared a high dose of Kt/V of 1.71 versus standard dose Kt/V of 1.3 and looked at patient outcomes and they were
concluding that the higher dose of dialysis wasn't beneficial. But this 1.3 was certainly better than we were seeing in the old days of 0.9 out of the NKDS studies, so 1.3 or that range has been accepted as the target dose
for dialysis and KDOQI guidelines now suggest that we strive to achieve a single pool Kt/V of 1.4, so we have a little cushion with a minimum delivery of 1.2, and that has been adopted now by CMS and the payers.
That's in our conditions for coverage that we achieve or we strive for a Kt/V 1.2 and now we have this quality incentive program, which might relate a little bit to the question earlier about saving access as we get penalized or incentivized
for doing certain things, and right in our penalty methodology in the top categories Kt/V, if we don't hit that target we get dinged up to 2% of the total payment for dialysis on that.
So it's something that's being identified, monitored, and if you like ... Not negatively incentivized. It's not a reward. It's a penalty for failing to achieve. And also you can go to dialysiscompare.gov now.
You login your unit. Here's my little unit in Hockessin. We got four stars. A nearby unit got three stars. They're really just as good as us, but somebody thinks those stars mean something,
and one of the components in those stars is hitting your Kt/V target, so if I want to get stars and not be seen as a poor performing unit, I need to hit these performance parameters, so that's why the Kt/V is the holy grail for Nephrologist. We need to get that number.
It's a very simple concept. Mathematically, you've got two items in the numerator and one in the denominator, and you want to maximize that parameter. Number one we can dispense with the volume of distribution
of Urea is pretty much determined by the patient. It's total body of water times the fraction. It varies a lot depending on the age, weight, gender, obesity, etc. You can put it in the calculator and same qx metal to deliver that number for you.
But we can't really change that, unless somebody has an amputation, or a large amount of weight loss or gain, then it changes. Time we have complete control over. We can dialyze theoretically as long as we want and in the U.S. we sort of like
to believe four hours has been adopted as a standard. There are some recommendations that wouldn't do that. Patient acceptance of that is variable. I can sit in front of a patient and tell them they need four and half hours, and they may look at me askance,
because they know they don't want it, and if you look at dialysis times in different countries, you can see certain countries like Germany, typically dialyzes closer to three hours. Typical dialysis time in the United States is more like... Did I say three hours?
I meant five hours. And typical dialysis time in the United States is about three and a half hours. There are also resource limitations and cost involved in that. So the third variable is the one we have
the most control over, which is the clearance of Urea. And that's depending on the dialyze of the blood, in the blood, out. the dialyze of that... capacity of that filter to remove the solute of interest, Urea in this case in a dialysate flow,
and there are specs for each kidney. Here is a Optiflux F160 at a blood flow of 300 and a dialysate flow of 500. It predicts we should get a Urea clearance of 271 mL per minute, or conversely a larger kidney, an F180 had a blood flow of 500, a dialysate flow of 800.
We should get a Urea clearance of 412. Obviously, none of these are perfect clearances. The maximum theoretical clearance would be that of the blood speed, but it's impossible to clear it 100% of the blood. So when your asked as a surgeon or a provincialist
to make a functional access what your Nephrologist is really asking for in a customer service world is give me a fistula that flows 150% higher. 150% of my intended pump speed and we're good to go. Need a little cushion on that as well.
And here's how it translates into action. Here's an example on a calculator. Here's a patient, who's a 70 kilogram female, dialysis time three and a half hours, 210 minutes. Her Kt/V calculates at 1.77. All good.
Same parameters three and a half hours, 120 kilogram, 40 year old male. His Kt/V is 0.96, clearly below the target. You're not going to get that guy's clearance with those parameters. If you goose him up to 500 mL per minute
on a minute on a bigger kidney and you achieve a clearance of 410, then the same male with the same treatment parameters will get 1.45, so you've met their target. If you want to do better than targets just put him on four hours and you only get 1.66,
so these are very easily definable, measurable, predictable quantities that you can achieve. And then you've got limiting factors. What is the pump speed? Well, hemolysis through needles is really an overstated concern.
This arterial negative pressure alarm won't let you go below 250 on this machine and if-- 300 is it Debbie? 250, 300 and at that point it will cut off, so you won't be able to drive the negative pressure that high,
and so you've got parameters for each needle, which are fairly fixed, a little latitude in it, but with 17-gauge needle you can go up to 300 and so on. With a 14-gauge needle you can go up to 500 or more, and it's a pretty si le higher flow.
And here's a case where you've got a 2 millimeter radial artery, a small fistula. The access flow measures at 450. You can dialyze at a blood speed of 300 with a 17-gauge needle and you're good to go. Where as you got a huge brachial artery here.
This access flow is greater than 2000. You can run the blood speed at whatever you want. And you can use a needle size of 14-gauge. You can put whatever needle size you want in this fistula. So the point is that one size doesn't fit all. Dialysis dose, and dialysis needles,
and dialysis fistulas need to be scaled to the size of the patient. You got a neonate. You got Shaquille O'Neal. Somewhere in between is our patient. Thank you.
- 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, Ulrich. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith so kindly, for this invitation. These are my disclosures and my friends. I think everyone knows that the Zenith stent graft has a safe and durable results update 14 years. And I think it's also known that the Zenith stent graft
had such good shrinkage, compared to the other stent grafts. However, when we ask Japanese physicians about the image of Zenith stent graft, we always think of the demo version. This is because we had the original Zenith in for a long time. It was associated with frequent limb occlusion due to
the kinking of Z stent. That's why the Spiral Z stent graft came out with the helical configuration. When you compare the inner lumen of the stent graft, it's smooth, it doesn't have kink. However, when we look at the evidence, we don't see much positive studies in literature.
The only study we found was done by Stephan Haulon. He did the study inviting 50 consecutive triple A patients treated with Zenith LP and Spiral Z stent graft. And he did two cases using a two iliac stent and in six months, all Spiral Z limb were patent. On the other hand, when you look at the iliac arteries
in Asians, you probably have the toughest anatomy to perform EVARs and TEVARs because of the small diameter, calcification, and tortuosity. So this is the critical question that we had. How will a Spiral Z stent graft perform in Japanese EIA landing cases, which are probably the toughest cases?
And this is what we did. We did a multi-institutional prospective observational study for Zenith Spiral Z stent graft, deployed in EIA. We enrolled patients from June 2017 to November 2017. We targeted 50 cases. This was not an industry-sponsored study.
So we asked for friends to participate, and in the end, we had 24 hospitals from all over Japan participate in this trial. And the board collected 65 patients, a total of 74 limbs, and these are the results. This slide shows patient demographics. Mean age of 77,
80 percent were male, and mean triple A diameter was 52. And all these qualities are similar to other's reporting in these kinds of trials. And these are the operative details. The reason for EIA landing was, 60 percent had Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm.
12 percent had Hypogastric Artery Aneurysm. And 24 percent had inadequate CIA, meaning short CIA or CIA with thrombosis. Outside IFU was observed in 24.6 percent of patients. And because we did fermoral cutdowns, mean operative time was long, around three hours.
One thing to note is that we Japanese have high instance of Type IV at the final angio, and in our study we had 43 percent of Type IV endoleaks at the final angio. Other things to notice is that, out of 74 limbs, 11 limbs had bare metal stents placed at the end of the procedure.
All patients finished a six month follow-up. And this is the result. Only one stenosis required PTA, so the six months limb potency was 98.6 percent. Excellent. And this is the six month result again. Again the primary patency was excellent with 98.6 percent. We had two major adverse events.
One was a renal artery stenosis that required PTRS and one was renal stenosis that required PTA. For the Type IV index we also have a final angio. They all disappeared without any clinical effect. Also, the buttock claudication was absorbed in 24 percent of patients at one month, but decreased
to 9.5 percent at six months. There was no aneurysm sac growth and there was no mortality during the study period. So, this is my take home message, ladies and gentlemen. At six months, Zenith Spiral Z stent graft deployed in EIA was associated with excellent primary patency
and low rate of buttock claudication. So we have most of the patients finish a 12 month follow-up and we are expecting excellent results. And we are hoping to present this later this year. - [Host] Thank you.
- Thank you very much Raul and our co-chair and also Frank Veith for inviting me again. I'm going to tell you a little bit about flow augmentation. And I have no disclosures related to this. Well, flow augmentation after venous stenting for venous obstruction potentially improves outcome. That's a statement that is
most of the people will support that. Important characteristic of noninvasive compression device after venous stenting is that they improve blood flow inside the newly stented patient,
they stimulate the calf pump muscle, and they're a synergistic tool along anticoagulation, and to decrease the risk for re-occlusion. Well, there are flow devices. Most of the people I think use intermittent pneumatic calf compression
for a few days after the procedure. That can be done but there are now neuromuscular stimulating devices like the FlowAid and the Geko device to stimulate nerves and then the calf won't contract. The physiologic effects of intermittent
pneumatic compression are there. They had been analyzed significantly. There's a decrease of venous stasis and venous pressure, increase flow, increase fibrinolysis, and the blood volume is better and the venous emptying is better.
There's an increased endothelial shear stress, increased the A-V pressure gradient, and there's a decrease in incidence of thrombosis. Those are already published in several papers. Well, what about the neurostimulation device? We have the FlowAid.
FlowAid is a battery powdered neuromuscular electro-stimulation device designed to increase blood flow in the veins. And again this also shows the sequential pattern of neuromuscular electrical stimulation at the calf and causes the calf muscle pump to expel blood
and increase venous, arterial, and microcirculatory blood flow. While these analyses have all been done with healthy volunteers and they show a better outcome then also in intermittent pneumatic compression.
The same is for the Geko device. It's a device which you put along and you stimulate the peroneal nerve, you get a calf contraction. And this also showed in several papers in healthy volunteers that it improves
venous flow, arterial flow, and microcirculatory flow. But it's all analyzed in healthy volunteers, so we said, well, let's do like a short pilot study and see if for even patient with PTS we get the same results, and we looked at that.
But we did a very short pilot in seven patients. We stopped it because we saw already that we need a bigger study, but I will just explain to you what we found in those seven patients. We measured the flow velocity and volume
before and after stenting in the iliac tract to see if we have the increased flow in the common femoral vein in those PTS patients. These are the seven patients, and as you can see it's important
that they don't have a VCSS of 6.4, and the diseased leg, and less than one in the healthy leg, and the Villalta scores will show above 11 on average. So those patients were analyzed and this is what you see. You see
the velocity in the femoral vein before stenting at baseline is, can I point it, yeah, okay, is here. That you see there's a very low velocity. You can increase the velocity with the neurostimulation but there's a higher velocity increase
with the intermittent pneumatic compression. After stenting you see luckily that the velocity has increased, and the stimulation of the neuromuscular is indeed also higher, but the intermittent
pneumatic compression does better. If you look at the volume flow, of course before the treatment, it's low, 32 cc a minute, and then you get an increase with the Geko and an increase with the intermittent
pneumatic compression which is much higher. And after stenting you see that it also improves, you see luckily the stent procedure was successful because we have a much higher flow rate than before the stent procedure. So in conclusion in the literature and the pilot studies
said that neurostimulatory devices have a proven good augmented blood flow in healthy subjects, even better than IPC devices, but there's no experience in PTS patients yet. So this small pilot study shows that the results obtained in healthy subjects
cannot be extrapolated to PTS patients or patients with post stent situations, therefore we are conducting now two randomized studies to compare FlowAid with IPC and the Geko device with IPC, and to see for if this has use, because why is this important?
A potential benefit of the neurostimulation is that you can use it mobile and 24/7 instead of with the IPC procedure which you can only use in a bedridden patient. So if it is as good as or close to, you can use it for a few weeks after stenting
to get the flow up and running and that you have less early stent occlusions. We are also analyzing for if it can replace AV fistula which we do after end of phlebectomies and to prevent really early re-occlusion. And as I said we need those studies to be done
but that the important message is that we don't go home with the fact that those devices, although in healthy volunteers show a very good outcome, they have to be tested in patients with PTS. Thank you very much.
- I think by definition this whole session today has been about challenging vascular access cases. Here's my disclosures. I went into vascular surgery, I think I made the decision when I was either a fourth year medical student or early on in internship because
what intrigued me the most was that it seemed like vascular surgeons were only limited by their imagination in what we could do to help our patients and I think these access challenges are perfect examples of this. There's going to be a couple talks coming up
about central vein occlusion so I won't be really touching on that. I just have a couple of examples of what I consider challenging cases. So where do the challenges exist? Well, first, in creating an access,
we may have a challenge in trying to figure out what's going to be the best new access for a patient who's not ever had one. Then we are frequently faced with challenges of re-establishing an AV fistula or an AV graft for a patient.
This may be for someone who's had a complication requiring removal of their access, or the patient who was fortunate to get a transplant but then ended up with a transplant rejection and now you need to re-establish access. There's definitely a lot of clinical challenges
maintaining access: Treating anastomotic lesions, cannulation zone lesions, and venous outflow pathology. And we just heard a nice presentation about some of the complications of bleeding, infection, and ischemia. So I'll just start with a case of a patient
who needed to establish access. So this is a 37-year-old African-American female. She's got oxygen-dependent COPD and she's still smoking. Her BMI is 37, she's left handed, she has diabetes, and she has lupus. Her access to date - now she's been on hemodialysis
for six months, all through multiple tunneled catheters that have been repeatedly having to be removed for infection and she was actually transferred from one of our more rural hospitals into town because she had a infected tunneled dialysis catheter in her femoral region.
She had been deemed a very poor candidate for an AV fistula or AV graft because of small veins. So the challenges - she is morbidly obese, she needs immediate access, and she has suboptimal anatomy. So our plan, again, she's left handed. We decided to do a right upper extremity graft
but the plan was to first explore her axillary vein and do a venogram. So in doing that, we explored her axillary vein, did a venogram, and you can see she's got fairly extensive central vein disease already. Now, she had had multiple catheters.
So this is a venogram through a 5-French sheath in the brachial vein in the axilla, showing a diffusely diseased central vein. So at this point, the decision was made to go ahead and angioplasty the vein with a 9-millimeter balloon through a 9-French sheath.
And we got a pretty reasonable result to create venous outflow for our planned graft. You can see in the image there, for my venous outflow I've placed a Gore Hybrid graft and extended that with a Viabahn to help support the central vein disease. And now to try and get rid of her catheters,
we went ahead and did a tapered 4-7 Acuseal graft connected to the brachial artery in the axilla. And we chose the taper mostly because, as you can see, she has a pretty small high brachial artery in her axilla. And then we connected the Acuseal graft to the other end of the Gore Hybrid graft,
so at least in the cannulation zone we have an immediate cannualation graft. And this is the venous limb of the graft connected into the Gore hybrid graft, which then communicates directly into the axillary vein and brachiocephalic vein.
So we were able to establish a graft for this patient that could be used immediately, get rid of her tunneled catheter. Again, the challenges were she's morbidly obese, she needs immediate access, and she has suboptimal anatomy, and the solution was a right upper arm loop AV graft
with an early cannulation segment to immediately get rid of her tunneled catheter. Then we used the Gore Hybrid graft with the 9-millimeter nitinol-reinforced segment to help deal with the preexisting venous outflow disease that she had, and we were able to keep this patient
free of a catheter with a functioning access for about 13 months. So here's another case. This is in a steal patient, so I think it's incredibly important that every patient that presents with access-induced ischemia to have a complete angiogram
of the extremity to make sure they don't have occult inflow disease, which we occasionally see. So this patient had a functioning upper arm graft and developed pretty severe ischemic pain in her hand. So you can see, here's the graft, venous outflow, and she actually has,
for the steal patients we see, she actually had pretty decent flow down her brachial artery and radial and ulnar artery even into the hand, even with the graft patent, which is usually not the case. In fact, we really challenged the diagnosis of ischemia for quite some time, but the pressures that she had,
her digital-brachial index was less than 0.5. So we went ahead and did a drill. We've tried to eliminate the morbidity of the drill bit - so we now do 100% of our drills when we're going to use saphenous vein with endoscopic vein harvest, which it's basically an outpatient procedure now,
and we've had very good success. And here you can see the completion angiogram and just the difference in her hand perfusion. And then the final case, this is a patient that got an AV graft created at the access center by an interventional nephrologist,
and in the ensuing seven months was treated seven different times for problems, showed up at my office with a cold blue hand. When we duplexed her, we couldn't see any flow beyond the AV graft anastomosis. So I chose to do a transfemoral arteriogram
and what you can see here, she's got a completely dissected subclavian axillary artery, and this goes all the way into her arterial anastomosis. So this is all completely dissected from one of her interventions at the access center. And this is the kind of case that reminded me
of one of my mentors, Roger Gregory. He used to say, "I don't wan "I just want out of the trap." So what we ended up doing was, I actually couldn't get into the true lumen from antegrade, so I retrograde accessed
her brachial artery and was able to just re-establish flow all the way down. I ended up intentionally covering the entry into her AV graft to get that out of the circuit and just recover her hand, and she's actually been catheter-dependent ever since
because she really didn't want to take any more chances. Thank you very 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.
- Like to thank Dr. Veith and the committee for asking me to speak. I have no conflicts related to this presentation. Labial and vulvar varicosities occur in up to 10% of pregnant women, with the worst symptoms being manifested in the second half of the pregnancy.
Symptoms include genital pressure and fullness, pruritus, and a sensation of prolapse. These generally worsen with standing. Management is usually conservative. Between compression hose, cooling packs, and exercise, most women can make it through to the end of the pregnancy.
When should we do more than just reassure these women? An ultrasound should be performed when there's an early presentation, meaning in the first trimester, as this can be an unmasking of a venous malformation. If there are unilateral varicosities,
an ultrasound should be performed to make sure that these aren't due to iliac vein thrombosis. If there's superficial thrombosis or phlebitis, you may need to rule out deep venous extension with an ultrasound. When should we intervene?
You may need to intervene to release trapped blood in phlebitis, or to give low molecular weight heparin for comfort. When should a local phlebectomy or sclerotherapy be performed? Should sclerotherapy be performed during pregnancy?
We know very little. Occasionally, this is performed in a patient who is unknowingly pregnant, and there have been no clear complications from this in the literature. The effectiveness of sclero may also
be diminished in pregnancy, due to hormones and increased venous volume. Both polidocanol and sodium tetradecyl sulfate say that there is no support for use during pregnancies, and they advise against it. So what should you do?
This following case is a 24 year old G2P1, who was referred to me at 24 weeks for disabling vaginal and pelvic discomfort. She couldn't go to work, she couldn't take care of her toddler, she had some left leg complaints, but it was mostly genital discomfort and fullness,
and her OB said that he was going to do a pre-term C-section because he was worried about the risk of hemorrhage with the delivery. So this is her laying supine pre-op, and this is her left leg with varicosities visible in the anterior and posterior aspects.
Her ultrasound showed open iliac veins and large refluxing varicosities in the left vulvar area. She had no venous malformation or clot, and she had reflux in the saphenofemoral junction and down the GSV. I performed a phlebectomy on her,
and started with an ultrasound mapping of her superficial veins and perforators in the labial region. I made small incision with dissection and tie ligation of all the varicosities and perforators, and this was done under local anesthesia
with minimal sedation in the operating room. This resulted in vastly improved comfort, and her anxiety, and her OB's anxiety were both decreased, and she went on to a successful delivery. So this diagram shows the usual location of the labial perforators.
Here she is pre-op, and then here she is a week post-op. Well, what about postpartum varicosities? These can be associated with pelvic congestion, and the complaints can often be split into local, meaning surface complaints, versus pelvic complaints.
And this leads into a debate between a top down treatment approach, where you go in and do a venogram and internal coiling, versus a bottom up approach, where you start with local therapy, such as phlebectomy or sclero.
Pelvic symptoms include aching and pressure in the pelvis. These are usually worse with menstruation, and dyspareunia is most pronounced after intercourse, approximately an hour to several hours later. Surface complaints include vulvar itching, tenderness, recurrent thrombophlebitis, or bleeding.
Dyspareunia is present during or at initiation of sexual intercourse. I refer to this as the Gibson Algorithm, as Kathy Gibson and I have talked about this problem a lot, and this is how we both feel that these problems should be addressed.
If you have an asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patient who's referred for varicosities that are seen incidentally, such as during a laparoscopy, those I don't treat. If you have a symptomatic patient who has pelvic symptoms, then these people get a venogram with coils and sclerotherapy as appropriate.
If they are not pregnant, and have no pelvic symptoms, these patients get sclero. If they are pregnant, and have no pelvic symptoms, they get a phlebectomy. In conclusion, vulvar varicosities are a common problem, and usually conservative management is adequate.
With extreme symptoms, phlebectomy has been successful. Pregnancy-related varicosities typically resolve post-delivery, and these can then be treated with local sclerotherapy if they persist. Central imaging and treatment is successful for primarily pelvic complaints or persistent symptoms.
- Thank you very much. These are my disclosures. So, infected aorta, in terms of the primary infected aorta and secondary infected stent grafts is a difficult problem, and its instance is probably increasing the more we treat. These patients present late, they're often very malnourished,
and they have significant comorbidity. One place where endovascular therapy is definitely effective is in the emergency situation, both the primary infected aortas, like this case on the right hand side, and also for primary aorto-enteric fistula in an emergency.
This is a young man who had obesity surgery and leaked from his gastric anastomosis. He had an esophageal stent, which then caused a significant infection in the mediastinum and eroded through his aorta. He came in in extremis bleeding
and a short stent to cover that saves his life and gives you an opportunity for later on. It's also effective in secondary infections. This is a young lady who had an aortobifemoral bypass, who is bleeding in the retroperitoneum, and you can cover that with a stent graft
and think about further treatment later. Certainly in the short term, endovascular results from treating primary mycotic aneurysms are good. Our series on the left hand side, we had only one death in our endovascular group. In further case series and in systematic reviews,
the 30 day mortality is consistently somewhere between 10% and 15% in the early stage. Long term results from primary mycotic aneurysm treatment are not that bad. This is the biggest paper, I think, in circulation, showing the three, four, five year results
which are acceptable, but you have to remember that success was gained in this group. In those without persistent sepsis, in those without aortoenteric fistula, and probably in some bacterial types, particularly salmonella, which can be treated
well before the endograft is implanted. The secondary graft infection we have to remember, though, has a significant early mortality. This is our series from Imperial, our open graft excision surgery, for urgent and emergency cases included, is 25%,
but for that you swap an excellent five year mortality. Only a few patients die in that long period. If you're putting an endograft in for secondary graft infection and aortoenteric fistula, we can look to this systematic review which I was good to join in with Steve Kakkos.
The results for endovascular treatment are poor. The rate of current sepsis at two years is 42% in the endovascular group, far worse than that for excisional surgery, so they don't do well. I've got significant concerns for endovascular treatment, and we need to worry about these if we're going to put
endovascular grafts in and leave them in. The first is of antimicrobial resistance, there are more and more resistant bugs occurring in our practice, and it's certainly been our practice in our series. Over the last three years, the number of patients with resistant bugs is up to about 50%.
This is a young man who had infective endocarditis with a fungal disease, a multi-resistant fungus. This is the state of his aorta in the top left hand panel. Of course he needs a deep venous reconstruction, which we then cover with Omentum, and he did well after that.
For aortoenteric fistula, if you're going to put an endograft in, in our experience, these get reinfected and rupture, and they probably do need definitive treatment. In secondary graft infection, aortoenteric fistula, remember, is present in 1/3 of patients,
and you need to consider this. You're only going to find that at surgery if you're placing a stent graft in. Again, we discussed earlier in this session, further interventions: graft infection
is more commonly associated with multiple interventions, and it provides a further nidus for infection. So, when is endovascular therapy effective? Well, endovascular treatments in the emergency cases are life-saving and I think they are effective. For primary aortic infection, it's effective
when there is clearance of sepsis, a low -virulence microorganism, and no fistula. Then, the results are acceptable. For secondary cases treated with Endo techniques, the long term recurrence of sepsis is significant, and they really need definitive graft excision,
or you need to accept they have antibiotics and accept palliation. Thank you very much.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Thank you, Tim, and thank you, Frank, for giving me the opportunity to address this specific problem of the gutter endoleaks, which has been described up to 30% after ChEVAR and parallel grafting. But I have to say that in the most papers, not only gutter endoleaks were included,
but also new onset of type Ia endoleak. One paper coming from Stanford addressed specifically the question, how we should deal with the gutter-related type Ia endoleak, and they conclude that in the vast majority of the cases, these gutter endoleaks disappear
and the situation is benign. And based on my own experience, I can confirm this. This is one of the first cases treated with parallel grafts for symptomatic thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And I was a bit concerned as I saw this endoleak at the end of the angiography,
but the lady didn't have any pains and also no option for open or for other type of repair, so we waited. We waited and we saw that the endoleak disappeared after one month. And we saw also shrinkage of the aneurysm after one year.
So now, the next question was how to prevent this. And from the PERICLES registry, but also from the PROTAGORAS, we learned how to deal with this and how to prevent. And it's extremely important to oversize enough the aortic stent graft,
more than treating with the EVAR, normal EVAR. We should reach a sealing zone of at least 15, 20 millimeters. And we should avoid also to use more than two chimney grafts in such patients. The greater the number of the chimney used,
the higher is the risk of type Ia endoleak. And last but not least, we should use the right stent graft. And you see here the CT scan after using a flexible nitinol skeleton endograft on the left, and the gutters if you use a very stiff,
stainless steel skeleton in such situations. The last question was how to treat these patients. And based on the PERICLES, again, we should distinguish three different patterns. One is due to an excessive oversizing of the graft with infolding.
I have only one case, one professor of pathology, treated six years ago now without any endoleak due to this problem. The most are due to an undersized aortic endograft. And in the pattern C, we have an insufficient sealing zone and migration of the graft.
Now, we should consider the pattern B. And with an undersized aortic endograft and if the gutter is small, one possible solution would be to treat this patient with coiling, using coils or Onyx to occlude this gutter endoleaks,
like in this patient. And for the pattern C, if the sealing zone is insufficient, well, we should extend the sealing zone using the chimney parallel technique, as you can see in this case. So in conclusion, ladies and gentle,
gutters are usually benign and more than 95% disappeared in the follow-up. But in case of persistence, we should evaluate the CT scan exactly. And in case of oversizing and not enough oversizing and not enough length,
we should treat this patient accordingly. 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.
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.