- Good afternoon. On behalf of my co-author Danielle Lyon I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for allowing us to present our data. No disclosures are relevant to this talk. So, why a small incision carotid endarterectomy? I actually came on to it maybe a decade ago when in debates for carotid stenting versus
carotid endarterectomy my interventional colleagues would show pictures like this. And pictures like this, with big incisions which is how I was trained from sternal notch to the angle of the mandible and above. Then I started thinking you know, maybe this could be done
through a smaller incision safely. So it's a smaller incision, it's cosmetically much more acceptable especially in ladies. Endarterectomy typically only involves about three centimeters of artery anyways. And, there's decreased tissue trauma
with a smaller incision. All of my patients are operated on clopidogrel and aspirin and we also operate on patients on full warfarin anticoagulation without reversal which we published in the annals a few years ago. So first, rely on the preoperative imaging.
So I always get a CTA to confirm the duplex ultrasound. Here you can see a very focal plaque in the proximal internal carotid artery. Here's a more heterogeneous plaque and opposite a carotid stint. I typically do these with,
under general anesthesia with EEG monitoring. The self-retaining retractor I use to stretch the incision would be, I think, a challenge in an awake patient. I image the carotid bifurcation, just like our previous speaker, with ultrasound ahead of time. Just a regular Site-Rite ultrasound,
you don't need a duplex. I typically call my friend Russell who comes with the ultrasound, and doing both longitudinal and transverse views to identify the carotid bifurcation and confirm the extent of the plaque. The incision is typically around three centimeters,
but clearly less than four centimeters, and it's centered over the previously marked carotid bifurcation. I use a standard incision along the anterior border of the sternomastoid muscle. And then use a self-retaining retractor to stretch the incision a bit.
This is a pediatric omni retractor which works really well for this purpose. It's very important, especially for the more-sef-full-ab blade to make sure that you identify the hypoglossal nerve as you can put a fair bit of traction on that upper blade and sometimes the incision is small enough that I actually
make a little counter incision for the proximal clamp. I've found that the use of a shunt can be challenging with this technique. There's one case out of 124 that I had to extend more proximally in order to safely put a shunt. I do, though, use acute ischemic preconditioning.
So typically the mean blood pressure is 90 or above, the patient's fully anticoagulated. I'll clamp the distal internal carotid artery and if there are EEG changes I'll unclamp it, raise the pressure just a little bit more and in most occasions the second or sometimes third time the internal
carotid artery is clamped the EEG does not change. And again, you can extend the incision if necessary as patient safety is absolutely paramount. So the technique is safe. In 124 consecutive patients there were no strokes or deaths.
There was one temporary cranial nerve injury which was the marginal mandibular. A complete endarterectomy can be achieved. Again, no increase in cranial nerve injury compared with a standard incision. And it really is a superior cosmetic result.
So here's a photo that I received from silk road, you probably did too. So here's the TCAR incision compared with a standard carotid endarterectomy incision on the other side. Here's a couple of my recent patients, so you can do this operation with an incision
that is about the same size as that utilized for TCAR. Thank you.
- Thank you. I have two talks because Dr. Gaverde, I understand, is not well, so we- - [Man] Thank you very much. - We just merged the two talks. All right, it's a little joke. For today's talk we used fusion technology
to merge two talks on fusion technology. Hopefully the rest of the talk will be a little better than that. (laughs) I think we all know from doing endovascular aortic interventions
that you can be fooled by the 2D image and here's a real life view of how that can be an issue. I don't think I need to convince anyone in this room that 3D fusion imaging is essential for complex aortic work. Studies have clearly shown it decreases radiation,
it decreases fluoro time, and decreases contrast use, and I'll just point out that these data are derived from the standard mechanical based systems. And I'll be talking about a cloud-based system that's an alternative that has some advantages. So these traditional mechanical based 3D fusion images,
as I mentioned, do have some limitations. First of all, most of them require manual registration which can be cumbersome and time consuming. Think one big issue is the hardware based tracking system that they use. So they track the table rather than the patient
and certainly, as the table moves, and you move against the table, the patient is going to move relative to the table, and those images become unreliable. And then finally, the holy grail of all 3D fusion imaging is the distortion of pre-operative anatomy
by the wires and hardware that are introduced during the course of your procedure. And one thing I'd like to discuss is the possibility that deep machine learning might lead to a solution to these issues. How does 3D fusion, image-based 3D fusion work?
Well, you start, of course with your pre-operative CT dataset and then you create digitally reconstructed radiographs, which are derived from the pre-op CTA and these are images that resemble the fluoro image. And then tracking is done based on the identification
of two or more vertebral bodies and an automated algorithm matches the most appropriate DRR to the live fluoro image. Sounds like a lot of gobbledygook but let me explain how that works. So here is the AI machine learning,
matching what it recognizes as the vertebral bodies from the pre-operative CT scan to the fluoro image. And again, you get the CT plus the fluoro and then you can see the overlay with the green. And here's another version of that or view of that.
You can see the AI machine learning, identifying the vertebral bodies and then on your right you can see the fusion image. So just, once again, the AI recognizes the bony anatomy and it's going to register the CT with the fluoro image. It tracks the patient, not the table.
And the other thing that's really important is that it recognizes the postural change that the patient undergoes between the posture during the CT scan, versus the posture on the OR table usually, or often, under general anesthesia. And here is an image of the final overlay.
And you can see the visceral and renal arteries with orange circles to identify them. You can remove those, you can remove any of those if you like. This is the workflow. First thing you do is to upload the CT scan to the cloud.
Then, when you're ready to perform the procedure, that is downloaded onto the medical grade PC that's in your OR next to your fluoro screen, and as soon as you just step on the fluoro pedal, the CYDAR overlay appears next to your, or on top of your fluoro image,
next to your regular live fluoro image. And every time you move the table, the computer learning recognizes that the images change, and in a couple of seconds, it replaces with a new overlay based on the obliquity or table position that you have. There are some additional advantages
to cloud-based technology over mechanical technology. First of all, of course, or hardware type technology. Excuse me. You can upgrade it in real time as opposed to needing intermittent hardware upgrades. Works with any fluoro equipment, including a C-arm,
so you don't have to match your 3D imaging to the brand of your fluoro imaging. And there's enhanced accuracy compared to mechanical registration systems as imaging. So what are the clinical applications that this can be utilized for?
Fluoroscopy guided endovascular procedures in the lower thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, so that includes EVAR and FEVAR, mid distal TEVAR. At present, we do need two vertebral bodies and that does limit the use in TEVAR. And then angioplasty stenting and embolization
of common iliac, proximal external and proximal internal iliac artery. Anything where you can acquire a vertebral body image. So here, just a couple of examples of some additional non EVAR/FEVAR/TEVAR applications. This is, these are some cases
of internal iliac embolization, aortoiliac occlusion crossing, standard EVAR, complex EVAR. And I think then, that the final thing that I'd like to talk about is the use with C-arm, which is think is really, extremely important.
Has the potential to make a very big difference. All of us in our larger OR suites, know that we are short on hybrid availability, and yet it's difficult to get our institutions to build us another hybrid room. But if you could use a high quality 3D fusion imaging
with a high quality C-arm, you really expand your endovascular capability within the operating room in a much less expensive way. And then if you look at another set of circumstances where people don't have a hybrid room at all, but do want to be able to offer standard EVAR
to their patients, and perhaps maybe even basic FEVAR, if there is such a thing, and we could use good quality imaging to do that in the absence of an actual hybrid room. That would be extremely valuable to be able to extend good quality care
to patients in under-served areas. So I just was mentioning that we can use this and Tara Mastracci was talking yesterday about how happy she is with her new room where she has the use of CYDAR and an excellent C-arm and she feels that she is able to essentially run two rooms,
two hybrid rooms at once, using the full hybrid room and the C-arm hybrid room. Here's just one case of Dr. Goverde's. A vascular case that he did on a mobile C-arm with aortoiliac occlusive disease and he places kissing stents
using a CYDAR EV and a C-arm. And he used five mils of iodinated contrast. So let's talk about a little bit of data. This is out of Blain Demorell and Tara Mastrachi's group. And this is use of fusion technology in EVAR. And what they found was that the use of fusion imaging
reduced air kerma and DSA runs in standard EVAR. We also looked at our experience recently in EVAR and FEVAR and we compared our results. Pre-availability of image based fusion CT and post image based fusion CT. And just to clarify,
we did have the mechanical product that Phillip's offers, but we abandoned it after using it a half dozen times. So it's really no image fusion versus image fusion to be completely fair. We excluded patients that were urgent/emergent, parallel endographs, and IBEs.
And we looked at radiation exposure, contrast use, fluoro time, and procedure time. The demographics in the two groups were identical. We saw a statistically significant decrease in radiation dose using image based fusion CT. Statistically a significant reduction in fluoro time.
A reduction in contrast volume that looks significant, but was not. I'm guessing because of numbers. And a significantly different reduction in procedure time. So, in conclusion, image based 3D fusion CT decreases radiation exposure, fluoro time,
and procedure time. It does enable 3D overlays in all X-Ray sets, including mobile C-arm, expanding our capabilities for endovascular work. And image based 3D fusion CT has the potential to reduce costs
and improve clinical outcomes. Thank you.
- Thank you very much. Well this is a series that was actually published five years ago. And it outlined 45,000 patients after carotid endarterectomy, as well as open and closed thoracic abdominal procedures and infrainguinal bypasses.
And you can see here, that the VTE rate, and this is emblematic of a lot of studies. If you take everything together in a ball, you get an average result. And as you can see, the peripheral bypasses had a low incidence.
Carotids, very low incidence. But open procedures had a higher incidence than endovascular procedures. But here is the nub. Here is what's really important and why you need to do risk assessment.
Look at what happened to these percentages if the patients had any morbidity during hospitalization, as high as 7.8%. And here's the list after they went home. Again, it's not the .5 tenths of a percent or 1%, and this is what it's all about.
It's about the extra risk factors that the patient has. So now, anybody that's starting to do work with the Caprini Score, you've got to go to the patient-friendly form. Because we don't just do it,
if the patient comes in for surgery, and somebody does a preoperative evaluation in the holding area, stop it! It's ridiculous! Have you ever been in the holding area? What are you worried about?
You're worried about having the operation. Are they going to find cancer? Will the surgeon have a bad day? How much pain am I going to be in? How long am I going to be out of work? They're not going to talk to you
about their family history or their obstetrical misadventures. So you have them fill a form out ahead of time with their family, and then when they come in, you just double-check it. And we've studied this, it's in five languages,
and it's got perfect correlation with trained observers doing the same thing. And remember, if you fail to carefully interrogate your patients regarding the history or family history of venous thromboembolism, vascular surgery or not, sooner or later you may
be faced with a fatal PE. And the idea that you're giving anticoagulants during your procedure that's going to protect them is not valid. The relative risk of thrombosis increases with the number of risk factors identified.
A combination of genetic and acquired risk factors in a person without a history of a thrombosis personally, but with a family history, has a 60-fold higher chance than those that have a negative family history. And a positive family history increased
the risk of venous thrombosis more than 2-fold, regardless of the other risk factors. Don't forget the history of thrombosis. You won't need to look this article up. It's 183,000 patients over 25 years and it shows that both in first, second,
and third-degree relatives, as well as cohabitants in the household, there's an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Lowering down, getting lower for each degree of a relative.
But a DVT in a cousin, there may also be a thrombopathic condition in that patient. So you better pay attention to that. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, wonderful program. The database has no information on history
or family history of VTE, use of perioperative VTE prophylaxis, intraoperative anticoagulation, or perioperative use of antiplatelet agents. How are you supposed to make any sense out of DVT-related studies?
Finally, due to the lack of routine screening for VTE, the incidence of VTE may be underestimated in this NSQIP database, which only makes the need for further study more pressing. This is an important consideration because
more recent data indicates that two-thirds of the patients are found to have DVT during screening and after vascular operations, have no signs or symptoms of the problem. And I'd like to remind you, so this is based on the Boston data, which is the best data.
Patients with a low score pneumatic compression during hospitalization. Moderate score, of 7-10 days of anticoagulation. Don't make any difference if they're inpatient or outpatient. And 28 days if their score is over nine.
They lowered their incidence on the surgical services from 2.2% to a tenth of a percent at 30 days. And finally, and I think this is really, really important. Take a look at all these risk assessment scores.
To my knowledge, there's only two scores. It's not the Padua, it's not the IMPROVE that have a history of obstetrical misadventures which can reflect antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, as well as family history
in various degrees of relatives. So with that, thank you very much.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, first of all, I would like to thank Dr. Veith for the honor of the podium. Fenestrated and branched stent graft are becoming a widespread use in the treatment of thoracoabdominal
and pararenal aortic aneurysms. Nevertheless, the risk of reinterventions during the follow-up of these procedures is not negligible. The Mayo Clinic group has recently proposed this classification for endoleaks
after FEVAR and BEVAR, that takes into account all the potential sources of aneurysm sac reperfusion after stent graft implant. If we look at the published data, the reported reintervention rate ranges between three and 25% of cases.
So this is still an open issue. We started our experience with fenestrated and branched stent grafts in January 2016, with 29 patients treated so far, for thoracoabdominal and pararenal/juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. We report an elective mortality rate of 7.7%.
That is significantly higher in urgent settings. We had two cases of transient paraparesis and both of them recovered, and two cases of complete paraplegia after urgent procedures, and both of them died. This is the surveillance protocol we applied
to the 25 patients that survived the first operation. As you can see here, we used to do a CT scan prior to discharge, and then again at three and 12 months after the intervention, and yearly thereafter, and according to our experience
there is no room for ultrasound examination in the follow-up of these procedures. We report five reinterventions according for 20% of cases. All of them were due to endoleaks and were fixed with bridging stent relining,
or embolization in case of type II, with no complications, no mortality. I'm going to show you a couple of cases from our series. A 66 years old man, a very complex surgical history. In 2005 he underwent open repair of descending thoracic aneurysm.
In 2009, a surgical debranching of visceral vessels followed by TEVAR for a type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In 2016, the implant of a tube fenestrated stent-graft to fix a distal type I endoleak. And two years later the patient was readmitted
for a type II endoleak with aneurysm growth of more than one centimeter. This is the preoperative CT scan, and you see now the type II endoleak that comes from a left gastric artery that independently arises from the aneurysm sac.
This is the endoleak route that starts from a branch of the hepatic artery with retrograde flow into the left gastric artery, and then into the aneurysm sac. We approached this case from below through the fenestration for the SMA and the celiac trunk,
and here on the left side you see the superselective catheterization of the branch of the hepatic artery, and on the right side the microcatheter that has reached the nidus of the endoleak. We then embolized with onyx the endoleak
and the feeding vessel, and this is the nice final result in two different angiographic projections. Another case, a 76 years old man. In 2008, open repair for a AAA and right common iliac aneurysm.
Eight years later, the implant of a T-branch stent graft for a recurrent type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And one year later, the patient was admitted again for a type IIIc endoleak, plus aneurysm of the left common iliac artery. This is the CT scan of this patient.
You will see here the endoleak at the level of the left renal branch here, and the aneurysm of the left common iliac just below the stent graft. We first treated the iliac aneurysm implanting an iliac branched device on the left side,
so preserving the left hypogastric artery. And in the same operation, from a bowl, we catheterized the left renal branch and fixed the endoleak that you see on the left side, with a total stent relining, with a nice final result on the right side.
And this is the CT scan follow-up one year after the reintervention. No endoleak at the level of the left renal branch, and nice exclusion of the left common iliac aneurysm. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the risk of type I endoleak after FEVAR and BEVAR
is very low when the repair is planning with an adequate proximal sealing zone as we heard before from Professor Verhoeven. Much of reinterventions are due to type II and III endoleaks that can be treated by embolization or stent reinforcement. Last, but not least, the strict follow-up program
with CT scan is of paramount importance after these procedures. I thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation. I have no disclosures relevant to this particular lecture. But I think we ought to talk about what critical limb ischemia is. Obviously it's what we call Rutherford four through six. It's most commonly associated with multi-level disease.
About 1/3 or so of the cases are infrapopliteal only, mostly in diabetic patients. There's very poor overall life expectancies. We look at this group of patients in multiple studies, it ranges somewhere between three and four years of average life expectancy,
and there are substantial differences in outcomes within critical limb ischemia, with far worse outcomes in those with poor overall health, advanced stage presentation, or poor runoff at the level of the foot. Now, what is the rationale for endovascular therapy
in critical limb ischemia? Well first, patients are often old and infirmed, and many aren't really considered candidates for open surgery because of poor overall health. Surgery requires inflow, usually attainable. Outflow, not always so easy.
A conduit, which typically should be vein, if we want durable results, and an incision. Active infection is problematic, as there may be graft infection or sepsis. Extensive surgical scarring may compromise future rescue intervention,
and this is a progressive disease, that often requires additional treatment. Now, there have been multiple publications, and this is just a recent one, which came out in the Journal of the American Heart Association. It's a multidisciplinary,
retrospective analysis of Medicare data in people who had presented with critical limb ischemia. This is not perspective, it's not sited in many areas, but I ask you to look at this conclusion. It was there was lower major amputation rates following endovascular therapy.
Both surgery and endovascular did better than primary amputation, in terms of outcomes. But again, this is not a perfect study. Now, we have many publications which have shown very good limb salvage rates in patients using interventions.
Here we see this from Faglia, again showing very low major amputation rates. This from Sam Ahn, once again, very good limb salvage rates. But in truth, we have only one randomized, control trial, level one data, comparing intervention with surgery. And that was the BASIL Trial.
The BASIL Trial is an old trial, it's criticized, appropriately, because the only treatment used was sub-intimal angioplasty. And with sub-intimal angioplasty, often, the sub-intimal tract in crossing is far greater than the area of total occlusion,
resulting in much longer treatment zones. In addition, this trial did not allow some of the new and better treatments that are now available for having better patency to be performed. Nonetheless, in the BASIL Trial, despite very primitive treatment,
that being only sub-intimal angioplasty, we can see that one year out, and in fact out to two years, angioplasty and surgery were relatively equal in terms of limb salvage. At five years, there seemed to be a major advantage to surgery,
in terms of both quality of life, and in terms of less need for reintervention. So then we have to ask, what has changed since BASIL? Well now we have far better crossing. We have re-entry tools that stop us from having to go 10 centimeters
beyond the area of occlusion to get back in. Dedicated crossing tools, better wires, retrograde access, this is important, we have markedly improved patency, with drug coated balloons, drug-eluting stents, wire interwoven nitinol stents, and stent grafts, which have shown in the SFA all of these things,
better SFA patency, and if indeed, we can maintain SFA patency in multi-level disease, often, if there's recurrence, the patients do well. We also have improved Tibial patency in the proximal tibial vessels. However, we do not yet have a great endovascular solution
for long distal tibial vessel occlusions, and that's just the truth. I have to go back here, one, but we have better medical therapy too. As we look at PCSK9 inhibitors, in the GLAGOV Trial, we see in other parts of the body,
a 30% reduction in atherosclerotic volume out at 70 weeks, indeed will this change what we're doing. This has launched this decade of endovascular interventions. So what about this taking away surgical options? BASIL, I think, doesn't apply because the sections went far beyond where they should.
That's bad technique. Stenting across the common femoral or patent popliteal, in my opinion, bad technique. Distal embolization, we've not done enough preparation. I will also caution that sometimes, surgery has bad outcomes as well.
So, the rationale is we really don't want to perform anything that hurts a patient. Entire procedures performed via a sheath, remote from the site, there's less pain, shorter recovery, no extensive scar, and the argument that intervention
takes away surgical options, I think is no longer so valid. Bad intervention or bad surgery, take away options. Where is distal bypass indicated? In large non-healing ulcers in patients with good life expectancy, good quality vein, good outflow, and excellent surgical expertise.
Densely calcified long segment infrapopliteal disease, or disease from the common femoral all the way to the ankle. I think these clearly are going to do better with surgery, certainly in today's world. But even these areas may change. If more effective tools solve the patency problems,
with long segment infrapopliteal disease, and there are trials now aiming at this, such as SAVAL, DCB trials, and Lithoplasty. I thank you for your attention.
- Thank you very much. So, this audience certainly knows that the higher the triglyceride, the greater the cardiovascular morbidity mortality, similarly if you have a low HDL that same relation holds, and certainly for the non-HDL-C or LDL-C calculated the higher the worse outcome and there's
multiple drugs related to this. Similarly with stroke, triglyceride the same relationship. Ischemic stroke increased with low HDL and again LDL-C correlates. So the historical precedent has been that you should get a fasting lipid level
when you first encounter the patient, but to make this simple that's really probably not true. So there's various things that are measured and that are calculated, but LDL is generally calculated, HDL is measured and then the triglycerides are calculated as remnant cholesterol.
So if you compare just the measured LDL compared to calculated LDL in a non-fasting state, it's a little bit of a wider linear relationship here as compared with the fasting, it's a little bit tighter. But when you look at this in more depth, and this reference here really nicely puts it all together
but the total cholesterol really doesn't vary if you've fasted one hour or 16 hours, similarly between men and women. The only thing that varies a little bit is triglycerides and we'll go on to that in just a little bit of depth.
But again that's variable, triglycerides go up if you eat really not much difference with the other lipid levels. And if you look just in terms of triglycerides, they overlap between non-fasting and fasting, really at almost all levels
so there's not really discrepancy. Similarly with LDL, same amount of overlap here whether or not you have diabetes it doesn't seem to make a difference. So for lipid panels, profile testing, in most patients you can get a non-fasting
initial lipid profile in any patient for cardiovascular risk assessment, I'd say that's where it's most commonly done in most of our practices. Similarly with acute coronary syndrome, if preferred by the patients et cetera.
But really it's where the non-fasting triglycerides are highly elevated that you want to get a fasting lipid panel. So what causes secondary hyperlipidemia related particularly to hypertriglyceridemia? Certainly certain diet factors, certain drugs,
cyclosporins for example, biliary obstruction and hypothyroidism. And so, one algorithm is that in terms of screening with non-fasting, and if it's less than 200 you're good to go, you really don't need to do anything further,
and if it's greater than 200 then probably a fasting lipid profile, lipoprotein panel is indicated. So reasons that non-fasting lipid measurement is fine most of the time is that again most trials have used non-fasting levels for determination of effectiveness of various medications.
This Friedewald formula actually uses total cholesterol, HDL, and triglycerides to calculate LDL-C, and LDL really is not directly measured, it's not standardized by the CDC such as these other cholesterol moieties are. And again most CV risk factor calculators don't use LDL-C.
So again, non-fasting is acceptable for the initial risk estimation in untreated and primary prevention screening. For patients with genetic hyperlipidemia probably fasting is required. Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome, non-fasting is fine.
And again some other more highly specialized scenarios you may want a fasting profile. Thank you.
- Thank you very much. It's an hono ou to the committee for the invitation. So, I'll be discussing activity recommendations for our patients after cervical artery dissection. I have no relevant disclosures.
And extracranial cervical artery dissection is an imaging diagnosis as we know with a variety of presentations. You can see on the far left the intimal flap and double lumen in the left vertebral artery
on both coronal and axial imaging, a pseudoaneurysm of the internal carotid artery, aneurysmal degeneration in an older dissection, and an area of long, smooth narrowing followed by normal artery, and finally a flame-tipped occlusion.
Now, this affects our younger patients with really opposity of atherosclerotic risk factors. So, cervical artery dissection accounts for up to 25% of stroke in patients under the age of 45. And, other than hypertension, it's not associated with any cardiovascular risk factors.
There is a male predominance, although women with dissections seem to present about five years younger. And there is an indication that there may be a systemic ateriopathy contributing to this in our patients, and I'll show you some brief data regarding that.
So, in studies that have looked at vessel redundancy, including loops, coils, and in the video image, an S curve on carotid duplex. Patients with cervical artery dissection have a much higher proportion of these findings, up to three to four times more than
age and sex matched controls. They also have findings on histology of the temporal artery when biopsied. So one study did this and these patients had abnormal capillary formation as well as extravasation of blood cells between the median adventitia
of the superficial temporal artery. And there is an association with FMD and a shared genetic polymorphism indicating that there may be shared pathophysiology for these conditions. But in addition, a lot of patients report minor trauma around the time or event of cervical artery dissection.
So this data from CADISP, and up to 40% of cases had minor trauma related to their dissection, including chiropractic neck manipulation, extreme head movements, or stretching, weight lifting, and sports-related injuries. Thankfully, the majority of patients do very well after
they have a dissection event, but a big area of concern for the patient and their provider is their risk for recurrence. That's highest around the original event, about 2% within the first month, and thereafter, it's stable at 1% per year,
although recurrent pain can linger for many years. So what can we tell our patients in terms of reducing their risk for a recurrent event? Well, most of the methods are around reducing any sort of impulse, stress, or pressure on the arteries, both intrinsically and extrinsically,
including blood pressure control. I advise my patients to avoid heavy lifting, and by that I mean more than 30 pounds, and intense valsalva or isometric exercise. So shown here is a photo of the original World's Strongest Man lifting four
adult-sized males in addition to weights, but there's been studies in the physiology literature with healthy, younger males in their 20s, and they're asked to do a double-leg press, or even arm-curls, and with this exercise and repetitions, they can get mean systolic pressures,
or mean pressures up into the 300s, as well as heart rate into the 170s. I also tell my patients to avoid any chiropractic neck manipulation or deep tissue massage of the neck, as well as high G-force activities like a roller coaster.
There are some case reports of cervical artery dissection related to this. And then finally, what can they do about cardio? A lot of these patients are very anxious, they're concerned about re-incorporating exercise after they've been through something like this,
so I try to give them some kind of guidelines and parameters that they can follow when they re institute exercise, not unlike cardiac rehabilitation. So initially, I tell them "You can do light walking, but if you don't feel well,
or something's hurting, neck pain, headache, don't push it." Thereafter, they can intensify to a heart rate maximum of 70-75% of their maximum predicted heart rate, and that's somewhere between months zero and three, and then afterwards when they're feeling near normal,
I give them an absolute limit of 90% of their maximum predicted heart rate. And I advise all of my patients to avoid extreme exercise like Orange Theory, maybe even extreme cycling classes, marathons, et cetera. Thank you.
- I'd like the thank Doctor Veith for inviting me back to speak. I have no disclosures, we will be discussing some slight off-label use of the anitcoagulants. As we all know, acute limb ischemia occurs as a result of acute thrombosis of a native artery or bypass graft or embolism from a proximal
source, dissection, or trauma. The incidence is not insignificant, 15 cases per 100 000 persons per year, or interestingly about 10 to 16% of our vascular workload. Despite the relative frequency of this condition, there are relatively few guidelines to
guide us for anticoagulation therapy. The last set of guidelines for the American College of Chest Physicians regarding PAD gives some very brief, generic recommendations from 2012. They state, suggest immediate systemic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin.
We suggest reperfusion over no reperfusion, which seems pretty obvious to an audience of vascular specialists. One of the challenges with acute limb ischemia is that it is a fairly heterogenous group. It can be thrombosis or embolism to the aorticiliac segments to the infrainguinal segments, and
there's also the patients who develop ALI from trauma. So we actually looked at the various phases of anticoagulation for acute limb ischemia and then we do, as with many institutions, utilize intravenous heparin at the time of the diagnosis, as well as obviously at the time of surgery,
but we found that there was a significant variation with regard to the early, post-operative anticoagulation regimens. One option is to give therapeutic intravenous heparin on an adjusted dose, but what we found in a significant minority of patients across the country actually,
is that people are giving this fixed mini-dose 500 unit an hour of heparin without any standardization or efficacy analysis. Then, obviously you go the long-term anticoagulation. We reviewed 123 patients who had ALI at our institution, who underwent surgical revascularization.
And they had the typical set of comorbidities you might expect in someone who has PAD or atheroembolism. In these patients, the Rutherford Classification was viable or marginally threatened in the majority, with about 25% having immediately threatened limb.
Various procedures were performed for these patients, including thromboembolectomy in the majority, bypass operations, angioplasty and stenting was performed in the significant minority and then primary amputation in the various selects few. We divided these patients into
the first four days of anticoagulation. Therapeutic with unfractionated heparin early on versus subtherapeutic or this mini-dose unfractionated heparin and we found that 29% of our patients were receiving the mini-dose unfractionated heparin, again without much efficacy analysis.
We used the International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis Anticoagulation Outcome Guidelines to look at the ischemic complications, as well as major and minor bleeding for these patients, and we identified actually not a significant rate of difference between the
subtherapeutic category and the therapeutic category of patients, with regard to mortality, with regard to recurrent limb ischemia, MI, VTE, or stroke, major amputation, and we actually didn't find because it's a fairly small study, any significant difference in major or minor bleeding for these patients.
So, we do feel that this small study did justify some efficacy of mini-dose unfractionated heparin because we didn't find that it was causing recurrent lower extremity thromboembolsim in these patients. Now on to long-term anticoagulation, for these patients, after that first three or four days
after the surgery, the options are long-term vitamin K antagonists, the DOAC's or vitamin K antagonists if you have atrial arrhythmia, or in the patients who had no other comorbidities, there really is not much guidance until recently. The compass trial was recently published in 2018
in stable PAD and carotid disease patients, identifying that rivaroxaban plus aspirin had a significant benefit over aspirin alone in patients who had stable PAD. And then, an upcoming trial, which is still ongoing currently in patients who underwent recent
revascularization, whether open or endo, is hopefully going to demonstrate that rivaroxaban, again has a role in patients with lower extremity ischemia. So in conclusion, there is relatively a scarcity of clinical data to help guide anticoagulation after acute limb ischemia.
Unfractionated heparin pre and intraop are standardized, but postop anticoagulation is quite variable. The mini-dose, we consider to be a reasonable option in the first few days to balance bleeding versus rethrombrosis, and fortunately we are having larger randomized clinical trials to help demonstrate the benefit of the DOACs and
aspirin in patients who are stable or post-revascularization for PAD, thank you.
- Thank you, Dr. Veith, for the kind invitation. Again, glad to be here. I thought it was a interesting regiment putting me behind Dr. Spencer, and Dr. Spence, and Dr. Naylor. I think there's a few things that they talked about I think I'll hopefully be able to highlight
in this presentation. The work is really supported by the NIH. Now there's multiple studies that actually showed patients with sever stenotic lesions had improved in cognition after intervention. Here's highlight a few.
Shows that patients with severe stenotic lesions after revascularization, successfully, can reverse cortical thinning. That's the the physiological evidence of cortopren health. Other studies show that can improve cognitive function compared to those without receive carotid surgery.
And lastly, studies show that revascularization improved cognitive function measured by auditory evoked potentials up to five years compared to the untreated control. So, obviously, there's still lot's of controversies on cognition following carotid revascularization procedures.
Now, specific for this project, we look at how diabetes affects cognitive function after carotid revascularizations, as diabetes is known to be a predictor for poor surgical outcome. So, this prospective
long-term follow-up trial to look at patients with high-grade carotid stenosis, either had symptomatic or asymptomatic. All of the patients received pre- and post-operative MRI, and we take the high-resolution T1 imaging,
and processed for the segmental brain volume using a neuroimaging program. Here, the different total brain volume can be measured. And, here the different risk factors, the demographic risk factors with patients. As, not surprisely,
age was significantly correlated to total brain volume. So does coronary artery disease. Other risk factors, including smoking, alcohol, and diabetes did not correlate to total brain volume. Again, age and coronary artery disease,
was only demographic risk factors with significant correlate to baseline brain volume. Now, here another look at specific brain volume and age in CAD. So, patients over age of 80, as you can see, depends on how you measure brain volume,
their segment lower volume. Patients with coronary artery disease also had lower volume compared to without coronary artery disease. Now, when you look at cognition, this is actually highlighted by
both Dr. Spence and Dr. Naylor. Cognition is difficult to measure. When you look at total brain volume decrease, there was significant correlation decrease between total brain volume to Mini-Mental Status Exam. That's a gross measurement of the
brain cognitive function. Now, when you look at specific functions, and they are not correlated. And not surprisely, different brain areas had different controls, different brain functions, and the total brain volume did not have
significant correlation. Now, in this study we used Ray AVLT. That's a word list learning test with parallel forms to mitigate the practice effect. A study was conducted, one month after intervention, to reduce an after effect.
Again, significant correlation between baseline volume and the Mini-mental Status exam alone, now just the memory test. Now we will go back to diabetes versus non-diabetic patients. There were no different in procedure type,
general risk factors, cardiovascular risk factors, symptomatic status, or surgical risks. When you look at segmental brain volume, and compared to non diabetic patients, essentially there's no change. The patient had diabetes
had a significant decrease in segmental brain volume in several regions including thalamus, areas of anterior cingulate, and the caudal middle frontal lobe. Now, caudal cingulate
is involved in working memory, conflict resolution. Thalamus, we know, is really a center for information relay, and caudal middle frontal lobe is involved in working memory and cognitive control. So, now, when you look at the correlations between volume
and Ray AVLT, again, a working memory test, there were significant correlations between Ray AVLT and part of the anterior cingulate. Here, scatter graphs to look at several areas. There's correlation between thalamus, caudal anterior cingulate,
caudal middle frontal, and the baseline cognition. Anterior cingulate volume correlate not to Mini-mental Status Exam, but also correlate to Ray AVLT cognitive functions. So in summary, each cognitive domain is affected disproportionally
in revascularization procedures, so there's a challenges to a cognitive test, but MRI data provides insightful information to help to decipher some of the cognitive changes and specific neurocognitive test should be used for the study.
Age and coronary artery disease affect overall baseline brain volume, and diabetic patients experience reduce segmental volume post-operatively, while non-diabetic patients seems to remain largely unchanged.
Thank you very much.
- Thank you Dr. Asher. What an honor it is to be up here with Dr. Veith and Dr. Asher towards the end. You guys are leading by example being at the end of the meetings. So, thank you for allowing me to be up and talking about something
that not a lot of vascular surgeons have experience with, including me. I have no disclosures. On your left, I have listed some of the types of diseases that we most commonly see in the vertebral artery, and there are quite a lot.
And on the right, the standard types of treatment that we pursue in vascular surgery or as a vascular specialist. And often, in the vertebral artery, if we are going to pursue treatment, it's the endovascular route.
But I'll talk a little bit about open surgery. The clinical presentation is often vague. And the things I wanted to point out here in this long list are things like alternating paresthesias, dysphagia, or perioral numbness may be something in the history to look for
that you may not be thinking about when you're thinking about vertebral basilar disease. The anatomy looks straightforward in this picture, with the four segments, as you can see. It gets a little more complicated with just the arterial system,
but then when you start looking at all these structures, that you have to get out of of the way to get to the vertebral artery, it actually can be a difficult operation, particularly even in the V1 segment. The V1 typically is atherosclerotic disease.
V2 is often compression, via osteophyte or musculo-tendon structures. And V3 and V4, at the top, are typically from a dissection injury from sort of stretch or trauma injury. The pathophysiology isn't that well understood.
You have varying anatomy. It's very difficult to access this artery. Symptoms can be difficult to read, and treatment outcomes are not as reliable. But I'm going to take you through a very quick path through history here in the description
of the V1 segment exposure by Dr. Rentschler from 1958. And I love these pictures. Here is a transverse incision over the sternocleidomastoid, just above the clavicular head on the right side. And once you get the sternoclavicular head divided, you can see the longus colli muscle there.
Anteromedial is the carotid. Of course, you surround that with a Penrose drain. And then once you do that, you can separate your longus colli, and deep to that, the vertebral artery just easily slips right up, so you can do your transposition.
It's not quite that easy. I've done one of these operations, and it was difficult finding t e. And, again, here is on the opposite side, you can see the transposition in this cartoon.
Dr. Berguer is the world's expert, and a lot of this open surgical work comes out of the University of Michigan. Here is a study looking at 369 consecutive extracranial vertebral artery reconstructions. You can see the demographics of clinical presentation.
And note that about 34% of patients are presenting with hemispheric symptoms, with 60% in the vertebral basilar distribution. 300 of these reconstructions were for atherosclerosis. And the outcomes were pretty good. Before 1991, there wasn't really a protocol in place
in assessing and doing these procedures. And you can see the stroke and death rates of 4.1 and 3.2% respectively. And then the outcomes after 1991 are considerably better with a five year patency rate of 80%. So, in summary, vertebral artery disease is,
I think if you review this, is somewhat under diagnosed. Revascularization is a viable option. Most often, it's endovascular. But if you have endo-hostility, then an open, particularly for the V1 segment, may be a better option.
And this requires people with good operative experience. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank you Frank, for this kind invitation again to this symposium. This is my disclosure. With the drug coated balloons it is important to minimize the drug loss during the balloon transit during the inflation of the balloon.
Because Paclitaxel has a high degree of cytotoxicity that may induce necrosis and increase inflammation in the distal tissue, and we know that even with the best technique, we can loose 70 - 80% of the drop to the distal circulation,
the inference by different factors between them and the calcification of degree of these blood cells. There are adverse events secondary to drug coated balloons that have been reported recently. In animal molders it has shown that Downstream Vascular Changes are more frequent with
Drug Coated Balloons than with Drug-Eluting Stents. In animal molders it has been also shown that there is no evidence of significant downstream emboli or systemic toxicity with DCB's than with patients with controls. This was a study presented yesterday by (mumbles)
with a very nice and elegant study with a good methodology that shows in animals that there are different concentrations of the drug in distal tissue depending on the balloon that you are using. In this case, the range in balloon (mumbles)
those ones have the lowest concentration in the distal tissue. In clinical experience in this meta-analysis amputations and wound healing rate are lower with this series with controls. But there is controversy because
Complete Index Ulcer Healing is higher in this series than with control patients. But there are lower wound healing index in patients compared with drug-eluting stents. In the debate, (mumbles) and also in the dialux which are clinical trials in diuretic patients with CLI,
there we no issues of safety and no impair of the wounds healing. But, remember the negative result of the IN PACT DEEP trial in which there were more amputation at six months that could be influenced, but in all their factors, the lack of standardized
wound care protocols. (mumbles) has also reported recently good survival to 100% in patient treated with DCB's compared with plain balloons and with lutonic balloons. So in our institution, we did a study with the objective to examine
patient outcomes following the use of the drug-coated balloons in patients with CLI and diuretic patients with Complex Real World lesions undergoing endovascular intervention below-the-knee with the Ranger balloon coated with Paclitaxel.
This is a Two-Center Experience that is headed by the National University of Mexico in 30 patients with strict followup. With symptomatic Rutherford four to six. With the Stenosis and occlusion of infrapopliteal vessels and many degrees of calcification.
It was mandatory for all patients to have Pre-dilation before the use of DCB. We studied some endpoints like efficacy. (mumbles) Limb salvage, sustained clinical improvement, wound healing rate
and technical success and some other endpoints of safety. This is an example of multi level disease in a patient that has to be approached by (mumbles) access with a balloon preparation of the artery before the use of the DCB, and after this, we treated the anterior artery
and even to the arch of the foot. This is the way we follow our patient with ultra sound duplex with an index fibular of no more that 2.4. All patients were diabetic with Rutherford 5-6. 77% have a (mumbles) at the initial of the study.
And as you can see there were longer lesions and with higher degree of calcification and stenosis only in two of them we produced (mumbles). There were bailout stent placements in five patients and we did retrograde access in 43 patients.
Subintimal angioplasty was done in 32 patients, and Complete Index Wound Healing was in 93 of our patients. This is our Limb Salvage 94%. The Patency rate was 96% with this Kaplan Meir analysis. And in some patients we did a determination of Paclitaxel concentration in distal tissue
with the High Pressure Liquid Chromatography method. We only did this in five patients because of the lack of financial support, and technical problems. As you can see in three of them we had Complete Wound Healing.
Only one we had major amputation. This was the patient with the higher concentration of Paclitaxel in the distal tissue, and in one patient, we could not determine the concentration of Paclitaxel. This is the way we do this.
They take the sample of the patient at the moment we do the minor amputation. During day 10 after the angioplasty, we also do a (mumbles) analysis of the patient we have a limb salvage we can see arterial and capillar vessel proliferation and hyperplasia of the
arteriole media layer. But, in those patients that have major amputation even when they have a good sterio-graphic result like in this case, we see more fibrinoid necrosis which is a bad determination. So in conclusion,
angioplasty with the (mumbles) balloon maintain clinical efficacy over time is possible. We didn't see No Downstream clinical important or significant effects and high rates of Limb Salvage in complex CLI patients is possible.
Local toxic effects of paclitaxel and significant drug loss on the way to the lesion are theoretical considerations up to now because there is no biological study that can confirm this. Thank you very much.
- So I'm just going to talk a little bit about what's new in our practice with regard to first rib resection. In particular, we've instituted the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera at times to better visualize the structures. I will give you a little bit of a update
about our results and then I'll address very briefly some controversies. Dr. Gelbart and Chan from Hong Kong and UCLA have proposed and popularized the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for a better visualization of the structures
and I'll show you some of those pictures. From 2007 on, we've done 125 of these procedures. We always do venography first including intervascular intervention to open up the vein, and then a transaxillary first rib resection, and only do post-operative venography if the vein reclots.
So this is a 19 year old woman who's case I'm going to use to illustrate our approach. She developed acute onset left arm swelling, duplex and venogram demonstrated a collusion of the subclavian axillary veins. Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy
and then balloon angioplasty were performed with persistent narrowing at the thoracic outlet. So a day later, she was taken to the operating room, a small incision made in the axilla, we air interiorly to avoid injury to the long thoracic nerve.
As soon as you dissect down to the chest wall, you can identify and protect the vein very easily. I start with electrocautery on the peripheral margin of the rib, and use that to start both digital and Matson elevator dissection of the periosteum pleura
off the first rib, and then get around the anterior scalene muscle under direct visualization with a right angle and you can see that the vein and the artery are identified and easily protected. Here's the 30 degree laparoscopic image
of getting around the anterior scalene muscle and performing the electrocautery and you can see the pulsatile vein up here anterior and superficial to the anterior scalene muscle. Here is a right angle around the first rib to make sure there are no structures
including the pleura still attached to it. I always divide, or try to divide, the posterior aspect of the rib first because I feel like then I can manipulate the ribs superiorly and inferiorly, and get the rib shears more anterior for the anterior cut
because that's most important for decompressing the vein. Again, here's the 30 degree laparoscopic view of the rib shears performing first the posterior cut, there and then the anterior cut here. The portion of rib is removed, and you can see both the artery and the vein
are identified and you can confirm that their decompressed. We insufflate with water or saline, and then perform valsalva to make sure that they're hasn't been any pneumothorax, and then after putting a drain in,
I actually also turn the patient supine before extirpating them to make sure that there isn't a pneumothorax on chest x-ray. You can see the Jackson-Pratt drain in the left axilla. One month later, duplex shows a patent vein. So we've had pretty good success with this approach.
23 patients have requires post operative reintervention, but no operative venous reconstruction or bypass has been performed, and 123 out of 125 axillosubclavian veins have been patent by duplex at last follow-up. A brief comment on controversies,
first of all, the surgical approach we continue to believe that a transaxillary approach is cosmetically preferable and just as effective as a paraclavicular or anterior approach, and we have started being more cautious
about postoperative anticoagulation. So we've had three patients in that series that had to go back to the operating room for washout of hematoma, one patient who actually needed a VATS to treat a hemathorax,
and so in recent times we've been more cautious. In fact 39 patients have been discharged only with oral antiplatelet therapy without any plan for definitive therapeutic anticoagulation and those patients have all done very well. Obviously that's contraindicated in some cases
of a preoperative PE, or hematology insistence, or documented hypercoagulability and we've also kind of included that, the incidence of postop thrombosis of the vein requiring reintervention, but a lot of patients we think can be discharged
on just antiplatelets. So again, our approach to this is a transaxillary first rib resection after a venogram and a vascular intervention. We think this cosmetically advantageous. Surgical venous reconstruction has not been required
in any case, and we've incorporated the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for better intraoperative visualization, thanks.
- Thank you and thanks Craig, it's fun to have these debates with good colleagues, thoughtful colleagues. These are my disclosures for the talk. But pry my most important disclosure is I work in academic center with a dedicated Limb Preservation Center, very tertiary practice. And I perform both open and endovascular surgery
and actually my current lower extremity practice is probably about 60 to 65 percent endovascular so, I do both of these procedures. We already saw this slide about how the increase in endovascular intervention has grown. But, I would caution you to look a little more closely
at this outpace of decline in bypass surgery by more than three to one. I don't think this is an epidemic, I think it's a little bit of this, and a little bit of this. Everything looks like a nail when you only have a hammer
or a hammer when you only have a nail. So, what should we really be doing today? We should be trying to select the best thing for the right patient at the right time. And it really comes down to starting not with the lesion, but with the patient.
Start with assessing the patient's risk, what's their perioperative risk, what's their long-term survival, what are their goals for care? And then look at the limb itself, because not all limbs are the same.
There are minor ulcers, there's extensive and severe rest pain and there are large areas of tissue loss. And the WIfI system is good for that. And then let's look at the anatomy last. And when we're looking at it from the standpoint of what all the options are, endovascular we're looking
at what's the likelihood not just of technical success, but of hemodynamic gain and sustained patency for as long as a patient needs it. With bypass, we also have to look at other things. What kind of vein do they have, or what kind of target do they have?
And I think the bottom line here is in today's practice, it's kind of silly to say endo first for all patients, it's certainly not surgery first for all patients because they have complementary roles in contemporary practice. Well what's happening in the world out there,
this is the German CRITISCH registry, I'll just point out 12 hundred patients recently published only a couple of years ago, 24 percent of patients get bypass first. And if you look at who they are, not surprisingly they are the patients
with long occlusions and complex anatomy. They are out there, in fact most of these patients have multi-segment disease, as Craig pointed out. Here's some contemporary data that you haven't seen yet because it's in press, but this is VQI data looking at 2003 to 2017.
I'll point out just in the last 2013 years, still, if you looked at unique patients, not procedures, one-third of the patients are getting a bypass first. And if you define risk groups considering what might be a low risk patient as a three percent mortality and survival greater than 70 percent,
and a high risk patient, you can put these patients into buckets and in fact, of all the patients getting lower extremity revascularization and VQI today, 80 percent of them would be called low risk based on this definition. So, most patients are not high risk patients
who don't have long-term survival. In fact, this is current VQI data. If you're a low risk patient in that cohort, your five year survival actually is over 70 percent. So there's a lot of these patients actually today with better CLO medical therapy that are actually
living longer and are not that high risk. We talked about the BASIL trial already, and he pointed out how the early results were similar, but what we learned also with BASIL, that if you've got a bypass as a secondary procedure, or if you got a bypass with a prosthetic,
you simply did not do as well. That doesn't mean that the initial endovascular revascularization caused the bypass failure, but it means that secondary bypass surgery does not work as well. And when Dr. Bradbury looked at this data
over a longer period of time now going over many more years, there's a consistent inferior outcome to the patients who had their bypass after failed angioplasty in comparison to bypass as the initial strategy. This is not an isolated finding. When we looked in the VSGNE data over a,
more than 3000 patients at the impact of restenosis on subsequent treatment failure, we found that whether patients had a failed previous PVI or bypass, their secondary bypass outcomes were inferior, and the inferiority continued to get worse with time.
These bypasses just don't perform as well. Unfortunately, if we only do bypass after endo has failed, this is what all the results are going to start to look like. So let's be a little bit smarter. Now what about patency?
I think we, even today in the endovascular world, we realize patency is important. After all, that's why we're doing drug elution. Most, but not all patients with advanced limb ischemia will recrudesce their symptoms when their revascularization fails.
I think we all know that. Most CLTI patients have multi-segment disease. I don't want to sit up here and be a high school or elementary school math teacher, but here's the reality. If you look at it above the lesion, you say I'm going to get 70 percent patency there, and you look at
the tibial lesion, you say I'm going to get 50 percent patency there, what do you think your patency is for the whole leg? It's 35 percent folks, it's the product of the two. That is the reality pretty often. Patients with more advanced limb presentations,
such as WIfI stage do not tolerate these failures. They tolerate them poorly. They go on to amputation pretty fast. And patient survival, as I've already shown you has improved. Now, what the all endo-all the time
camp does and doesn't say. He already showed us, many datasets suggest the downstream outcomes are roughly equivalent but, these are not the same patients, we are not operating on the same patients you are doing endo on.
If I told you the results are the same for PCI and CABG without showing you anatomy, you would laugh me off the stage right? So, this is really not an equivalent argument. Endo can be repeated with minimal morbidity, but patients suffer.
Their limb status deteriorates, they come in the hospital often, and they continue to decline in the outcomes of these secondary procedures. CLTI patients are too frail for surgery, I just showed you that's really not true for many patients.
There is really unfortunately, an economic incentive here. Because there is unfortunately, no incentive for durable success. I hate to bring that up, but that's the reality. Now just quickly, some results. This is a large Japanese series
where they were performing endovascular interventions only for advanced limb ischemia. And basically what you can see as you go across the WIfI stages here from stage one to stage four, when you get to these stage four patients, the wound healing rate's only 44 percent,
limb salvage rate drops to 80 percent, repeat EVT rate is encroaching 50 percent. These patients really are not doing well with endovascular intervention. And we found that in our own series too, it's relatively small numbers and not randomized.
But if we look at the stage 4 limbs with bypass versus endo, when these patients failed at revascularization, and they may not have been bypass candidates, but they didn't do well, they went on to amputation very quickly.
So the ESC guidelines that just came out really sort of line up with what I'm telling you. You'll see bypass first. If you have long occlusions in an available vein, is actually currently the favorite approach, with level 1A recommendation.
So in summary, this is how I currently approach it. You look at all these factors, some people should get endo first, but there's still about 20 or 30 percent that I think should get bypass. Some people should go on to amputation earlier, is the bottom line, and I'll go right to the bottom line.
If you don't have access to a skilled open bypass surgeon, you're probably not at a center of excellence, go find one.
- I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for this kind invitation and the committee as well. So these are my disclosures, there's none. So for a quick background regarding closure devices. Vascular closure devices have been around
for almost 20 years, various types. Manual compression in most studies have always been shown to be superior to vascular closure devices mainly because there's been no ideal device that's been innovated to be able
to handle all sorts of anatomies, which include calcified vessels, soft plaque, etc. So in this particular talk we wanted to look at to two particular devices. One is the Vascade vascular closure device
made by Cardiva and the other is the CELT arterial closure device made by Vasorum in Ireland. Both these devices are somewhat similar in that they both use a disc. The Vascade has a nitinol disc
as you can see here that's used out here to adhere to the interior common femoral artery wall. And then once tension is applied, a series of steps is involved to deploy the collagen plug
directly on to the artery which then allows it to expand over a period of time. The CELT is similar in that it also uses a stainless steel disc as you can see here. Requires tension up against the interior wall of the common femoral artery.
Nice and tight and then you screw on the top end of the device on to the interior wall of the artery creating a nice little cylinder that compresses both walls of artery. As far as comparability is concerned between the two devices you can see
here that they're both extravascular, one's nitinol, one's stainless steel. One uses a collagen material, the other uses an external clip in a spindle-type fashion. Both require about, anywhere between three to seven minutes of pressure
to essentially stop the tract ooze. But the key differences between the two devices, is the amount of time it takes for patients to ambulate. So the ambulation time is two hours roughly for Vascade, whereas for a CELT device
it's anywhere from being immediate off the table at the cath lab room to about 20 minutes. The data for Vascade was essentially showing the RESPECT trial which I'll summarize here, With 420 patients that was a randomized trial
to other manual compression or the device itself. The mean points of this is that the hemostasis time was about three minutes versus 21 minutes for manual compression. And time to ambulation was about 3.2 hours versus 5.7 hours.
No major complications were encountered. There were 1.1% of minor complications in the Vascade versus 7% in the manual compression arm. This was actually the first trial that showed that a actual closure devices
had better results than manual compression. The main limitations in the trial didn't involved complex femoral anatomy and renal insufficiency patients which were excluded. The CELT ACD trial involved 207 patients that were randomized to CELT or to manual
compression at five centers. Time to hemostasis was anywhere between zero minutes on average versus eight minutes in the manual compression arm. There was one complication assessed at 30 days and that was a distal embolization that occurred
early on after the deployment with a successfully retrieved percutaneously with a snare. So complication rate in this particular trial was 0.7% versus 0% for manual compression. So what are some pros and cons with the Vascade device?
Well you can see the list of pros there. The thing to keep in mind is that it is extravascular, it is absorbable, it's safe, low pain tolerance with this and the restick is definitely possible. As far as the cons are involved.
The conventional bedrest time is anywhere between two to three hours. It is a passive closure device and it can create some scarring when surgical exploration is necessary on surgical dissections.
The key thing also is you can not visualize the plug after deployment. The pros and cons of the CELT ACD device. You can see is the key is the instant definitive closure that's achieved with this particular device, especially in
calcified arteries as well. Very easy to visualize under fluoroscopy and ultrasound. It can be used in both antegrade and retrograde approaches. The key cons are that it's a permanent implant.
So it's like a star closed devised, little piece of stainless steel that sits behind. There's a small learning curve with the device. And of course there's a little bit of discomfort associated with the cinching under the (mumbles) tissue.
So we looked at our own experience with both devices at the Christie Clinic. We looked at Vascade with approximately 300 consecutive patients and we assessed their time to hemostasis, their time to ambulation,
and their time to discharge, as well as the device success and minor and major complications. And the key things to go over here is that the time to hemostasis was about 4.7 minutes for Vascade, at 2.1 hours for ambulation, and roughly an average
of 2.4 hours for discharge. The device success was 99.3% with a minor complication rate of .02% which we have four hematomas and two device failures requiring manual compression. The CELT ACD device we also similarly did
a non-randomized perspective single center trial assessing the same factors and assessing the patients at seven days. We had 400 consecutive patients enrolled. And you can see we did 232 retrograde. We did a little bit something different
with this one, we did we 168 antegrade but we also did direct punctures to the SFA both at the proximal and the mid-segments of the SFA. And the time to hemostasis in this particular situation was 3.8 minutes,
ambulation was 18.3 minutes, and discharge was at 38.4 minutes. We did have two minor complications. One of which was a mal-deployment of the device requiring manual compression. And the second one was a major complication
which was an embolization of the device immediately after deployment which was done successfully snared through an eighth front sheath. So in conclusion both devices are safe and effective and used for both
antegrade and retrograde access. They're definitely comparable when it comes, from the standpoint of both devices (mumbles) manual compression and they're definitely really cost effective in that they definitely do increase the
throughput in the cath lab allowing us to be able to move patients through our cath lab in a relatively quick fashion. Thank you for your attention.
- 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)
- Good afternoon to everybody, this is my disclosure. Now our center we have some experience on critical hand ischemia in the last 20 years. We have published some papers, but despite the treatment of everyday, of food ischemia including hand ischemia is not so common. We had a maximum of 200 critical ischemic patients
the majority of them were patient with hemodialysis, then other patients with Buerger's, thoracic outlet syndrome, etcetera. And especially on hemodialysis patients, we concentrate on forearms because we have collected 132 critical ischemic hands.
And essentially, we can divide the pathophysiology of this ischemic. Three causes, first is that the big artery disease of the humeral and below the elbow arteries. The second cause is the small artery disease
of the hand and finger artery. And the third cause is the presence of an arterial fistula. But you can see, that in active ipsillateral arteriovenous fistula was present only 42% of these patients. And the vast majority of the patients
who had critical hand ischemia, there were more concomitant causes to obtain critical hand ischemia. What can we do in these types of patients? First, angioplasty. I want to present you this 50 years old male
with diabetes type 1 on hemodialysis, with previous history of two failed arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis. The first one was in occluded proximal termino-lateral radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula. So, the radial artery is occluded.
The second one was in the distal latero-terminal arteriovenous fistula, still open but not functioning for hemodialysis. Then, we have a cause of critical hand ischemia, which is the occlusion of the ulnar artery. What to do in a patient like this?
First of all, we have treated this long occlusion of the ulnar artery with drug-coated ballooning. The second was treatment of this field, but still open arteriovenous fistula, embolized with coils. And this is the final result,
you can see how blood flow is going in this huge superficial palmar arch with complete resolution of the ischemia. And the patient obviously healed. The second thing we can do, but on very rarely is a bypass. So, this a patient with multiple gangrene amputations.
So, he came to our cath lab with an indication to the amputation of the hand. The radial artery is totally occluded, it's occluded here, the ulnar artery is totally occluded. I tried to open the radial artery, but I understood that in the past someone has done
a termino-terminal radio-cephalic arteriovenous fistula. So after cutting, the two ends of the radial artery was separated. So, we decided to do a bypass, I think that is one of the shortest bypass in the world. Generally, I'm not a vascular surgeon
but generally vascular surgeons fight for the longest bypass and not for the shortest one. I don't know if there is some race somewhere. The patient was obviously able to heal completely. Thoracic sympathectomy. I have not considered this option in the past,
but this was a patient that was very important for me. 47 years old female, multiple myeloma with amyloidosis. Everything was occluded, I was never able to see a vessel in the fingers. The first time I made this angioplasty,
I was very happy because the patient was happy, no more pain. We were able to amputate this finger. Everything was open after three months. But in the subsequent year, the situation was traumatic. Every four or five months,
every artery was totally occluded. So, I repeated a lot of angioplasty, lot of amputations. At the end it was impossible to continue. After four years, I decided to do something, or an amputation at the end. We tried to do endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy.
There is a very few number of this, or little to regard in this type of approach. But infected, no more pain, healing. And after six years, the patient is still completely asymptomatic. Unbelievable.
And finally, the renal transplant. 36 years old female, type one diabetes, hemodialysis. It was in 2009, I was absolutely embarrassed that I tried to do something in the limbs, inferior limbs in the hand.
Everything was calcified. At the end, we continued with fingers amputation, a Chopart amputation on one side and below the knee major amputation. Despite this dramatic clinical stage, she got a double kidney and pancreas transplant on 2010.
And then, she healed completely. Today she is 45 years old, this summer walking in the mountain. She sent to me a message, "the new leg prostheses are formidable". She's driving a car, totally independent,
active life, working. So, the transplant was able to stop this calcification, this small artery disease which was devastating. So, patients with critical high ischemia have different pathophysiology and different underlying diseases.
Don't give up and try to find for everyone the proper solution. Thank you very much for your attention.
- My topic is status of left atrial appendage exclusion and we're going to go to the heart in this topic. This is my disclosures: atricure being the main one. The other disclosure is we actually have an annual meeting of left atrial appendage that takes over three days, so this is a very
extensive topic and I'm going to ask you to put your seat belts on because it's going to be a lot of topics to cover over five minutes. So, as you know, the left atrial appendage is the source of thrombus that comes from the heart in ninety percent of patients so patients
who have a stroke coming from the heart, ninety percent chances are the clot was in the left atrial appendage. If you look at just in the US, if we can take care of left atrial appendage in these patients, we can deal with 130,000 strokes.
It's a very substantial number. And this translates with the amount of money that the industry has put in this. Over half a billion dollars currently and it's increasing significantly. This is one of the fastest growing area
of devices worldwide in any specialty. Now left atrial appendage also excludes atrial fibrillation so besides dropping and reducing the stroke, it does also an electric isolation so it reduces the atrial fibrillation rate in patients
who have chronic AFIB so those are two main reasons why we close left atrial appendage in specific patients who have the indication for. Now I'm going to go over the talk if you look at patients who have an open heart surgery, they already know, based upon this recently
published journal publication from Mayo Clinic, that left atrial exclusion significantly reduces stroke. In these patients, they actually look at 75,000 patients, five percent of them had surgical exclusion and that that propensity analysis among patients who had AFIB and closure of appendage versus
the same patient population with similar risk who did not and they had significantly less stroke in patients who had exclusion of appendage, as you see here, and less mortality. There is a specific trial called ATLAS that is going to be given a more randomized study
but there is a lot of data already supporting that appendage reduces significant stroke. Now these are the two studies. This is one of the most important slides that I want you to remember. They are the Endocardial Trial Devices
and there are Epicardial Devices and I'm going to go over in the last slide what are the pros and cons of each one. What I'm going to talk about each of them at a time. Now endocardial is obviously transcatheter techniques. Epicardial is a clip that is typically placed
outside but it could be also endocardial, as well. So Watchman is the most common device that is placed endocardial. It's also the only one that is FDA approved currently. And it's probably the best device that we will place in an elderly patients or failed patients.
It's 14 Fringe, has five sizes based upon a CT Scan. Sized pretty much like a anthracic aneurysm in how we measure actually, triple As. It's sized 10 o
and has 10 barbs in it. It's also approved in CE marks, as well. Now the FLX version of it is a new version that has been overworked right now but this study, this device is actually the most studied device. Protect-AF and Prevails are the typical two studies
and they have shown at four-year followup that the ischemic stroke and systemic embolization is significantly lower and comparable to coumadin and significantly lower bleeding rate, as well. But they are not perfect obviously. There is a lot of patients that cannot be treated
due to anatomic issues. There is also percent of patients will have leaks that will require additional anticoagulation. Now Amplatzer is not approved.
It's not a percutaneous endocardial device, that is CE marked, but I'm not going to spend time just because of the timing. Same applies to WaveCrest, Occulotech, and LAmbre. You can imagine these at the early time of EVARS and TVARS that we have initially one device on the market
and now more and more devices coming up. We have a similar one on the left atrial appendage. And these devices will come into market within the next few years. They are already in Europe available. But no randomized trials.
Now with all these endocardial devices there are multiple leak effects typically including leaking around it because as you know appendage orifices is not a perfect circle. It's not like a aorta, many aortas, at least. You could have an area that is very narrowed
and you could have what we call a really perivalval leak which cardiologists will name differently, a agofact in this case. Now one of the epicardial devices, these are devices that come from outside, is called the LARIAT.
This is 510K approved in the United States and also available in CE but has significant complications. Why? Because it's an endocardial device. That means you have to transvenous access and have a transeptal from right atrium going to the left atrium but also you have
to access the pericardium and pretty much put a loop around the left atrial appendage that connects over a magnet. It's actually a pretty neat device but it has significant issues with complications including tamponade and its the only device
that has actually a death rather compared to any other ones. Other ones have almost zero mortality rates. There is a leak option so if you close that appendage with a circular device, if you continues to have some blood going into it
this enlargened sac can actually open up again to orifices that's called the Gunnysack Effect. And one of the issues that, you know, Lariat has a failure rate. Plus, Lariat can be only applied for certain sizes of appendages that are small,
so that's important, as well. Now there are a lot of issues with surgical closures. I'm going to shorten this portion but to say the suture alone is not a perfect idea and for that reason, we actually use a clip for this that's called the AtriClip
that is FDA approved and this is how it looks like from inside the heart. You have an endocardial to endocardial apposition with less thrombogenesty. This is the AtroClip device again and we have option also to put that as a
thoracoscopic approach for patients who do not need open heart surgery. As you see at three month, the entire appendage dies off from ischemic event: it goes away, which is what we want. This is the prospective trial that showed
the safety of this device. And this is the left atrial appendage symposium that I mentioned to you. If you look at the Watchman device, the leak is a certain concern but it's the safest device for elderly patients, however, the epicardial
device are the safest with the lowest rate of leak and best outcome. Overall, this is my last slide, I think 100 percent of closing the left atrial appendage is important so that's the reason epicardial device right now are much more successful.
This is an important concept for patient with permanent AFib: it can cut down on the stroke risk by 90 percent and improves survival in patients and loved ones who has atrial fibrillation. Efficacy has been shown in multiple studies and in the safety, as well (mumbles).
If we have a heart-team approach, very similar like in the vascular approach, I think it takes away the specialty bias among the two various closure devices. Thank you very much.
- [Audience Member 1] So I have a question for Dr. Jackson, but maybe everybody else on the panel can chip in, and it just has to do with what your first intervention is going to be for a focal stenosis in a vein graft, and I guess, Ben, my question is, in general, is your first time you intervene going to be a drug-eluding stent?
Our strategy generally has been, to start with, a cutting balloon based on a series, I think it was from Schneider, who compared it and saw pretty good results. Nowadays, I think maybe I'd do that, and at the same time then put a drug-coated balloon in, and that's
increasing the cost, there's no good data to say that's better than just a cutting balloon, but I think I might do that and reserve the drug-eluding stent for the second time or third time. So my question is, what's your intervention the first time you intervene endovascularly
for a focal vein graft stenosis? - [Dr. Benjamin Jackson] So if you're not going to do an open revision, right, we'll preface with that, I'll use a coronary drug-eluding stent first. - [Audience Member 1] Okay. - [Speaker 1] Okay, so, are you happy with that?
- [Audience Member 1] Well, I was hoping to get other opinions, but if you want to move on, that's fine. - [Speaker 1] Alright, so I'll give you my opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with putting a stent. The idea that the stent is going to be occupying space and is going to mess up your next procedure, I think
that's more out of fear than actually the reality. We have patients that in the SFA popliteal segmentary, we're on the fifth round of stents, and you'd be surprised how you can distend the fifth stent inside the SFA. I never thought it was possible, actually.
We have some IBIS documentation showing at least a five millimeter lumen after you do that thing. So I'm not so concerned about that. The problem with this, and I agree with putting a stent because there's a very rigid lesion sometimes. It's not easy to balloon them, it's not easy to
because usually the cutting balloon probably already got the lumen that you want, but then definitely it increases the cost that way. Again, who knows the other answer. Anybody else? - [Dr. Chris Metzger] Yeah, a brief comment.
I don't think all vein graft lesions are alike, so it depends if it's diffused or focal. The other thing is, I think your response to initial therapy is important, so if you do your balloon, cutting balloon, then it's going to tell you recoil, not recoil,
and the other thing I would say is intravascular ultrasound, if you're in doubt on how large that is, I think helps a lot. So, you know, if it's very focal, very high grade, I think drug-eluding stent is perfect, the question is what size, IBIS helps with that.
Otherwise, I think your strategy for longer disease might be a reasonable strategy as well. - [Dr. George Adams] And the only other comment I'd make is if there is a thrombotic component like Chris was saying, depending on the client morphology I might use laser atherectomy followed by a
biologic therapy such as a drug-coated balloon. - [Speaker 1] Yes, sir? - [Audience Member 2] About that last presentation, are you using any type of anticoagulation when you do these PTFE tibial bypasses, or were the groups comparable where there's only antiplatelet
therapy in the vein grafts and in the prosthetic grafts, or are you putting all of them on factor 10A inhibitor coumadin? - [Dr. Peter Lin] So our patient, we typically put them on aspirin, and for the Propaten we don't add any distal antiplatelet agents.
- [Audience Member 2] Because that's a lot better than historical reports, probably. I wondered, why do you think it shows so much better, even with previous vein cusp patches? - [Dr. Peter Lin] So I think the patch matters, and I also think that over the years, we also learned
a whole lot about the distal anastomotic patch, because time won't let me tell you something and go into great detail. So the patch, you know, we make, is about two to two and a half centimeter long, so that length of the patch is almost twice the length of
the diameter of the graft itself, so I think that's also a significant factor. So it's something that previous literature has not really emphasized on, and the PTFE ideally should be connected to the proximal one-third, instead of distal one-third, so that also may make
some of the same area boost configuration. So the whole idea is you want to make the patch as long distally as possible. So some of the variations, I think, have in part helped, and ideally is that the vein is available, that would be great, if not we also have used a lot
of bovine patch as our patch material, so that thing I think made a lot of difference. So I don't think, all things considered, antiplatelet agents played a huge role, but I think the distal anastomotic compliance mismatch, if we can alleviate that, it will help your outcome.
- [Speaker 1] So Peter, you believe that those grafts have a thrombotic threshold, or you think there's no thrombotic threshold for PTFE? - [Dr. Peter Lin] Oh, I think so. - [Speaker 1] Let me just continue my thought process. So if there is a thrombotic threshold, it doesn't matter
how long you're going to put the vein patch. You can put a 16 millimeter vein patch, it's not going to make any difference, if you reach that thrombotic threshold. So then we come to the criticism that maybe you're selecting the cases
with good runoff, and in the good runoff, it's hard to show a difference between vein and (unintelligible) bonded with the patch, maybe. But if you are to do those terrible cases that have an isolated TPO segment, or they're all the way on the foot or the plantar arteries, that maybe the
saphenous vein will come up much better than this. What do you think? - [Dr. Peter Lin] Well, these are all great points. It's hard to discern based on a single yes or no answer. Saphenous vein has certain limitations, although I believe there's still a standard of care
in terms of conduit choice. Often times the veins are sclerotic, we're limited by vein length, so again, I brought up some points that in some patients we can only connect it to a superficial femoral, even a popliteal bypass because the vein is not long enough.
So PTFE, while it's not perfect in some scenarios, it does have advantages, because I can connect it even to the external iliac artery, I can connect at the common femoral artery, so that's that benefit. I did mention very briefly in our multi-vein analysis, the single vessel runoff is the (unintelligible) runoff.
So in those cases, you're going to have bad outcome no matter what kind of conduit you use, I do believe that, but in general we'd just use aspirin for that patient. But I believe that if we do believe there's an underlying prothrombotic condition, we would add additional anticoagulants, but that's not typical routine practice.
- [Speaker 1] Alright, I just want to add that in poor runoff situations, the vein clearly does better, and it works for a long time. We had published three years ago, on plantar arteries in branches of tibial vessels in the foot, and they did work, only with vein.
Everything else kind of failed, even with the fistulas. Yes, sir? - [Audience Member 3] I have just a quick question about the Phoenix device, a two part question. A, do you use it with a filter, or can you use it with a filter, and two, do you use it as a standalone therapy
or adjunct to a drug-eluding balloon or anything else? - [Dr. George Adams] So, in general, atherectomy is always with adjunct balloon angioplasty. In regards to the filter, especially with the Phoenix device, you have to be careful and very selective with the wire that you use,
you want to use a nitinol wire. So for a filter usually I use a free-floating filter, the NAV-6, and you can't use it over that nitinol wire, you have to use a graduated tip wire, usually a Viper or a Viper Flex. So I would select cases where you would not use
a filter specifically with this device, so if you have a long lesion or if there's any thrombotic component to it, I'd be very conscientious of using this device with that. - [Speaker 1] Thank you. Any questions from the panel?
Because I have a few questions. - [Dr. George Adams] Actually, it was I think very stimulating as to the conversation we just had, in regards to thrombotic or anticoagulants with antiplatelets, you know. Recently the COMPASS trial just came out, as well
as an E-PAD which was more or less a pilot study, showing that just taking peripheral arterial disease regardless of grafts, there seems to be a thrombotic component, and factor 10A inhibitors may have benefit in addition to antiplatelet therapy in regards to all PAD patients.
I think it's a very interesting discussion. - [Speaker 1] I have a question, Dr. Dorigo. Once you identify the high risk group of patients, is there any strategy to modify them to improve them and get them to another category? - [Dr. Walter Dorigo] Most of the perimeters we
examined were not modifiable. Age, extension of disease, coronary artery disease. Maybe one possibility is to improve the runoff status but, in concomitance with the intervention, one can try to improve the runoff score. But four out of five factors were not modifiable.
- [Speaker 1] Thank you, okay. I have one more question. So, do you do distal bypasses? - [Speaker 2] We do distal bypasses, I personally don't. I have a big group, I have three people in my group that only do distal bypasses.
- [Speaker 1] So, it says a patient in your group does not have a saphenous vein, and has a limited runoff. How will you approach there? - [Speaker 2] Well, that was a question I would want to ask both Walter and Peter.
Is there a role for composite bypasses? Because we do it quite a lot where we only have shorter parts of vein available, shorter lengths of vein available, we would do the above-knee PTFE, and then cross the knee with the vein. But I remember that last year at this meeting,
the Americans said that it's worse results, but we still do it. - [Dr. Walter Dorigo] Yes, in the registry are a crude amount, so about one, 150 composite bypasses with the short or long segmental vein and the part of PTFE graft, we use it.
And the results are not particularly better than those with the grafts, but it's likely better. - [Speaker 1] Right, I want to ask the panel, if you have the use the common femoral artery as an in-flow, and this vessel has been used
a few times before, what do you prefer to use? The external iliac, redo the groin again, or use the deep femoral as an in-flow? We'll start with Peter Lin. - [Dr. Peter Lin] I would probably go to external iliac,
because higher, it's got proximal better vessels, and it's greater diameter, all things considered. If you go deep femoral, you still got to navigate across a stenotic plaque common femoral artery. - [Speaker 1] No, it's not stenotic, it's a normal vessel. - [Dr. Peter Lin] So, I would, if all had been equal,
obviously common femoral might be better, but if common femoral's highly disease, stented and treated, and so there's a lot of scar tissue, I'd probably go with external iliac. - [Speaker 1] Okay, anybody else want to make a comment on what they preferentially use for in-flow?
- [Speaker 2] It depends what material you're going to use. If we use the vein, we go back to the common femoral, if we use prosthetic material, we would prefer to have a site where it's easier to go in and lower the risk of infection. - [Speaker 1] Right. I'll say that it depends on
the length, if I have enough length just to go deep femoral, I'll go deep femoral preferentially, but I have gone to the external iliac with a vein and have had no problem with kinking or anything, it would just make a tunnel lateral to the artery. We don't go medially because there are too many
branches there, but laterally, and you can do the anastomosis vein, and it only adds about two, three centimeters of length when you get it just above the inguinal ligament. With that, I'm going to thank the speakers, it was a great conference, and call the next moderators, please.
- 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.
- So PAD affects five million adults in the United States today, and we know the US population is aging. And 15 to 20% of folks 70 years and older have claudication, a minority of these progress to CLI, and the impact on lifestyle is often minimized, as demonstrated in decreased quality of life scores
in these patients. Now with active tobacco use, there is acceleration of disease towards claudication, and there are higher rates of amputation, MI, and death. But prior to open or endo intervention, the SVS Guidelines recommend supervised exercise,
medical therapy with statins, beta blockers, antiantiplatelets, and Cilostazol, and an aggressive multidisciplinary approach to smoking cessation, which should last no less than six months. But what if a patient can't stop smoking?
We've all had these patients. Should patients with lifestyle limiting claudication be denied open surgical or endo-revascularization? So let's look at the open literature. A meta-analysis performed in 2005 of 29 eligible studies. The results were that bypass graft failure
was three times that in smokers versus nonsmokers. There was a dose response relationship in smoking cessation prior to or after bypass, equalized patencies. A more recent study, published in JVS in September, queried the VSGNE, 1789 lower extremity bypasses, 971 were nonsmokers, 818 were smokers,
and what they found was that primary patency at two years was 48% in smokers, versus 61% in nonsmokers, and when they propensity matched these patients, there was even a greater difference. 10 year survival was also decreased. And in another article,
published in August of this year in JVS, again a VSGNE study, over 2,000 patients, almost 3,000 patients with lower extremity bypass for claudication. The results looked at MALE, amputation-free survival, limb loss, death, major limb events or death,
and they found that current smoking was a significant predictor of major adverse limb events, and major adverse limb events or death. But do active smokers have worse outcomes after endovascular interventions? So, let's look at the literature again.
And there is none. The only paper I could find was a Markov decision analysis, in which compared revascularization in active smokers to medical management, this was a retrospective study, and their results demonstrated better quality of life in smokers after revascularization versus medical therapy.
The quality of life was similar, after revascularization in nonsmokers and smokers, and there was no increase in amputation rates up to 36 months. Also, 26% of the folks that were revascularized, quit tobacco use after their quality of life was improved.
So we decided to do a small study at my hospital. The outcome of endovascular interventions in active smokers with lifestyle limiting claudication versus nonsmokers. This was retrospective. 138 total patients with endovascular intervention for claudication, 47 were current tobacco users,
91 were never or former smokers. The primary endpoints were reintervention, secondary endpoints, surgical bypass, limb loss, MI, stroke and death. And here you can see, as in most studies, the smokers were a younger population,
and anticoagulation, in our patient population, was more common. As far as comorbidities, they were more common, as in most studies, in the nonsmoking group. And in a mean followup of 3.6 years for both groups, there was no statistically significant difference
between the two groups for any of the outcome measures. So in conclusion, active smokers with lifestyle limiting claudication, we would advocate, of course, smoking cessation. Outcomes with respect to reintervention, surgical bypass and limb loss appear to be equivalent in these two groups.
We feel that these patients should not be denied endovascular intervention, and improved quality of life after intervention may result in an increase in smoking cessation in this patient population. Limitations are obvious, this was a very small study,
and retrospective, and we are actually extending this study to look at several hundred additional patients. So I thank you for your attention.
- (speaks French) liver surgeon I perform hepatobiliary surgery and liver transplantation. Maybe I don't belong here, I so probably more rested than anybody in the room here. But today I will present about liver surgery and hepatectomy. I work at The Royal Free where I have the honor and pleasure to have seen Krassi. We are in the
little island in the North Sea. There is many things going wrong there including Brexit but, the guys uh, we have a major advantage. The NHS favors centralization. Centralization look there: London is bigger than New York Uh, eight million, 50 million greater London
and we drain about six millions of people with our HPB center. In the center we perform about 2,000 operations, of major surgery. In five years, half of them are liver surgery. And most of them have uh, benign, malignant tumor. A very small percentage have benign tumor.
I count here for complications uh, and mortality look there, 3.1% of only the malignant because the benign are young people and we perform a different strategy, they have no mortality. Today Hepatic Hemangioma, look there it is uh, 1898 is a key year. Not only the first description
of the lady that died after bleeding out in an autopsy but also, Hermann Pfannenstiel uh, Professor Pfannenstiel. I will introduce you to him. He described the first operation. Now, we're talking of congenital malformations, they uh, lesions occur in the liver and they may grow,
but only 20% they grow. They have a chaotic network of vessels and they have fibrotic, fibrotic development within it. I introduce you Hermann Pfannenstiel, he was a gynecologist, famous, famous, important incision that we still use today.
Remember him, we'll talk to him later. Microscopically, the microscopic is our well-circumscribed lesion, they're compressible. Important you see down there that they compress the liver that is normal close to it. This has an implication because if you operate,
you fill find a blood duct or a vessel and it will bleed or leak by. Microscopically, they are ectatic blood vessels and they are fed by arteries. This is also an important point, for therapy. Separated by fibrous septa, this is also important
because they become harder and they become bigger. And they have distorted blood vessels. They're more frequent uh, benign tumor. Prevalence up to 7%, they have non-neoplastic this must be clear, they are non-cancer. The proliferation of endothelial cells, women
have more and particularly pregnant women, more pregnancy or contraceptive. We divide them in cavernous and capillary and we'll have a word on that. Symptomatic being half of the cases, multiple in 10%, they rarely bleed and they rarely rupture.
Capillary Hemangiomas cells small, I show you an MRI here. The differential with HCC liver cancer is most important. They both are theorized but they continue to appear on late face. They are asymptomatic please, do not touch them, they do no harm.
And so we will not speak of them. We speak only of the cavernous hemangioma. And here, the cavernous hemangioma bleeds Oh my God, no, it's not true. There are 83 reports of bleeding since the report of Hermann Pfannenstiel. Uh, 97 cases, adenomas bleed more frequently.
Frequently, in the past they were confused. Hemangioma and adenoma, adenoma does bleed. There are only true cases, 46 in the literature. Size is not important and they are very rare in elderly people.
This is what we see when they are giant cavernous hemangiomas, they're serious, they are rather easy to diagnose. Diagnostic criteria, uh, look up typical for uh, cavernous hemangioma. How do you point here? Yep, you stop. If you then see that you have
an atypical hemangioma, you jump over to an MRI. MRI is too nowadays, diagnostic and uh, the important thing is you stop. Once you have the diagnosis with MRI, you stop, do nothing yet, do not follow, bye-bye. Treatment modalities surgery: Selective TAE, Radiotherapy, Medication: two classes,
Propranolol, to decrease the hyper circulation. Bevacizumab as a class of drugs of inhibitors of inferior growths and endories, eventually are cold. This is seminal paper, about 35 years ago "Do not treat asymptomatic patients." This is a key: do not bother with hemangioma.
If you do have the algorithm, you look at complaints that can present incidentally when they have complained, not complained, no treatment of abdominal pain. Unrelated to no treatment, we have to eventually make sure that the pain is not related to the cavernous hemangioma. If there is other futures
like compression giant, you can do surgery. If you have a doubt in diagnosis, today rare with MRI, then you can perform a biopsy. The surgical indication then remain progress, severe, disabling symptoms. Diagnostic uncertainty nowadays not the case, with MRI.
Consumptive coagulopathy or Kasabach-Merritt syndrome is a serious, we will see when you perform human transplants. Spontaneous rupture with bleeding as an emergency. Rapid growth in 25%. This is a paper that shows that the size of the cavernous hemangioma is here,
and you can see that operation has been performed for larger size, however, look that even in non-symptomatic or partially asymptomatic patients, you can reach sizes up to 15 centimeters. And this a review of the literature from a Chinese group where they revised a thousand to a hundred cases,
no mortality in the series and enucleation versus the anatomic resection is better. Less complications, less blood less, less time of surgery, and less hospital stay. So please, in this case of surgery, we do enucleation. I was asked by my society the HPBA to speak
about transplantation for liver tumor. You can that an indication is unresectable disease, severe symptoms and mass occupying effects. Pre-cancerous behavior is not for hemangioma only for adenoma differential diagnosis with HCC. And you have to be attentive that you avoid
liver insufficiency during your resection. So, in conclusion, for benign lesions, hemangioma technically is the only indication. And now the systematic review that shows around several emothing United States UNOS and the ELTR Several, several benign tumors but if you break down
for type of tumors you see that most of them are Polycystic disease or partly cavernous hemangioma are very low. 77 in Europe, out of 97,000 operation of transplantation. So, let's get an old paper. The pioneer of transplantation again, extremely low,
one out of 3,200. An extremely low percentage. It's my personal experience I was working at Essen, Germany. Almost a thousand transplants we performed. Unfortunately most of them I did and we never transplanted one hemangioma, my experience for transplantation is zero because it should not be done.
So, my advice for hemangioma. Biopsy not advised, see a liver surgeon in a serious center, diagnosis is done my MRI, observe doubt symptoms and observe. Let the patient beg you for surgery, if significant increase in size and symptoms, we can do surgery. Embolization is possible.
Sometimes it's harmful. The role of the surgeon is to confirm the diagnosis, differentiate it from cancer, exclude causes of other symptoms and avoid unnecessary surgery that's the main thing. Surgery for severe symptoms of Kasabach-Merritt. Only for complicated symptomatic lesions, or where the
diagnosis is uncertain. Ladies and gentleman, I will conclude with a couple of questions. If you have a daughter or son with a liver tumor, would you go to a center or a competent surgeon or to a gynecologist. Professor Pfannenstiel for instance or another doctor. If your car has a problem,
would you go to a good mechanic once for all, or to a small shop for 20-40 times. It is a matter of experience and a matter of costs. And with this, I am ready for your questions. - [Audience Member #1] When have you personally operated on these lesions?
- [Speaker] I am. And the experience that I have in the past I seemed young but I practiced for many years. When I started 25-30 years ago, we were operating many of these because we were not so certain. Then MRI came, and MRI basically made the diagnosis so easy and straight-forward and we started observing
patients. We still do operate today, but they are very large tumors and when I do personally, I avoid the androbolization before because you have more skylotec reaction, just (grainy sound effect) to peel it away from the normal parenchymal.
This is our experience. - [Audience] Thank you. - [Speaker] Thank you very much, yes? - [Audience Member #2] Yes, one question. When you operate, and with all of the experience you have, what are the complications of
(mumbles) - [Speaker] The main, so first of all, there has been also an evolution in the type of operation we don't do anymore the resections where you have some bi-leaks. If you operate correctly, it's bleeding and one infection not one born. If you have to watch bi-leak is the one
that you have to watch and that's because the tissue is pushed away and you may miss something during the enucleation.
- I want to thank the organizers for putting together such an excellent symposium. This is quite unique in our field. So the number of dialysis patients in the US is on the order of 700 thousand as of 2015, which is the last USRDS that's available. The reality is that adrenal disease is increasing worldwide
and the need for access is increasing. Of course fistula first is an important portion of what we do for these patients. But the reality is 80 to 90% of these patients end up starting with a tunneled dialysis catheter. While placement of a tunneled dialysis catheter
is considered fairly routine, it's also clearly associated with a small chance of mechanical complications on the order of 1% at least with bleeding or hema pneumothorax. And when we've looked through the literature, we can notice that these issues
that have been looked at have been, the literature is somewhat old. It seemed to be at variance of what our clinical practice was. So we decided, let's go look back at our data. Inpatients who underwent placement
of a tunneled dialysis catheter between 1998 and 2017 reviewed all their catheters. These are all inpatients. We have a 2,220 Tesio catheter places, in 1,400 different patients. 93% of them placed on the right side
and all the catheters were placed with ultrasound guidance for the puncture. Now the puncture in general was performed with an 18 gauge needle. However, if we notice that the vein was somewhat collapsing with respiratory variation,
then we would use a routinely use a micropuncture set. All of the patients after the procedures had chest x-ray performed at the end of the procedure. Just to document that everything was okay. The patients had the classic risk factors that you'd expect. They're old, diabetes, hypertension,
coronary artery disease, et cetera. In this consecutive series, we had no case of post operative hemo or pneumothorax. We had two cut downs, however, for arterial bleeding from branches of the external carotid artery that we couldn't see very well,
and when we took out the dilator, patient started to bleed. We had three patients in the series that had to have a subsequent revision of the catheter due to mal positioning of the catheter. We suggest that using modern day techniques
with ultrasound guidance that you can minimize your incidents of mechanical complications for tunnel dialysis catheter placement. We also suggest that other centers need to confirm this data using ultrasound guidance as a routine portion of the cannulation
of the internal jugular veins. The KDOQI guidelines actually do suggest the routine use of duplex ultrasonography for placement of tunnel dialysis catheters, but this really hasn't been incorporated in much of the literature outside of KDOQI.
We would suggest that it may actually be something that may be worth putting into the surgical critical care literature also. Now having said that, not everything was all roses. We did have some cases where things didn't go
so straight forward. We want to drill down a little bit into this also. We had 35 patients when we put, after we cannulated the vein, we can see that it was patent. If it wasn't we'd go to the other side
or do something else. But in 35%, 35 patients, we can put the needle into the vein and get good flashback but the wire won't go down into the central circulation.
Those patients, we would routinely do a venogram, we would try to cross the lesion if we saw a lesion. If it was a chronically occluded vein, and we weren't able to cross it, we would just go to another site. Those venograms, however, gave us some information.
On occasion, the vein which is torturous for some reason or another, we did a venogram, it was torturous. We rolled across the vein and completed the procedure. In six of the patients, the veins were chronically occluded
and we had to go someplace else. In 20 patients, however, they had prior cannulation in the central vein at some time, remote. There was a severe stenosis of the intrathoracic veins. In 19 of those cases, we were able to cross the lesion in the central veins.
Do a balloon angioplasty with an 8 millimeter balloon and then place the catheter. One additional case, however, do the balloon angioplasty but we were still not able to place the catheter and we had to go to another site.
Seven of these lesions underwent balloon angioplasty of the innominate vein. 11 of them were in the proximal internal jugular vein, and two of them were in the superior vena cava. We had no subsequent severe swelling of the neck, arm, or face,
despite having a stenotic vein that we just put a catheter into, and no subsequent DVT on duplexes that were obtained after these procedures. Based on these data, we suggest that venous balloon angioplasty can be used in these patients
to maintain the site of an access, even with the stenotic vein that if your wire doesn't go down on the first pass, don't abandon the vein, shoot a little dye, see what the problem is,
and you may be able to use that vein still and maintain the other arm for AV access or fistular graft or whatever they need. Based upon these data, we feel that using ultrasound guidance should be a routine portion of these procedures,
and venoplasty should be performed when the wire is not passing for a central vein problem. Thank you.
- Our group has looked at the outcomes of patients undergoing carotid-subclavian bypass in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair. These are my obligatory disclosures, none of which are relevant to this study. By way of introduction, coverage of the left subclavian artery origin
is required in 10-50% of patients undergoing TEVAR, to achieve an adequate proximal landing zone. The left subclavian artery may contribute to critical vascular beds in addition to the left upper extremity, including the posterior cerebral circulation,
the coronary circulation if a LIMA graft is present, and the spinal cord, via vertebral collaterals. Therefore the potential risks of inadequate left subclavian perfusion include not only arm ischemia, but also posterior circulation stroke,
spinal cord ischemia, and coronary insufficiency. Although these risks are of low frequency, the SVS as early as 2010 published guidelines advocating a policy of liberal left subclavian revascularization during TEVAR
requiring left subclavian origin coverage. Until recently, the only approved way to maintain perfusion of the left subclavian artery during TEVAR, with a zone 2 or more proximal landing zone, was a cervical bypass or transposition procedure. As thoracic side-branch devices become more available,
we thought it might be useful to review our experience with cervical bypass for comparison with these newer endovascular strategies. This study was a retrospective review of our aortic disease database, and identified 112 out of 579 TEVARs
that had undergone carotid subclavian bypass. We used the standard operative technique, through a short, supraclavicular incision, the subclavian arteries exposed by division of the anterior scalene muscle, and a short 8 millimeter PTFE graft is placed
between the common carotid and the subclavian arteries, usually contemporaneous with the TEVAR procedure. The most important finding of this review regarded phrenic nerve dysfunction. To exam this, all pre- and post-TEVAR chest x-rays were reviewed for evidence of diaphragm elevation.
The study population was typical for patients undergoing TEVAR. The most frequent indication for bypass was for spinal cord protection, and nearly 80% of cases were elective. We found that 25 % of patients had some evidence
of phrenic nerve dysfunction, though many resolved over time. Other nerve injury and vascular graft complications occurred with much less frequency. This slide illustrates the grading of diaphragm elevation into mild and severe categories,
and notes that over half of the injuries did resolve over time. Vascular complications were rare, and usually treated with a corrective endovascular procedure. Of three graft occlusions, only one required repeat bypass.
Two pseudoaneurysms were treated endovascularly. Actuarial graft, primary graft patency, was 97% after five years. In summary then, the report examines early and late outcomes for carotid subclavian bypass, in the setting of TEVAR. We found an unexpectedly high rate
of phrenic nerve dysfunction postoperatively, although over half resolved spontaneously. There was a very low incidence of vascular complications, and a high long-term patency rate. We suggest that this study may provide a benchmark for comparison
with emerging branch thoracic endovascular devices. Thank you.
- [Sergio] Good morning everybody. I really do thank you for the opportunity to reason with you about the lower limbs venous kinetics and the consequent impact on drainage direction. I have no conflicts of interest to declare, particularly because this talk is all about physics and about those laws of physics
that rule the venous drainage. We could say that the drainage occurs along our Italian leg, along a deep venous highway, a saphenous freeway and along several tributary and perforated roads.
But we could also say that we could divide the anatomy of our lower limb into three different compartments. So the tributary one's above the fascia, the saphenous one in between the fascia layers, and the deep venous one below the fascia. In this kind of network, talking about physics,
we could apply the Bernoulli's principle which, to make it simple, states that whenever there is an acceleration, a lateral pressure drop occurs. Which introduces the Venturi's effect as a potential aspiration of blood
from a slowest toward a fastest vessel. But actually, up to now, we couldn't say this for sure and say that venous network because we have really few data on the literature about the velocity values that we have in the different segments of the different compartments.
So the aim of this investigation, in the first physiological part, was to evaluate the different velocity values of different segments, understanding if the Venturi's effect could be applied inside this network, and then looking at the pathological cases.
So we have 36 lower limbs of healthy controls, and we assess all the velocity segments in the different segments of the three different compartments, evoking the flow both by active dorsal flection maneuvers of the foot, and by compression/relaxation
of the calf of course. So we compared all the different values of all the different velocities with the two different maneuvers, and we created several tables and we performed several statistical tests to see
how these velocities were behaving in the different compartments. So it's pretty interesting to notice that there are segments of our venous networks in which if we are performing the vocation of the flow with two different maneuvers, we are going to have
significantly different values of velocity. So for example, this happened in the external iliac vein, in the femoral vein, in the posterior tibial vein, and the tributary veins. If you look at the graph, we realize that there is a gradient of velocities
that is decreasing in physiology. While we are moving from the deepest, toward the most superficial compartment. And if we take all these velocities we assess together, we see that there are three different groups of velocities basically, statistically speaking,
that almost totally overlap the anatomical compartments, with some exception. So if you look over here for example, you have the posterior tibial vein that belongs to the deep venous system of course, in terms of anatomy, but not in terms of velocities.
Which means that the velocity we reported were significantly different from the ones belonging to the deep venous compartment. The same thing for the short saphenous vein, which demonstrated to of course belong to the saphenous compartment in terms of anatomy
but not in terms of velocities. If we move toward the pathological part of this, and we look at the 40 chronic venous disease patients we assessed in a model in which we considered incompetent tributary as the segment you see over there, depicted as C.
Compared to the adjacent GSV trunk, A and B. It's interesting to notice how the peak diastolic velocity and the diastolic time average velocity are actually significantly higher in the tributary compared to the GSV in pathological cases.
And if we look at the resistance index, it's interesting to notice how the segment in B, so the GSV trunk below the confluence, is actually higher. Like indicating a sort of preferential road of drainage toward the incompetent tributary.
This introduced the Venturi's effect, so now we can see the Venturi's effect could play a role inside the venous network. In physiology with a gradient that is increasing in terms of velocity, so potential aspiration while we are going toward the deepest compartment.
And the gradient that is subverted in pathology, where we have tributaries that are going faster when they are incompetent, compared to the GSV trunk, so leading to potential aspiration. But our blood is not a newtonian fluid, our vessels are not ideal conduits,
so we have to admit some things we know that we know, and that's of course the newtonian physics. Kn we know that we don't know,
and that's the application of the newtonian physics inside the human body. And then unkn things we don't even know that we don't know. That's the in-vivo validation
of these physical models. Independently by what we know and by what we don't know, I totally agree with profe tters and starting from today we know that Venturi's effect could play a role inside the venous network. Thank you.
- Thank you. Historically, common femoral endarterectomy is a safe procedure. In this quick publication that we did several years ago, showed a 1.5% 30 day mortality rate. Morbidity included 6.3% superficial surgical site infection.
Other major morbidity was pretty low. High-risk patients we identified as those that were functionally dependent, dyspnea, obesity, steroid use, and diabetes. A study from Massachusetts General Hospital their experience showed 100% technical success.
Length of stay was three days. Primary patency of five years at 91% and assisted primary patency at five years 100%. Very little perioperative morbidity and mortality. As you know, open treatment has been the standard of care
over time the goal standard for a common femoral disease, traditionally it's been thought of as a no stent zone. However, there are increased interventions of the common femoral and deep femoral arteries. This is a picture that shows inflection point there.
Why people are concerned about placing stents there. Here's a picture of atherectomy. Irritational atherectomy, the common femoral artery. Here's another image example of a rotational atherectomy, of the common femoral artery.
And here's an image of a stent there, going across the stent there. This is a case I had of potential option for stenting the common femoral artery large (mumbles) of the hematoma from the cardiologist. It was easily fixed
with a 2.5 length BioBond. Which I thought would have very little deformability. (mumbles) was so short in the area there. This is another example of a complete blow out of the common femoral artery. Something that was much better
treated with a stent that I thought over here. What's the data on the stenting of the endovascular of the common femoral arteries interventions? So, there mostly small single centers. What is the retrospective view of 40 cases?
That shows a restenosis rate of 19.5% at 12 months. Revascularization 14.1 % at 12 months. Another one by Dr. Mehta shows restenosis was observed in 20% of the patients and 10% underwent open revision. A case from Dr. Calligaro using cover stents
shows very good primary patency. We sought to use Vascular Quality Initiative to look at endovascular intervention of the common femoral artery. As you can see here, we've identified a thousand patients that have common femoral interventions, with or without,
deep femoral artery interventions. Indications were mostly for claudication. Interventions include three-quarters having angioplasty, 35% having a stent, and 20% almost having atherectomy. Overall technical success was high, a 91%.
Thirty day mortality was exactly the same as in this clip data for open repair 1.6%. Complications were mostly access site hematoma with a low amount distal embolization had previously reported. Single center was up to 4%.
Overall, our freedom for patency or loss or death was 83% at one year. Predicted mostly by tissue loss and case urgency. Re-intervention free survival was 85% at one year, which does notably include stent as independent risk factor for this.
Amputation free survival was 93% at one year, which factors here, but also stent was predictive of amputation. Overall, we concluded that patency is lower than historical common femoral interventions. Mortality was pretty much exactly the same
that has been reported previously. And long term analysis is needed to access durability. There's also a study from France looking at randomizing stenting versus open repair of the common femoral artery. And who needs to get through it quickly?
More or less it showed no difference in outcomes. No different in AVIs. Higher morbidity in the open group most (mumbles) superficial surgical wound infections and (mumbles). The one thing that has hit in the text of the article
a group of mostly (mumbles) was one patient had a major amputation despite having a patent common femoral artery stent. There's no real follow up this, no details of this, I would just caution of both this and VQI paper showing increased risk amputation with stenting.
- Thank you very much. I'm going to talk on Improper and Suboptimal Antiplatelet Therapy which is probably currently the standard on most carotid angioplasty stent trials and I'm going to show you how it could potentially affect all of the results we have seen so far. I have nothing to disclose.
So introduction, based on the composite end point of stroke/death in our technical trials, they're always, in all randomized trials Endarterectomy always did marginally better than Carotid angioplasty and stenting. However, a small shift, just about a one person shift
could make carotid artery stenting better could shift the results of all these carotid stent trials. Let's just look at CREST. I think it's the gold standard for randomized trial comparing endarterectomy with stenting. You can see the combined death, streak and MI rate.
For endarterectomy, it's 6.8%, for CAS, 7.2%. For stroke, again 2.3, 4.1. Again, it's a one person shift in a direction of making stents better could actually show that stents were favorable, but comparable to it, not just inferior.
Now if you look at the data on CREST, it's very interesting that the majority of the strokes, about 80% of the strokes happened after about 24 hours. In fact, most of them happened on the third day period. So it wasn't a technical issue. You know, the biggest issue with current stenting
that we find is that we have filters, we have floor reversal. They're very worried about the time we place the stent, that we balloon, pre- and post-, but it wasn't a technical issue. Something was happening after 24 hours.
Another interesting fact that no one speaks about is if you look at the CREST data a little bit in more detail, most of the mortality associated with the stenting was actually associated with an access site bleed.
So if you could really decrease the late strokes, if you can decrease the access site bleeds, I think stents can be performed better than endarterectomies. The study design for all stent trials, there was a mandatory dual antiplatelet therapy.
Almost all patients had to be on aspirin and Plavix and on CREST, interestingly, they had to be on 75 milligrams BID for Plavix so they were all on very high dose Plavix. Now here's the interesting thing about Plavix that most people don't know.
Plavix is what is called a pro-drug. It requires to be converted to its active component by the liver for antiplatelet effect. And the particular liver enzyme that converts Plavix to its active metabolic enzyme is very variable patient to patient
and you're born that way. You're either born where you can convert its active metabolite or you can't convert it to its active metabolite and a test that's called 2C19 is actually interesting approved and covered by Medicare and here's the people
that read the black box warning for Plavix, that looked at the package insert. I just cut and paste this on the package that said for Plavix. I'm just showing you a few lines from the package insert. Now next to aspirin, it's the commonest prescribed drug
by vascular specialists, but most people probably have not looked at the package insert that says effectiveness of Plavix depends on activation by a liver enzyme called 2C19 and goes on to say that tests are available to identify to 2C19 genotype.
And then they go on to actually give you a recommendation on the package insert that says consider alternative treatment strategies in patients identified as 2C19 poor metabolizers. Now these are the people who cannot metabolize Plavix and convert them to its active metabolite.
So let's look at the actual incidents. Now we know there is resistance to, in some patients, to aspirin, but the incident is so small it doesn't make worth our time or doesn't make it worth the patient's outcome to be able to test everyone for aspirin resistance,
but look at the incidents for Plavix resistance. Again, this is just a slide explaining what does resistance mean so if you're a normal metabolizer, which we hope that most of us would be, you're going to expect advocacy from Plavix at 75 milligrams once a day.
Other hand, let's say you're a rapid or ultrarapid metabolizer. You have a much higher risk of bleeding. And then if you go to the other side where you are normal, intermediate or poor metabolizer, you're not going to convert Plavix to its active metabolite
and poor metabolizers, it's like giving a placebo. And interestingly, I'm a poor metabolizer. I got myself tested. If I ever have a cardiac interventionalist give me Plavix, they're giving me a placebo. So let's look at the actual incidents
of all these subsets in patients and see whether that's going to be an issue. So we took this from about 7,000 patients and interestingly in only about 40%, NM stands for nominal metabolizer or normal metabolizers. So only 40% get the expected efficacy of Plavix.
Let's look at just the extremes. Let's just assume people with normal metabolizers, normal intermediate and the subgroup between the ultra rapid, the normals, they're all going to respond well to Plavix. Let's just look at the extremes.
Ultra rapid and poor metabolizers. So these are the people who are going to convert Plavix to a much higher concentration of its active metabolite, but have a much higher risk of bleeding. Ultra rapid metabolizers. Poor metabolizers, Plavix doesn't work.
4%, 3%. That's not a small incidence. Now in no way am I saying that carotid stent trials itselves are totally based on Plavix resistance, but just look at the data from CREST. Let's say the patients with poor metabolizers,
that's 3%, so these people did not get Plavix. Plavix does not affect you in doses of up to 600 milligram for people with poor metabolizers. Incidents of embolic events in CREST trial for carotid stents was 4%. This happened after three days.
I believe it's possibly related to platelet debris occurring in the stent on people who did not receive a liquid anti-platelet therapy. How about the people who had the groin bleed? Remember I told you that access site bleeds were most highly predictable mortality.
If you're the ultra rapid metabolizers, that incidence was 4%. So these were the people that convert Plavix with a very high dose of active metabolite, very high risk of bleeding. Access site bleed rate,
if you look at the major/minor rates, 4.1%, very close to the ultra rapid metabolizers. So fact remains that carotid angioplasty stenting post procedure events are highly dependent on appropriate antiplatelet therapy to minimize embolic events and to decrease groin bleeds.
So in conclusion, if we just included 2C19 normal metabolizers, as was recommended by the packaging insert, so just test the people, include the people on normal metabolizers, exclude the rest, we are probably going to shift the results in favor of carotid angioplasty and stenting.
Results of all carotid angioplasty stent trials need to be questioned as a significant number of patients in the carotid angioplasty stent arm did not receive appropriate antiplatelet therapy. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, Dr. Veith, for this kind invitation. Aberrant origin of the vertebral artery is the second most common aortic arch anomaly. It is more common in patients with thoracic aortic disease when compared to the general population. It's usually of no clinical significance,
except when encountered while treating cerebro-vascular disease or aortic arch pathology. And that's when critical decision-making to preserve its perfusion becomes necessary. This picture illustrates the most common
types of aortic arch anomalies. Led by bovine arch, isolated vertebral artery, and aberrant right side. In this study, it shows a significant correlation with thoracic aortic disease. We first should evaluate the origin
of the vertebral artery. On the right side of the screen you can see the most common type and it's when it's between the left subclavian and the left common carotid artery origin. This is an example of the left vertebral artery
aberrant associated with a mycotic aneurysm of the aortic arch. And this one is a right aberrant vertebral artery associated with a descending thoracic aneurysm and center retroesophageal location. We then look at the variation of
the vertebral artery and posterior circulation. Most commonly dominant left or hypoplasia of the right vertebral artery as shown in the picture. For termination in the posterior inferior cerebellar artery, or PICA.
Or occlusive lesion on the right side, which necessitates perfusion of the left side. This study shows that vertebral artery variations that could need perfusion is up to 30% of patients
with thoracic aortic disease. There are, unfortunately, minimal literature in the vascular, mostly case reports or series. And most of this says procedure data comes from the neurosurgical literature for occlusive disease that shows in this study,
for example, low morbidity, mortality. Complications include thoracic duct injury, recurrent laryngeal nerve, Horner's and CVAs. And they showed high patency rates. The SVS guidelines for left subclavian revasculatization, although low quality,
shows they indicated routine revascularization and they mention some of the indications for left vertebral artery revasculatization. And extrapolating from that, from those guidelines, we summarize the indications for vertebral artery
revascularization dominant ipsilateral left or hypoplastic right. Incomplete circle of Willis, or termination of the left in the PICA artery. Diseased or occluded contralateral vertebral artery.
Extensive aortic coverage or inability to evaluate the circle of Willis prior to intervention. Some technical tips, we use a routine supraclavicular incision. We identify the vertebral artery posterior-medial
location to the common carotid. We carefully preserve the recurrent laryngeal nerve or non-recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is common in aortic arch anomalies. Thoracic duct on the left side. Transpose it to the posterior surface
of the common carotid. And then clamp distal to the anastomosis and to avoid prolonged ischemia to the posterior circulation. This is a completion aortagram that shows patent left vertebral artery transposed
to the common carotid. And then one month follow-up shows that the left vertebral artery is patent with a complete repair of the aorta. So in our experience, we did six vertebral transpositions over
the last couple years, four on the left, two on the right. No perioperative complications. One lost follow-up. And up to 27 months of the patent vessels. In summary, aberrant vertebral artery is uncommon
finding, but associated with thoracic aortic disease. The origin and the course of the vertebral artery should be thoroughly evaluated prior to treatment. Revascularization should be considered in certain situations to avoid
posterior circulation ischemia. But more data is needed to establish guidelines. Thank you.
- Dear Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you Doctor Veith. It's a privilege to be here. So, the story is going to be about Negative Pressure Wound Non-Excisional Treatment from Prosthetic Graft Infection, and to show you that the good results are durable. Nothing to disclose.
Case demonstration: sixty-two year old male with fem-fem crossover PTFE bypass graft, Key infection in the right groin. What we did: open the groin to make the debridement and we see the silergy treat, because the graft is infected with the microbiology specimen
and when identified, the Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis. We assess the anastomosis in the graft was good so we decided to put foam, black foam for irrigation, for local installation of antiseptics. This our intention-to treat protocol
at the University hospital, Zurich. Multi-staged Negative Pressure for the Wound Therapy, that's meets vascular graft infection, when we open the wound and we assess the graft, and the vessel anastomosis, if they are at risk or not. If they are not at risk, then we preserve the graft.
If they are at risk and the parts there at risk, we remove these parts and make a local reconstruction. And this is known as Szilagyi and Samson classification, are mainly validated from the peripheral surgery. And it is implemented in 2016 guidelines of American Heart Association.
But what about intracavitary abdominal and thoracic infection? Then other case, sixty-one year old male with intracavitary abdominal infection after EVAR, as you can see, the enhancement behind the aortic wall. What we are doing in that situation,
We're going directly to the procedure that's just making some punctures, CT guided. When we get the specimen microbiological, then start with treatment according to the microbiology findings, and then we downgrade the infection.
You can see the more air in the aneurism, but less infection periaortic, then we schedule the procedure, opening the aneurysm sac, making the complete removal of the thrombus, removing of the infected part of the aneurysm, as Doctor Maelyna said, we try to preserve the graft.
That exactly what we are doing with the white foam and then putting the black foam making the Biofilm breakdown with local installation of antiseptics. In some of these cases we hope it is going to work, and, as you see, after one month
we did not have a good response. The tissue was uneager, so we decided to make the removal of the graft, but, of course, after downgrading of this infection. So, we looked at our data, because from 2012 all the patients with
Prostetic Graft infection we include in the prospective observational cohort, known VASGRA, when we are working into disciplinary with infectious disease specialist, microbiologists, radiologist and surgical pathologist. The study included two group of patients,
One, retrospective, 93 patient from 1999 to 2012, when we started the VASGRA study. And 88 patient from April 2012 to Seventeen within this register. Definitions. Baseline, end of the surgical treatment and outcome end,
the end of microbiological therapy. In total, 181 patient extracavitary, 35, most of them in the groin. Intracavitary abdominal, 102. Intracavitary thoracic, 44. If we are looking in these two groups,
straight with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and, no, without Negative Pressure Wound Therapy, there is no difference between the groups in the male gender, obesity, comorbidity index, use of endovascular graft in the type Samson classification,
according to classification. The only difference was the ratio of hospitalization. And the most important slide, when we show that we have the trend to faster cure with vascular graft infection in patients with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
If we want to see exactly in the data we make uni variant, multi variant analysis, as in the initial was the intracavitary abdominal. Initial baseline. We compared all these to these data. Intracavitary abdominal with no Pressure Wound Therapy
and total graft excision. And what we found, that Endovascular indexoperation is not in favor for faster time of cure, but extracavitary Negative Pressure Wound Therapy shows excellent results in sense of preserving and not treating the graft infection.
Having these results faster to cure, we looked for the all cause mortality and the vascular graft infection mortality up to two years, and we did not have found any difference. What is the strength of this study, in total we have two years follow of 87 patients.
So, to conclude, dear Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Explant after downgrading giving better results. Instillation for biofilm breakdown, low mortality, good quality of life and, of course, Endovascular vascular graft infection lower time to heal. Thank you very much for your attention.
[Speaker] - Thank you very much and I appreciate the ability to present some of our research. First off, some of this was supported by AHRQ we're going to go through. What's important is, I think, Hyperglycemia is underestimated and It's been shown in general surgery to be a marker of poor clinical outcomes
in a variety of surgical patients. When you look at post-operative Hyperglycemia, it's been studied in general surgery and cardiac surgery. It's been associated with mortality and the surgical site infection. But there really is a limited amount of data
within the vascular information. So, in general, you look at the general surgery, majority of literature shows it has increased risk of infection, it has increased risk of a reoperative surgery, as well as increased risk of death. So we decided we would look at patients
undergoing lower extremity bypasses, open and Endo. And we found that in this study, one in five patients undergoing vascular procedures have hyperglycemia in their postoperative period. And, what was interesting is that diabetes was not an indicator for poor outcomes.
To do this we used the American Association of Endocrinology guidelines, which suggested optimal glucose would be between 80 and 180. Greater than 180 would be considered suboptimal. We then used Cerner information, which is EMR data. We divided the patients between open and endovascular
surgeries. We looked at our glucose targets and we looked at our outcomes. So I think what's most important is we looked at 4,000 patients. Mean years were 67 years in age. But what's more important to actually notice is that hyperglycemia was common,
more common in younger than old. It had an ethnic variability where African-Americans were likely to have hyperglycemia. But still, one in five patients after a lower extremity intervention, open or Endo, had hyperglycemia. So we're really not paying attention to it.
You can see that it occurred in equal percentages within open and endovascular surgery. And when you do a multi-vari logistic regression, we found that hyperglycemia, you had 1.3 times more likely risk of infection during your stay. You have a higher risk length of stay.
You had almost eight times greater risk of death. So, actually what's interesting is that diabetes was found to be productive, which suggests that it's really not diabetes, it's actually hyperglycemia is the main driver. As well, we found that certain medications will increase your hyperglycemia,as well as your disease severity.
We then move through this, we say that one in five patients have hyperglycemia. It's associated with increased lower extremity complications ,increased length of stay, as well as increased mortality. It was actually also unexpected that diabetes was not associated with inferior outcomes
and it's suggested it actually may be a marker with or without diabetic patients. We then looked at hyperglycemia in general surgery patients. We wanted to find out there was a risk in infection, as it's been shown. The general surgery population has thought
that maybe hyperglycemia is the most important risk factor for surgical site infection. We then looked at readmission of patients that underwent lower extremity bypass, to see why they were coming back. We found and infection at the index diagnosis was most significant for having a chance of readmission.
As well as anemia was highly also correlated with readmission. So, infection certainly is an important component to readmission. As well as Hyperglycemia is associated with readmission. It's important to remember that of the patients that come back for readmission after lower extremity procedures, almost half
of the lower extremity bypass procedures were associated with and infectious complication. And finally predictors of readmission, would include Hyperglycemia as it was associated with increased risk of infection at the index study. We then also wanted to see, other patients other studies
have looked to see if it can be controlled. This actually was a nice study, which is a perspective or analyzed study looking at insulin infusion protocol to improve outcomes. They show that surgical site infection was not reduced, they did well to look and see if they could control Hyperglycemia events
with an infrarenal bypass and open surgical repairs. And they used similar metrics for their Optimal Glycemic Control values. This study actually shows which is most interesting, that the most difficult patients to control were the patients with diabetes and the patients undergoing lower extremity bypass.
But they did show that by increasing glucose control, patients had lower rates of, lower lengths of stay. As well as had lower overall costs. So moving along we then looked at AAA. One in six patients who had undergone endovascular repair and open repair of AAA had hyperglycemia.
And we also did not find diabetes reported or predicted for outcome. We found that infections complications were significantly higher if you had postoperative hyperglycemia. Even in endovascular surgery 1.8 times is more likely. We also found diabetes not to be a factor.
So it's obviously more complex than diabetes. Once again mortality was also associated with hyperglycemia after open AAA and endovascular AAA. And we can see again that diabetes was not really playing a role. So AAA, increased mortality is associated with postoperative hyperglycemia.
If you have an EVAR it's 8 times more likely to have mortality. The diabetes was actually somewhat protective. And postoperative hyperglycemia is associated with infectious complications and increased length of stay. There's been suggestion hyperglycemia may be associated with stroke. We looked at this information,
we basically found that the crude rates of stroke were significantly greater for patients with hyperglycemia. We then did a regression analysis to evaluate. We found that stenting actually had a risk of stroke, but hyperglycemia as well also had a higher risk of stroke on this study. And once again diabetes
was not associated. So you can see after hyperglycemia with carotid studies, actually 1 in 7 after elective carotid procedures had hyperglycemia. And they were 8 times more likely to have mortality. 1 point times 7 more likely to have a stroke. So in conclusion, this study actually showed
that you can by involving glycemic control can be managed by using a management service. So you can be improved. This is by Goodney. In conclusion, hyperglycemia is a modifiable event. Postoperative hyperglycemia is very common in vascular surgery population. Between 1 in 5 after lower extremity to 1 in 7 after
elective carotid repair. That actually diabetes was not really the main associated or driver for hyperglycemia. We associate it with infection, length of stay and mortality. And regardless of etiology it can associate with mortality and inferior outcomes. Patients undergoing vascular surgery need
to have hyperglycemic management. And this evidence suggests this may decrease infections as well as complications and mortality. Thank you very much.
- So I have the honor to provide you with the 12-month result of the TOBA II trial. I guess we all confirmed that this action is the primary mechanism of angioplasty. We all know that lesions of dissection have a TLR rate of 3.5 times higher than lesions without dissection.
The current tools for dissection repair, these are stents. They have limitations, really a large metal load left behind causing inflammation. This is leading to in-stent restenosis. So the Tack Endovascular System.
It's a delivery system over six French catheter. This is for above the knee with six implants pre-loaded on a single catheter. The Tack implant itself, it has an adaptive sizing, so it adapts to the diameter of the vessel from 2.6 up to 6.0 for SFA and PPA usage.
It's a nitinol implant with gold radiopaque markers for visibility. Has a unique anchoring system, which prevents migration, and a deck which is deployed in six millimeter in length. So with regard to the TOBA II study design,
this was a prospective multi-center single-arm non-blinded study at 33 sites in US and Europe. We enrolled 213 subjects. These were all subjects with post-PTA dissection. So only with a dissection visible on the angiogram, the patients could be enrolled into this study.
We had the usually primary safety end point, primary efficacy end points, which we are familiar from other trials and other studies so far. With regard to the inclusion criteria, I just want to look at this very briefly.
Mainly we had de novo or non-stented restenotic lesions in the SFA P1. If it was a stenosis, the lesion length could be up to 150 millimeter. If it was a total occlusion, the length was up to 10 centimeters.
They had to be the presence of at least one target run of vessel to the foot. They had to be a post residual, post-PTA residual stenosis of lower than 30%, and the presence of at least one dissection Grade A to F. With regard to the key lesion characteristics,
baseline for the different patients, there was not a big difference to other studies out there. The only difference was maybe we had slightly more patients with diabetes. The lesion, the target lesion length, the mean target lesion length was up to 74 millimeters.
We also had patients with calcification, mainly moderate but also some with severe calcification. There were two met the primary end points. The 30-day freedom from major adverse event, and also the primary efficacy end point at 12 months, which was a freedom from clinical driven TLR,
and freedom from core lab adjudicated duplex ultrasound derived binary restenosis. Now, with regard to patency in a patient cohort, where we really had 100% dissected vessel at 100% dissected vessel population, we had primary patency at 12-month of 79.3%
and a freedom clinical driven TLR of 86.5%. There was with regard to dissection severity, we had 369 total dissections we were treating. The number of dissections per subject was 1.8. The mean dissection length was two centimeters. So around 70% of subjects had a dissection of
Grade C or greater before using the Tack. In 92.1% of all dissections, this could be completely resolved with a Tack. With regard to the Tack stability and durability, in total, 871 Tacks have been deployed. So that was a number of 4.1 Tacks per subject.
The bailout stent rate was very low, just one. The freedom from Tack fracture at 12 months, 100%, and there was one minor Tack migration at 12 months with education by the core lab so the Tack was not seen at the same place as six months or 12 months before.
There was significant clinical improvement with Rutherford category improvement in 63%, which improved of up to two classes. There was also an improvement in ABI, walking impairment questionnaire. So just to conclude, TOBA II is a unique trial.
First to enroll 100% dissected vessels. Successfully met the primary efficacy and safety end points, and demonstrated the Tack is an efficient repair system for dissections after POBA or DCB with minimum metal left behind, low radial force, stable and durable design,
and preservation of future treatment options. There was only a very, very low bailout stent rate. This in combination with high patency rate and high freedom from clinical TLR. 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.