- 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 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.
- Thanks Frank, for inviting me again. We know very well that CAS and CEA are, and will remain, emboli-generating. This is an algorithm in which we can see the microembolic profile during unprotected carotid stenting. But I am a vascular surgeon, oriented to an endovascular approach, and I believe strongly
in carotid artery stenting renaissance, when we use tips, tricks and new devices. So the real difference between the two procedures are between 0 and 30 days, and this is demonstrated by the result of 10 year by CREST and by ACT 1. So, but the procedure must be protected.
Because as the Kastrup metanalisys said, the unprotected procedure are three, four-fold increase for cerebral protection embolic. And these are the recommendations from European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association, regarding
the use of embolic protection devices. But what kind of embolic protection device? We know very well that the cerebral distal protection have some strengths and some weaknesses. And the same is for the cerebral proximal protection with the strengths and weaknesses.
So, but this is rarely used, both in the rest of Europe and in Italy. But what about dissent? We are four studies with only prospective, including a population cohort larger than 100 patients. From Italy, from Germany, from Piotr Michalik,
from Poland, again from Italy. As these are the results that are near with the rod centered stent, with very satisfactory results. With very low rate of... This is the CLEAR-ROAD study, with very low rate of complication.
This is a total of 556 patients who underwent stenting with the new generation of stent. This is the incidence of adverse events at 30 days. So, how we can apply the benefit to our procedures with OCT? And OCT demonstrated the safety of new stent design. And why I use OCT in carotids?
With two main issues. A high definition of carotid plaque, and the correct interaction between plaque and stent. With the high definition of carotid dark in order to identify the plaque type. The degree and area of stenosis,
the presence of ulceration, and the thrombus. I study the interaction between plaque and stent. In order to study the stent apposition, the stent malapposition, the fibrous cap rupture, and the plaque micro-prolaps. So this data I published last year on
EuroIntervention, with the conclusion that in relation to the slice-based analysis, we have the correct comparison with conventional stents, and the incidence of plaque prolapse was absolutely lower. So in conclusion, why I strongly believe in a reinvigoration of carotid stenting?
For the use of better embolic protection device. For the use of newer mesh covered stents, and definitively, OCT proves it as shown. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you very much and I would like to thank Dr. Veit for the kind invitation, this is really great meeting. Those are my disclosures. Percutaneous EVAR has been first reported in the late 1990's. However, for many reasons it has not been embraced
by the vascular community, despite the fact that it has been shown that the procedure can be done under local anesthesia and it decreases OR time, time to ambulation, wound complication and length of stay. There are three landmark papers which actually change this trend and make PEVAR more popular.
All of these three papers concluded that failure or observed failure of PEVAR are observed and addressed in the OR which is a key issue. And there was no late failures. Another paper which is really very prominent
is a prospective randomize study that's reported by Endologix and published in 2014. Which revealed that PEVAR closure of the arteriotomy is not inferior to open cut down. Basically, this paper also made it possible for the FDA to approve the device, the ProGlide device,
for closure of large bore arteriotomies, up to 26 in the arterial system and 29 in the venous system. We introduced percutaneous access first policy in our institution 2012. And recently we analyzed our results of 272 elective EVAR performed during the 2012 to 2016.
And we attempted PEVAR in 206 cases. And were successful in 92% of cases. But the question was what happened with the patient that failed PEVAR? And what we found that was significantly higher thrombosis, vessel thrombosis,
as well as blood loss, more than 500 cc in the failed PEVAR group. Similarly, there was longer operative time and post-operative length of stay was significantly longer. However, in this relatively small group of patients who we scheduled for cut-down due to different reasons,
we found that actually there was no difference between the PEVAR and the cut-down, failed PEVAR and cut-down in the terms of blood loss, thrombosis of the vessel, operative time and post-operative length of stay. So what are the predictors of ProGlide failure?
Small vessel calcification, particularly anterior wall calcification, prior cut-down and scarring of the groin, high femoral bifurcation and use of large bore sheaths, as well as morbid obesity. So how can we avoid failures?
I think that the key issue is access. So we recommend that all access now or we demand from our fellow that when we're going to do the operation with them, cut-down during fluoroscopy on the ultra-sound guidance, using micropuncture kits and access angiogram is actually mandatory.
But what happened when there is a lack of hemostasis once we've deployed two PEVARs? Number one, we try not to use more than three ProGlide on each side. Once the three ProGlide failed we use the angioseal. There's a new technique that we can have body wire
and deployed angioseal and still have an access. We also developed a technique that we pack the access site routinely with gelfoam and thrombin. And also we use so-called pull and clamp technique, shown here. Basically what it is, we pull the string of the ProGlide
and clamp it on the skin level. This is actually a very very very good technique. So in conclusion, PEVAR first approach strategy successful in more than 90% of cases, reduced operative time and postoperative length of stay, the failure occurred more commonly when the PEVAR
was completed outside of IFU, and there was no differences in outcome between failed PEVAR and planned femoral cut-down. Thank you.
- Thanks Fieres. Thank you very much for attending this session and Frank for the invitation. These are my disclosures. We have recently presented the outcomes of the first 250 patients included in this prospective IDE at the AATS meeting in this hotel a few months ago.
In this study, there was no in-hospital mortality, there was one 30-day death. This was a death from a patient that had intracranial hemorrhage from the spinal drain placement that eventually was dismissed to palliative care
and died on postoperative day 22. You also note that there are three patients with paraplegia in this study, one of which actually had a epidural hematoma that was led to various significant and flacid paralysis. That prompted us to review the literature
and alter our outcomes with spinal drainage. This review, which includes over 4700 patients shows that the average rate of complications is 10%, some of those are relatively moderate or minor, but you can see a rate of intracranial hemorrhage of 1.5% and spinal hematoma of 1% in this large review,
which is essentially a retrospective review. We have then audited our IDE patients, 293 consecutive patients treated since 2013. We looked at all their spinal drains, so there were 240 placement of drains in 187 patients. You can see that some of these were first stage procedures
and then the majority of them were the index fenestrated branch procedure and some, a minority were Temporary Aneurysm Sac Perfusions. Our rate of complication was identical to the review, 10% and I want to point out some of the more important complications.
You can see here that intracranial hypotension occurred in 6% of the patients, that included three patients, or 2%, with intracranial hemorrhage and nine patients, or 5%, with severe headache that prolonged hospital stay and required blood patch for management.
There were also six patients with spinal hematomas for a overall rate of 3%, including the patient that I'll further discuss later. And one death, which was attributed to the spinal drain. When we looked at the intracranial hypotension in these 12 patients, you can see
the median duration of headache was four days, it required narcotics in seven patients, blood patch in five patients. All these patients had prolonged hospital stay, in one case, the prolongation of hospital stay was of 10 days.
Intracranial hemorrhage in three patients, including the patient that I already discussed. This patient had a severe intracranial hemorrhage which led to a deep coma. The patient was basically elected by the family to be managed with palliative care.
This patient end up expiring on postoperative day 21. There were other two patients with intracranial hemorrhage, one remote, I don't think that that was necessarily related to the spinal drain, nonetheless we had it on this review. These are some of the CT heads of the patients that had intracranial hemorrhage,
including the patient that passed away, which is outlined in the far left of your slide. Six patients had spinal hematoma, one of these patients was a patient, a young patient treated for chronic dissection. Patient evolved exceptionally well, moving the legs,
drain was removed on postoperative day two. As the patient is standed out of the bed, felt weakness in the legs, we then imaged the spine. You can see here, very severe spinal hematoma. Neurosurgery was consulted, decided to evacuate, the patient woke up with flacid paralysis
which has not recovered. There were two other patients with, another patient with paraplegia which was treated conservatively and improved to paraparesis and continues to improve and two other patients with paraparesis.
That prompted changes in our protocol. We eliminated spinal drains for Extent IVs, we eliminated for chronic dissection, in first stages, on any first stage, and most of the Extent IIIs, we also changed our protocol of drainage
from the routine drainage of a 10 centimeters of water for 15 minutes of the hours to a maximum of 20 mL to a drainage that's now guided by Near Infrared Spectroscopy, changes or symptoms. This is our protocol and I'll illustrate how we used this in one patient.
This is a patient that actually had this actual, exact anatomy. You can see the arch was very difficult, the celiac axis was patent and provided collateral flow an occluded SMA. The right renal artery was chronically occluded.
As we were doing this case the patient experienced severe changes in MEP despite the fact we had flow to the legs, we immediately stopped the procedure with still flow to the aneurysm sac. The patient develops pancreatitis, requires dialysis
and recovers after a few days in the ICU with no neurological change. Then I completed the repair doing a subcostal incision elongating the celiac axis and retrograde axis to this graft to complete the branch was very difficult to from the arm
and the patient recovered with no injury. So, in conclusion, spinal drainage is potentially dangerous even lethal and should be carefully weighted against the potential benefits. I think that our protocol now uses routine drainage for Extent I and IIs,
although I still think there is room for a prospective randomized trial even on this group and selective drainage for Extent IIIs and no drainage for Extent IVs. We use NIRS liberally to guide drainage and we use temporary sac perfusion
in those that have changes in neuromonitoring. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- I will be talking about new KDOQI guidelines. I know many of you have heard about KDOQI guidelines being revised for the past maybe over a year or maybe two. Yes, it is being done, and it is going slow only because it's being done in a very different way. It's more than an update.
It's going to be more of an overhaul for the entire KDOQI guidelines. We in KDOQI have looked at access as a solitary problem like we talked about grafts, catheters, fistulas for access, but actually it sort of turns out
that access is part of a bigger problem. Fits into a big ESKD lifeline of a patient. Instated distal patients come in many varieties. It can affect any age, and they have a lot of other problems so once you have chronic renal failure, renal replacement mortality fits in
only when it becomes Stage IV or Stage V. And renal replacement mortality is not just access, it is PD access, it's hemo access, it is transplant. So these things, we need to see how they fit in in a given person. So the new KDOQI guidelines concentrates more
on individualizing care. For example, here the young Darien was an 11 year old with a prune belly syndrome. Now he has failed PD. Then there's another person here who is Lydia who is about 36 or 40 year old lady
with a insulin dependent diabetes. Already has bad vascular pedicle. Lost both legs. Needs access. Now both these patient though they need access, it's not the same.
It's different. For example, if you think of Darien, he was in PD but he has failed PD. We would love to get him transplanted. Unfortunately he's got terrible social situation so we can't get him transplanted.
So he needs hemo. Now if he needs hemo, we need to find an access that lasts for a long time because he's got many years ahead of him. On the other hand we have Lydia, who has got significant vascular disease.
With her obesity and existing infectious status, probably PD won't be a good option for her. So she needs hemo, and she's obviously not a transplant candidate. So how are we going to plan for hemo? So these are things which we are to more concentrate
and individualize when we look at patients, and the new guidelines concentrate more on these sort of aspects. Doing right access for right patient, right time, and for right reasons. And we go about planning this keeping the patient first
then a life plan ESKD lifeline for the patient, and what access we are looking at, and what are the needs of the patient? Now this is also different because it has been done more scientifically. We actually have a evidence review team.
We just poured over pretty much 1500 individual articles. Recent articles. And we have looked through about 4000 abstracts and other articles. And this data is correlated through a workgroup. There a lot of new chapters.
Chapter specific surgery like peri-operative, intra-operative, post-operative, cat issues, managing complication issues. And we started off with the coming up with the Scope of Work. The evidence review team took the Scope of Work
and tried to get all the articles and sift through the articles and came up and rated the evidence using a certain rating system which is very scientific. The workgroup then kind of evaluated the whole system, and then came up with what is clinically relevant.
It's one thing for statisticians to say how strong evidence this is, but it's another thing how it is looked upon by the clinicians. So then we kind of put this into a document. Document went through internal and external review process.
This is the process we have tried to do it. Dr. Lok has been the Chair of the group. Myself and Dr. Yevzlin are the Vice-Chairs. We have incredible workgroup which has done most of the work. And here are the workgroup members.
We comprised of nephrologist, transplant surgeons, vascular surgeons, Allied Health personnel, pediatric nephrologist so it's a multi interventional radiologist and interventional nephrologist. This is a multi disciplinary group which has gone through this process.
Timothy Wilt from Minnesota was the head of the Evidence Review Team, who has worked on the evidence building. And now for the editorial sections we have Dr. Huber, Lee, and Dr. Lok taking care of it. So where are we today?
We have pretty much gone through the first part of it. We are at the place where we are ready for the Internal Review and External Review. So many of you probably will get a chance to look through it when it comes for the External Review and would love
to have your comments on this document. Essentially, we are looking at access in the context of end stage renal disease, and that is new. And obviously we have gone through and done a very scientific review, a very scientific methodology to try
to evaluate the evidence and try to come up with guidelines. Thank you.
- 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.
- The Chairmans, Doctor Reed, thank you very much to accept our data or hypothesis. This is a little bit different of the other subject. I have no disclosure. So, very sure that the type A and B dissections are potentially lethal diseases.
Typically silent with progression. But we know variation point, or the focus, we know now in the last 20 years that 29 genes, when they are not the codes but they are weakening factors after our, therein, and we want to demonstrate here,
that in description or hypothesis is that the intimal and the medial injuries of the aortic wall, in the thoracic aortic anarithmias and dissections are caused primarily only from one type of kinetic forces which appears on the aortic wall in three different forms: That is the pouc
e-entry, the cl entry that is wall haematom. This is the same aortic dissections in three forms. We don't think that the wall stress and the wall force are significant factors.
Seeing that factors come from the vorticis, Leonardo already described. Even different levels, and most typical is the sinus of valsalva, main flow way is not contact with the sinus vawe turbulence. There is the main flow, actually the laminal flow
is not real, it is a parabolic, rotating pressure and the blood mass vawe sliding on the endothelium. Endothelium, that is the multilayer, non-thrombotic, in the sagital view, in a vawe form surface, and on the vawe form surface, induced low scale vorticis, and the main flow is sliding on theses vorticis.
This is a very difficult kinetic situation. Any geometrical changes makes significant side-vortex development, and kinetic and turbulence differences. Here you can see the rotating parabolic mass vawe, sliding on the endothelial.
And when this vorticis, the main vorticis effect on the wall are the same place as the most frequent entry line of the Type A dissection. In this case, and other uncular and right sinus. Here we are, actually the human aortic dissections and the aneurysms are developing mainly
behind the side-branches and valves-behind turbulences and vorticis. Here gene factors are stored not really on the 29, mostly in the TGF-B pathways, and the smooth muscles and cells. And genes, after all, this is not relevant,
although there is two theories: The genetic theory and the hemodynamic theory. You can see on the right side that it's two different bicuspid valve, causes different turbulences and different velocity and different forces of the aortic wall.
Any forms of the form changes of the vessels cause turbulences and also different poststenotic vorticis. Here and then, had a print, imprint of the endothelial structure changes, endothelial surface changes,
and endothelial migration in the middle column, as you see and on the graphic. Here you can see the different velocity turning point of the dilated aorta and the replace aorta. Even in the bisupidal and the tricuspidal, you can see the diameter and their form
are the length and the heights are different of the turbulences and the turbulence formed here. You can see, we can close out the sheer stress, because that you can see, in the stress points they are the small curvature in the bicuspidal and the tricuspidal aortic wall.
Although, the typical point of entry on the main curvature. But a very important difference, is the left ventricul ascension and angulation. Different flow and velocity forces. And also,
pressure point with the typical Type A/Type B dissections. The main pressure is in the ascendance, although the typical ended underneath are near the left subclavian artery, but the flow is, we can see the right side are the speed, are the largest displaced.
Numbers of possible re-entries are dependent from the size and the location of the main entries and re-entries. That is, different type of type arch, form, flow, and a means different re-entry size and location as you can see.
In this case, also, bare stent vibration by turbulence can cause different turbulences and side-vortex formation, as you can see on the right side. And back to the vorticis. The vorticis this kinetic force that would be a hypothetic,
hypothesis, our hypothesis, it comes from the vortex merge, ita-filaments and double vortex, double the phalanx form. And by to reach that, they give up light, heat,
velocity changes, and kinetic force. Here that is the double-helix form and also when at the collision of this that I'm speaking about, these are the forces, and they are very high scale forces. Not the same scale as the sheer wall, and the wall forces.
So, the conclusion and then, the take home message, is we conclude that the gradient between significant turbulence-vortex merge or collision generated kinetic force divided by the wall resistance is the deciding factor about endothelial injury and the real potentially fatal aortic vawe dissection.
It gives us a realistic prognosis and can determine the seriosity of the aortic wall injury, we can differentiate a simple endothelium injury to the life threatening type A or type B dissection. We need in the future develop a new imaging programs form NMR or CONTRAST TEE transform this visualization,
this image into kinetic vectors. We need a prognostic calendar for time related aortic wall changes based on genetics and patients symptomatic. And need a device to measure in vivo online aortic vessel wall resistance.
And at the end a cartoon. Actually, black holes are also, you can see, as vorticis. And this force cannot be only positive, it can be only negative, a vacuum, as in the tornadoes. But can rise in the aortic wall.
That is positive or negative force can be. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Good morning everybody. Here are my disclosures. So, upper extremity access is an important adjunct for some of the complex endovascular work that we do. It's necessary for chimney approaches, it's necessary for fenestrated at times. Intermittently for TEVAR, and for
what I like to call FEVARCh which is when you combine fenestrated repair with a chimney apporach for thoracoabdominals here in the U.S. Where we're more limited with the devices that we have available in our institutions for most of us. This shows you for a TEVAR with a patient
with an aortic occlusion through a right infracrevicular approach, we're able to place a conduit and then a 22-french dryseal sheath in order to place a TEVAR in a patient with a penetrating ulcer that had ruptured, and had an occluded aorta.
In addition, you can use this for complex techniques in the ascending aorta. Here you see a patient who had a prior heart transplant, developed a pseudoaneurysm in his suture line. We come in through a left axillary approach with our stiff wire.
We have a diagnostic catheter through the femoral. We're able to place a couple cuffs in an off-label fashion to treat this with a technically good result. For FEVARCh, as I mentioned, it's a good combination for a fenestrated repair.
Here you have a type IV thoraco fenestrated in place with a chimney in the left renal, we get additional seal zone up above the celiac this way. Here you see the vessels cannulated. And then with a nice type IV repaired in endovascular fashion, using a combination of techniques.
But the questions always arise. Which side? Which vessel? What's the stroke risk? How can we try to be as conscientious as possible to minimize those risks? Excuse me. So, anecdotally the right side has been less safe,
or concerned that it causes more troubles, but we feel like it's easier to work from the right side. Sorry. When you look at the image intensifier as it's coming in from the patient's left, we can all be together on the patient's right. We don't have to work underneath the image intensifier,
and felt like right was a better approach. So, can we minimize stroke risk for either side, but can we minimize stroke risk in general? So, what we typically do is tuck both arms, makes lateral imaging a lot easier to do rather than having an arm out.
Our anesthesiologist, although we try not to help them too much, but it actually makes it easier for them to have both arms available. When we look at which vessel is the best to use to try to do these techniques, we felt that the subclavian artery is a big challenge,
just the way it is above the clavicle, to be able to get multiple devices through there. We usually feel that the brachial artery's too small. Especially if you're going to place more than one sheath. So we like to call, at our institution, the Goldilocks phenomenon for those of you
who know that story, and the axillary artery is just right. And that's the one that we use. When we use only one or two sheaths we just do a direct puncture. Usually through a previously placed pledgeted stitch. It's a fairly easy exposure just through the pec major.
Split that muscle then divide the pec minor, and can get there relatively easily. This is what that looks like. You can see after a sheath's been removed, a pledgeted suture has been tied down and we get good hemostasis this way.
If we're going to use more than two sheaths, we prefer an axillary conduit, and here you see that approach. We use the self-sealing graft. Whenever I have more than two sheaths in, I always label the sheaths because
I can't remember what's in what vessel. So, you can see yes, I made there, I have another one labeled right renal, just so I can remember which sheath is in which vessel. We always navigate the arch first now. So we get all of our sheaths across the arch
before we selective catheterize the visceral vessels. We think this partly helps minimize that risk. Obviously, any arch manipulation is a concern, but if we can get everything done at once and then we can focus on the visceral segment. We feel like that's a better approach and seems
to be better for what we've done in our experience. So here's our results over the past five-ish years or so. Almost 400 aortic interventions total, with 72 of them requiring some sort of upper extremity access for different procedures. One for placement of zone zero device, which I showed you,
sac embolization, and two for imaging. We have these number of patients, and then all these chimney grafts that have been placed in different vessels. Here's the patients with different number of branches. Our access you can see here, with the majority
being done through right axillary approach. The technical success was high, mortality rate was reasonable in this group of patients. With the strokes being listed there. One rupture, which is treated with a covered stent. The strokes, two were ischemic,
one hemorrhagic, and one mixed. When you compare the group to our initial group, more women, longer hospital stay, more of the patients had prior aortic interventions, and the mortality rate was higher. So in conclusion, we think that
this is technically feasible to do. That right side is just as safe as left side, and that potentially the right side is better for type III arches. Thank you very much.
- [Nicos] Thanks so much. Good afternoon everybody. I have no disclosures. Getting falsely high velocities because of contralateral tight stenosis or occlusion, our case in one third of the people under this condition, high blood pressure, tumor fed by the carotid, local inflammation, and rarely by arteriovenous fistula or malformation.
Here you see a classic example, the common carotid, on the right side is occluded, also the internal carotid is occluded, and here you're getting really high velocity, it's 340, but if you visually look at the vessel, the vessel is pretty wide open. So it's very easy to see this discordance
between the diameter and the velocity. For occasions like this I'm going to show you with the ultrasound or other techniques, planimetric evaluation and if I don't go in trials, hopefully we can present next year. Another condition is to do the stenosis on the stent.
Typically the error here is if you measure the velocity outside the stent, inside the stent, basically it's different material with elastic vessel, and this can basically bring your ratio higher up. Ideally, when possible, you use the intra-stent ratio and this will give you a more accurate result.
Another mistake that is being done is that you can confuse the external with the internal, particularly also we found out that only one-third of the people internalized the external carotid, but here you should not make this mistake because you can see the branches obviously, but really, statistically speaking, if you take 100
consecutively occluded carotids, by statistical chance 99% of the time or more it will be not be an issue, that's common sense. And of course here I have internalization of the external, let's not confuse there too, but here we don't have any
stenosis, really we have increased velocity of the external because a type three carotid body tumor, let's not confuse this from this issue. Another thing which is a common mistake people say, because the velocity is above the levels we put, you see it's 148 and 47, this will make you with a grand criteria
having a 50% stenosis, but it's also the thing here is just tortuosity, and usually on the outer curve of a vessel or in a tube the velocity is higher. Then it can have also a kink, which can produce the a mild kink like this
on here, it can make the stenosis appear more than 50% when actually the vessel does have a major issue. This he point I want to make with the FMD is consistently chemical gradual shift, because the endostatin velocity is higher
than people having a similar degree of stenosis. Fistula is very rare, some of our over-diligent residents sometimes they can connect the jugular vein with roke last year because of this. Now, falsely low velocities because of proximal stenosis of
the Common Carotid or Brachiocephalic Artery, low blood pressure, low cardiac output, valve stenosis efficiency, stroke, and distal ICA stenosis or occlusion, and ICA recanalization. Here you see in a person with a real tight stenosis, basically the velocity is very low,
you don't have a super high velocity. Here's a person with an occlusion of the Common Carotid, but then the Internal Carotid is open, it flooded vessels from the external to the internal, and that presses a really tight stenosis of the external or the internal, but the velocities are low just because
the Common Carotid is occluded. Here is a phenomenon we did with a university partner in 2011, you see a recanalized Carotid has this kind of diameter, which goes all the way to the brain and a velocity really low but a stenosis really tight. In a person with a Distal dissection, you have low velocity
because basically you have high resistance to outflow and that's why the velocities are low. Here is an occlusion of the Brachiocephalic artery and you see all the phenomena, so earlier like the Common Carotid, same thing with the Takayasu's Arteritis, and one way I want to finish
this slide is what you should do basically when the velocity must reduce: planimetric evaluation. I'll give you the preview of this idea, which is supported by intracarotid triplanar arteriography. If the diameter of the internal isn't two millimeters, then it's 95% possible the value for stenosis,
regardless of the size of the Internal Carotid. So you either use the ICAs, right, then you're for sure a good value, it's a simple measurement independent of everything. Thank you very much.
- Good morning, thank you, Dr. Veith, for the invitation. My disclosures. So, renal artery anomalies, fairly rare. Renal ectopia and fusion, leading to horseshoe kidneys or pelvic kidneys, are fairly rare, in less than one percent of the population. Renal transplants, that is patients with existing
renal transplants who develop aneurysms, clearly these are patients who are 10 to 20 or more years beyond their initial transplantation, or maybe an increasing number of patients that are developing aneurysms and are treated. All of these involve a renal artery origin that is
near the aortic bifurcation or into the iliac arteries, making potential repair options limited. So this is a personal, clinical series, over an eight year span, when I was at the University of South Florida & Tampa, that's 18 patients, nine renal transplants, six congenital
pelvic kidneys, three horseshoe kidneys, with varied aorto-iliac aneurysmal pathologies, it leaves half of these patients have iliac artery pathologies on top of their aortic aneurysms, or in place of the making repair options fairly difficult. Over half of the patients had renal insufficiency
and renal protective maneuvers were used in all patients in this trial with those measures listed on the slide. All of these were elective cases, all were technically successful, with a fair amount of followup afterward. The reconstruction priorities or goals of the operation are to maintain blood flow to that atypical kidney,
except in circumstances where there were multiple renal arteries, and then a small accessory renal artery would be covered with a potential endovascular solution, and to exclude the aneurysms with adequate fixation lengths. So, in this experience, we were able, I was able to treat eight of the 18 patients with a fairly straightforward
endovascular solution, aorto-biiliac or aorto-aortic endografts. There were four patients all requiring open reconstructions without any obvious endovascular or hybrid options, but I'd like to focus on these hybrid options, several of these, an endohybrid approach using aorto-iliac
endografts, cross femoral bypass in some form of iliac embolization with an attempt to try to maintain flow to hypogastric arteries and maintain antegrade flow into that pelvic atypical renal artery, and a open hybrid approach where a renal artery can be transposed, and endografting a solution can be utilized.
The overall outcomes, fairly poor survival of these patients with a 50% survival at approximately two years, but there were no aortic related mortalities, all the renal artery reconstructions were patented last followup by Duplex or CT imaging. No aneurysms ruptures or aortic reinterventions or open
conversions were needed. So, focus specifically in a treatment algorithm, here in this complex group of patients, I think if the atypical renal artery comes off distal aorta, you have several treatment options. Most of these are going to be open, but if it is a small
accessory with multiple renal arteries, such as in certain cases of horseshoe kidneys, you may be able to get away with an endovascular approach with coverage of those small accessory arteries, an open hybrid approach which we utilized in a single case in the series with open transposition through a limited
incision from the distal aorta down to the distal iliac, and then actually a fenestrated endovascular repair of his complex aneurysm. Finally, an open approach, where direct aorto-ilio-femoral reconstruction with a bypass and reimplantation of that renal artery was done,
but in the patients with atypical renals off the iliac segment, I think you utilizing these endohybrid options can come up with some creative solutions, and utilize, if there is some common iliac occlusive disease or aneurysmal disease, you can maintain antegrade flow into these renal arteries from the pelvis
and utilize cross femoral bypass and contralateral occlusions. So, good options with AUIs, with an endohybrid approach in these difficult patients. Thank you.
- Thank you, Ulrich. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith so kindly, for this invitation. These are my disclosures and my friends. I think everyone knows that the Zenith stent graft has a safe and durable results update 14 years. And I think it's also known that the Zenith stent graft
had such good shrinkage, compared to the other stent grafts. However, when we ask Japanese physicians about the image of Zenith stent graft, we always think of the demo version. This is because we had the original Zenith in for a long time. It was associated with frequent limb occlusion due to
the kinking of Z stent. That's why the Spiral Z stent graft came out with the helical configuration. When you compare the inner lumen of the stent graft, it's smooth, it doesn't have kink. However, when we look at the evidence, we don't see much positive studies in literature.
The only study we found was done by Stephan Haulon. He did the study inviting 50 consecutive triple A patients treated with Zenith LP and Spiral Z stent graft. And he did two cases using a two iliac stent and in six months, all Spiral Z limb were patent. On the other hand, when you look at the iliac arteries
in Asians, you probably have the toughest anatomy to perform EVARs and TEVARs because of the small diameter, calcification, and tortuosity. So this is the critical question that we had. How will a Spiral Z stent graft perform in Japanese EIA landing cases, which are probably the toughest cases?
And this is what we did. We did a multi-institutional prospective observational study for Zenith Spiral Z stent graft, deployed in EIA. We enrolled patients from June 2017 to November 2017. We targeted 50 cases. This was not an industry-sponsored study.
So we asked for friends to participate, and in the end, we had 24 hospitals from all over Japan participate in this trial. And the board collected 65 patients, a total of 74 limbs, and these are the results. This slide shows patient demographics. Mean age of 77,
80 percent were male, and mean triple A diameter was 52. And all these qualities are similar to other's reporting in these kinds of trials. And these are the operative details. The reason for EIA landing was, 60 percent had Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm.
12 percent had Hypogastric Artery Aneurysm. And 24 percent had inadequate CIA, meaning short CIA or CIA with thrombosis. Outside IFU was observed in 24.6 percent of patients. And because we did fermoral cutdowns, mean operative time was long, around three hours.
One thing to note is that we Japanese have high instance of Type IV at the final angio, and in our study we had 43 percent of Type IV endoleaks at the final angio. Other things to notice is that, out of 74 limbs, 11 limbs had bare metal stents placed at the end of the procedure.
All patients finished a six month follow-up. And this is the result. Only one stenosis required PTA, so the six months limb potency was 98.6 percent. Excellent. And this is the six month result again. Again the primary patency was excellent with 98.6 percent. We had two major adverse events.
One was a renal artery stenosis that required PTRS and one was renal stenosis that required PTA. For the Type IV index we also have a final angio. They all disappeared without any clinical effect. Also, the buttock claudication was absorbed in 24 percent of patients at one month, but decreased
to 9.5 percent at six months. There was no aneurysm sac growth and there was no mortality during the study period. So, this is my take home message, ladies and gentlemen. At six months, Zenith Spiral Z stent graft deployed in EIA was associated with excellent primary patency
and low rate of buttock claudication. So we have most of the patients finish a 12 month follow-up and we are expecting excellent results. And we are hoping to present this later this year. - [Host] Thank you.
- Thank you very much. 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. I have no conflict of interest. Now the first burning question in carotid artery disease management. I agree with the previous speaker somewhat. Is that is who if anyone with asystematic Carotid Stenosis is likely to benefit from a carotid procedure
in addition to current optimal medical intervention? Where I have to ask this question because of significant advances in medical revascularization over the last three to four decades. Particularly since ACAS was published.
Now at most about 4% of persons with asystametic cartonied stenosis will have a stroke caused by the lesion as explained on Tuesday. We just know that its overall harmful and wasteful to do a procedure on all of them.
But stoke risk stratification cannot identify those who now benefit from carotid endocardectomy and stenting is overall more harmful than endocardectomy. There are many proposed markers of high stroke risk in asymptomatic carotenosis patients given just medical treatment.
Including those some of the European society vascular surgeons. But we already know that each of these markers used in isolation they lack sufficient specificity to identify those most likely to benefit from a procedure. In other words they are to common.
And also the event rates with these individual markers are too low. Particularly considering that all of these studies of these markers were done with suboptimal medical treatment. The second burning question.
Is will prevailing carotid trails find a current procedural indication in stroke prevention? Well the answer with respect to ACST-2 is no. Because its just a trail of stinted verse endocaretomy There is no medical treatment only arm. So its not testing the efficacy of these procedures.
It will help to measure harm of one procedure versus another. But this is of little value without a procedurual indication in the first place. The answer of CREST-2 is not too. Because unfortunately there randomizing
average risk patients like those in ACAS. And we already know that to do a procedure on all of these people is going to be futile and harmful. There's no stroke risk stratification before recruitment. An although they are doing some sub group analysis with markers.
Are these powered sufficiently? I haven't seen that is the case so far. If you look at the CREST-2 sample size. There is approximately 85% power to detect differences in peri-procedural stroke or death or later ipsilateral stroke with endocardectomy versus stent
or stenting versus medical treatment. If the average annual event rate in the medical intervention arm is greater than 2.1 or less than .2 compared to .9 in those procedural arms. Now we know from CREST-1 that they did achieve and average annual event rate of .9 with endocardectomy
but not with stenting. The risk there was about twice as high at 1.6. And its highly likely that they will get an annual event rate in the medical intervetion arm within that range. So that means that the overall role
CREST is most likely to show that stenting causes harm and endocardrectomy knows significant difference with the respect to medical intervention on its own. In other words no procedural indication because if stenting is more harmful we won't do it. And if endocardectomy adds no benefit we won't do it.
The same response for ESCT-2 because like CREST-2 its randomizing average surgical risk patients. No stroke risk stratification before recruitment. Not pre-powered for high stroke risk markers that we have been talking about. ACTRIS has the best chance of finding a procedural role
in asystematic carotid stenosis because they are doing stroke restratification before recruitment. Using embolize detection, errands of impaired to cerebral vascular reserve, errands of intraplaque hemorrhage on MRI
and errands of rapid and severe stenosis progression. But the outcome of this will depend on how the data is analyzed. For example these markers be tested separtly or combined. We already know that markers individually lack specificity. And at the moment the trail does appear to underpowered
with the total of only 700 total patients expected. Mean while TCAR is being accessed only in registries plus or minus input in CREST-2. So it appears we have absent or underpowered comparisons with current medical intervention.
So a clinical indication is unlikely to be established with the current research that is planned. Actually procedural trails are premature when it comes to asystametic cartonid stenosis. What we should be doing is first defining current optimal medical treatment.
Measuring its impact. Risk stratifying people. Using procedural trials only if we find a sub group with an ipsilateral stroke rate that is high enough despite current optimal medical treatment. So if anyone would like to help on this path.
Please speak to me afterwards.
- 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 and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- 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.
- 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 very much and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invite. Here's my disclosures, clearly relevant to this talk. So we know that after EVAR, it's around the 20% aortic complication rate after five years in treating type one and three Endoleaks prevents subsequent
secondary aortic rupture. Surveillance after EVAR is therefore mandatory. But it's possible that device-specific outcomes and surveillance protocols may improve the durability of EVAR over time. You're all familiar with this graph for 15 year results
in terms of re-intervention from the EVAR-1 trials. Whether you look at all cause and all re-interventions or life threatening re-interventions, at any time point, EVAR fares worse than open repair. But we know that the risk of re-intervention is different
in different patients. And if you combine pre-operative risk factors in terms of demographics and morphology, things are happening during the operations such as the use of adjuncts,
or having to treat intro-operative endoleak, and what happens to the aortic sac post-operatively, you can come up with a risk-prediction tool for how patients fare in the longer term. So the LEAR model was developed on the Engage Registry and validated on some post-market registries,
PAS, IDE, and the trials in France. And this gives a predictive risk model. Essentially, this combines patients into a low risk group that would have standard surveillance, and a higher risk group, that would have a surveillance plus
or enhanced surveillanced model. And you get individual patient-specific risk profiles. This is a patient with around a seven centimeter aneurysm at the time of repair that shows sac shrinkage over the first year and a half, post-operatively. And you can see that there's really a very low risk
of re-intervention out to five years. These little arrow bars up here. For a patient that has good pre-operative morphology and whose aneurysm shrinks out to a year, they're going to have a very low risk of re-intervention. This patient, conversely, had a smaller aneurysm,
but it grew from the time of the operation, and out to two and a half years, it's about a centimeter increase in the sac. And they're going to have a much higher risk of re-intervention and probably don't need the same level of surveillance as the first patient.
and probably need a much higher rate of surveillance. So not only can we have individualized predictors of risk for patients, but this is the regulatory aspect to it as well.
Multiple scenario testing can be undertaken. And these are improved not only with the pre-operative data, but as you've seen with one-year data, and this can tie in with IFU development and also for advising policy such as NICE, which you'll have heard a lot about during the conference.
So this is just one example. If you take a patient with a sixty-five millimeter aneurysm, eighteen millimeter iliac, and the suprarenal angle at sixty degrees. If you breach two or more of these factors in red, we have the pre-operative prediction.
Around 20% of cases will be in the high risk group. The high risk patients have about a 50-55% freedom from device for related problems at five years. And the low risk group, so if you don't breach those groups, 75% chance of freedom from intervention.
In the green, if you then add in a stent at one year, you can see that still around 20% of patients remain in the high risk group. But in the low risk group, you now have 85% of patients won't need a re-intervention at five years,
and less of a movement in the high risk group. So this can clearly inform IFU. And here you see the Kaplan-Meier curves, those same groups based pre-operatively, and at one year. In conclusion, LEAR can provide
a device specific estimation of EVAR outcome out to five years. It can be based on pre-operative variables alone by one year. Duplex surveillance helps predict risk. It's clearly of regulatory interest in the outcomes of EVAR.
And an E-portal is being developed for dissemination. Thank you very much.
- Thank you 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, chairman and ladies and gentlemen. The funding of this trial was from The Academy of Medical Sciences and The Royal College of Surgeons of England. AKI due to the influence EVAR is actually more common than we all think. This is being shown by prospective studies and registries.
Why is it important? Well, it's associated with a higher intra or inter hospital mortality, cardiovascular events and also long term cardiovascular events and longterm mortality. As even more common and complex, EVAR, and this can range from 22% up to 32%.
These are some of our cases, some of our first, including FEN astrate EVAR in 2010 Thoraco-Abdominal Branch repair 2016 and Fen astrated TEVAR 2018. These are longer procedures, usually with more contrast and direct ventilation after removing arteries.
What are the mechanisms for acute kidney injuries due to infer-renal EVAR? While this involves use of contrast, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, due to ischemic re-perfusion injury, manipulation of the thrombus, aorta and catheterizations which will ------ alpha
and also from high prophalinemia. There is no high-quality evidence for AKI prevention in EVAR. What about Sodium Bicarbonate? Well it's been well know to reduce what been used commonly to reduce CIN in high risk patients in perrifical and
corona graphy. There are two main mechanisms as to how this works. Firstly, from reducing renal tubular ischemia. Secondly, by reducing oxygen deprived free radical formation in the tubules. What is the evidence?
Well this is a met analysis, comparing Sodium Bicarbonate directly with hydration with normal saline, as shown in the orange box. There is no difference. We can look at the population ll
mostly CKD patients or diabetic patients, certainly Hartmann's patients but they are not EVAR patients. They are coronary patients or peripheral an-graphy patients. In addition, serum bicarbonate and the urine pH was not reported so we do not know how effective the Bicarbonate was in these RCT's.
The authors went on to look other outcomes including needful hemo dialysis, cardiac events, the mortality and they found no difference but they concluded the strength of this evidence was low and insufficient. A further Meta-analysis this time published in BMJ this time comes in favor of bicarbonate
but again this is comparing bicarbonate with saline no use of combination therapy. There are again no use of EVAR patients and these patients all have a low eGFR. The preserved trial, a large trial published earlier this year in the New England Journal again using various
treatments again comparing sodium bicarbonates and saline again no difference. But again this compares bicarbonate direct with saline with no combination therapies. In addition, there were no EVAR patients, and these are low eGFR patients.
The met-analysis also showed that by using bicarbonates as a bolus dose rather than a continuous infusion, which was actually the way they used bicarbonates in most of these patients might be better. And using a higher dose of bicarbonate may also be better as shown in this Japanese paper.
So we come to HYDRA trial. They're using a high dose bicarbonate in combination with hydration to protect renal function. We did a UK wide survey of anesthetists of day to day and they felt the best volume expander they would like to use was Hartmann's solution.
So we randomized patients between standard hydration with Hartmann's solution verses standard hydration Hartmann's plus high dose bicarbonate per operatively and low slow intravenous infusion bicarbonate during the surgery. Importantly, with these patients,
we kept the map within 80% of baseline, 90% of the time in contrary to all the RCT's coronary and angeo-porphyry. We're going to skip that slide. This is the inclusion criteria, any patient undergoing infra EVAR, with any renal disfunction,
the primary area you must look at is recruitment and the second area you must look at is AKI. We screened 109 patients of which, 58% were randomized and there were only 2 crossovers. There was a willingness for patients to participate and there was also a willingness for PET 4 Clinitions to
recruit as well. This is the demographics, which is typical of aortic patients they are all on by a few MRSA patients, have normal renal function. Most of the patients wear statins and anti pace agent, only 13% were diabetic.
The patients were matched in terms of hypertension and also fluid hydration pre-operatively measures of via impedance. Here are the results of the trial. The AKI instance in the standard hydration group was like 3% and 7.1% with standard hydration plus bicarbonate. And it was similar in terms of organotrophic support into
and postop and also contrast volume used. It's a safe regime with none of the patients suffering as a result of using bicarbonate. So to conclude, to answer professor Veith's question, about how was this trial different to all the other trials? Well, certainly the previous trials have compared
bicarbonate with saline, there's lack of combination studies that involve mostly coronary an peripheral procedures, not EVAR. And the the most only included patient with low eGFR. HYDRA is different, this is not a regime using high dose bolus of sodium bicarb combined with standard hydration.
It shows promise of reducing AKO. This is an EVAR specific pilot RCT. Again, Unlike previous trials using bicarbonate, 90% of the patients had normal or mild impaired renal function. And unlike previous trials, there's more aggressive management of hypertension intra and postoperatively.
Thank you for listening.
- 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 Beyond Vascular procedures, I guess we've conquered all the vascular procedures, now we're going to conquer the world, so let me take a little bit of time to say that these are my conflicts, while doing that, I think it's important that we encourage people to access the hybrid rooms,
It's much more important that the tar-verse done in the Hybrid Room, rather than moving on to the CAT labs, so we have some idea basically of what's going on. That certainly compresses the Hybrid Room availability, but you can't argue for more resources
if the Hybrid Room is running half-empty for example, the only way you get it is by opening this up and so things like laser lead extractions or tar-verse are predominantly still done basically in our hybrid rooms, and we try to make access for them. I don't need to go through this,
you've now think that Doctor Shirttail made a convincing argument for 3D imaging and 3D acquisition. I think the fundamental next revolution in surgery, Every subspecialty is the availability of 3D imaging in the operating room.
We have lead the way in that in vascular surgery, but you think how this could revolutionize urology, general surgery, neurosurgery, and so I think it's very important that we battle for imaging control. Don't give your administration the idea that
you're going to settle for a C-arm, that's the beginning of the end if you do that, this okay to augment use C-arms to augment your practice, but if you're a finishing fellow, you make sure you go to a place that's going to give you access to full hybrid room,
otherwise, you are the subservient imagers compared to radiologists and cardiologists. We need that access to this high quality room. And the new buzzword you're going to hear about is Multi Modality Imaging Suites, this combination of imaging suites that are
being put together, top left deserves with MR, we think MR is the cardiovascular imaging modality of the future, there's a whole group at NIH working at MR Guided Interventions which we're interested in, and the bottom right is the CT-scan in a hybrid op
in a hybrid room, this is actually from MD Anderson. And I think this is actually the Trauma Room of the future, makes no sense to me to take a patient from an emergency room to a CT scanner to an and-jure suite to an operator it's the most dangerous thing we do
with a trauma patient and I think this is actually a position statement from the Trauma Society we're involved in, talk about how important it is to co-localize this imaging, and I think the trauma room of the future is going to be an and-jure suite
down with a CT scanner built into it, and you need to be flexible. Now, the Empire Strikes Back in terms of cloud-based fusion in that Siemans actually just released a portable C-arm that does cone-beam CT. C-arm's basically a rapidly improving,
and I think a lot of these things are going to be available to you at reduced cost. So let me move on and basically just show a couple of examples. What you learn are techniques, then what you do is look for applications to apply this, and so we've been doing
translumbar embolization using fusion and imaging guidance, and this is a case of one of my partners, he'd done an ascending repair, and the patient came back three weeks later and said he had sudden-onset chest pain and the CT-scan showed that there was a
sutured line dehiscence which is a little alarming. I tried to embolize that endovascular, could not get to that tiny little orifice, and so we decided to watch it, it got worse, and bigger, over the course of a week, so clearly we had to go ahead and basically and fix this,
and we opted to use this, using a new guidance system and going directly parasternal. You can do fusion of blood vessels or bones, you can do it off anything you can see on flu-roid, here we actually fused off the sternal wires and this allows you to see if there's
respiratory motion, you can measure in the workstation the depth really to the target was almost four and a half centimeters straight back from the second sternal wire and that allowed us really using this image guidance system when you set up what's called the bullseye view,
you look straight down the barrel of a needle, and then the laser turns on and the undersurface of the hybrid room shows you where to stick the needle. This is something that we'd refined from doing localization of lung nodules
and I'll show you that next. And so this is the system using the C-star, we use the breast, and the localization needle, and we can actually basically advance that straight into that cavity, and you can see once you get in it,
we confirmed it by injecting into it, you can see the pseudo-aneurism, you can see the immediate stain of hematoma and then we simply embolize that directly. This is probably safer than going endovascular because that little neck protects about
the embolization from actually taking place, and you can see what the complete snan-ja-gram actually looked like, we had a pig tail in the aura so we could co-linearly check what was going on and we used docto-gramming make sure we don't have embolization.
This patient now basically about three months follow-up and this is a nice way to completely dissolve by avoiding really doing this. Let me give you another example, this actually one came from our transplant surgeon he wanted to put in a vas,
he said this patient is really sick, so well, by definition they're usually pretty sick, they say we need to make a small incision and target this and so what we did was we scanned the vas, that's the hardware device you're looking at here. These have to be
oriented with the inlet nozzle looking directly into the orifice of the mitro wall, and so we scanned the heart with, what you see is what you get with these devices, they're not deformed, we take a cell phone and implant it in your chest,
still going to look like a cell phone. And so what we did, image fusion was then used with two completely different data sets, it mimicking the procedure, and we lined this up basically with a mitro valve, we then used that same imaging guidance system
I was showing you, made a little incision really doing onto the apex of the heart, and to the eur-aph for the return cannula, and this is basically what it looked like, and you can actually check the efficacy of this by scanning the patient post operatively
and see whether or not you executed on this basically the same way, and so this was all basically developed basing off Lung Nodule Localization Techniques with that we've kind of fairly extensively published, use with men can base one of our thoracic surgeons
so I'd encourage you to look at other opportunities by which you can help other specialties, 'cause I think this 3D imaging is going to transform what our capabilities actually are. Thank you very much indeed for your attention.
- Thank you very much. So this is more or less a teaser. The outcome data will not be presented until next month. It's undergoing final analysis. So, the Vici Stent was the stent in the VIRTUS Trial. Self-expanding, Nitinol stent,
12, 14, and 16 in diameter, in three different lengths, and that's what was in the trial. It is a closed-cell stent, despite the fact that it's closed-cell, the flexibility is not as compromised. The deployment can be done from the distal end
or the proximal end for those who have any interest, if you're coming from the jugular or not in the direction of flow, or for whatever reason you want to deploy it from this end versus that end, those are possible in terms of the system. The trial design is not that different than the other three
now the differences, there are minor differences between the four trials that three completed, one soon to be complete, the definitions of the endpoints in terms of patency and major adverse events were very similar. The trial design as we talked about, the only thing
that is different in this study were the imaging requirements. Every patient got a venogram, an IVUS, and duplex at the insertion and it was required at the completion in one year also, the endpoint was venographic, and those who actually did get venograms,
they had the IVUS as well, so this is the only prospective study that will have that correlation of three different imagings before, after, and at follow-up. Classification, everybody's aware, PTS severity, everybody's aware, the endpoints, again as we talked about, are very similar to the others.
The primary patency in 12 months was define this freedom from occlusion by thrombosis or re-intervention. And the safety endpoints, again, very similar to everybody else. The baseline patient characteristics, this is the pivotal, as per design, there were 170 in the pivotal
and 30 in the feasibility study. The final outcome will be all mixed in, obviously. And this is the distribution of the patients. The important thing here is the severity of patients in this study. By design, all acute thrombotic patients, acute DVT patients
were excluded, so anybody who had history of DVT within three months were excluded in this patient. Therefore the patients were all either post-thrombotic, meaning true chronic rather than putting the acute patients in the post-thrombotic segment. And only 25% were Neville's.
That becomes important, so if you look at the four studies instead of an overview of the four, there were differences in those in terms on inclusion/exclusion criteria, although definitions were similar, and the main difference was the inclusion of the chronics, mostly chronics, in the VIRTUS study, the others allowed acute inclusion also.
Now in terms of definition of primary patency and comparison to the historical controls, there were minor differences in these trials in terms of what that historical control meant. However, the differences were only a few percentages. I just want to remind everyone to something we've always known
that the chronic post-thrombotics or chronic occlusions really do the worst, as opposed to Neville's and the acute thrombotics and this study, 25% were here, 75% were down here, these patients were not allowed. So when the results are known, and out, and analyzed it's important not to put them in terms of percentage
for the entire cohort, all trials need to report all of these three categories separately. So in conclusion venous anatomy and disease requires obviously dedicated stent. The VIRTUS feasibility included 30 with 170 patients in the pivotal cohort, the 12 months data will be available
in about a month, thank you.
- I just like the title 'cuz I think we're in chaos anyway. Chaos management theory. Alright, unfortunately I have nothing to disclose, it really upsets me. I wish I had a laundry list to give you. Gettin' checks from everybody, it would be great. Let's start off with this chaos, what has been published.
Again "Ul Haq et al" is a paper from Hopkins. Bleomycin foam treatment of malformations, a promising agent. And they had 20 patients, 21 Bleomycin procedures. (mumbles) sclerosants in a few other patients, 40% complication rate, 30% minor, 10% major.
On a per procedure basis it was a 29% with about 7% major. All patients had decrease in symptoms. But to say "I use Bleomycin" or "I use X" because a complication (mumbles) is nonsense, you're mentally masturbating. It ain't going to be that way, you're going to have complications.
Alright, the use of Bleomycin should be reserved for locations where post-procedure swelling would be dangerous. Well they used it, and one patient required intubation for four days and another patient 15 days. So, it can happen with any agent.
So I don't know why that statement was made. "Hassan et al", noninvasive management of hemangiomas and vascular malformations using Bleomycin again, this handles the plastic surgery a few years ago. 71% effectiveness rate, 29% failure rate,
14% complication rate, 5 major ulcerations. Ulcerations happen with any agent. You're not going to escape that by saying, "Oh, well I'm not going to use alcohol because (mumbles)." No you're going to get it anyway. You all in the literature.
"Sainsbury", intra-lesional Bleomycin injection for vascular birthmarks five year experience again, 2011. 82% effectiveness, 17.3 for failure. Compli- severe blistering, ulcers, swelling, infections, recurrences. Okay, everybody's reporting it.
"Bai et al" sclerotherapy for lymphatic, oral and facial region, 2009. 43% effectiveness, but they found if they used it with surgery they had a higher effectiveness rate. Good. But again that's their effectiveness.
"Young et al", Bleomycin A5 cervico-facial vascular surgery, 2011. 81% effectiveness rate 19% failure for macrocystic. 37% failure from microcystic disease. Complications: ulcerations, hematoma, bleeding, fevers, soft tissue atrophy.
"Zhang et al." Now this is a study. They're goin' head-to-head alcohol versus Bleo. Oh, isn't that a nice thing to do. Huh, funny how that can happen sometimes. There's another paper out of Canada
that doesn't matter, there's 17 pages and there's no statistical significance for that. 138 patients, you got a lot of statistics. "Zhang et al", 138 children. 71 of 75 patients, which is 95% of that serie, were either cured,
markedly effective, or effective, with alcohol. In the Bleo group 41 of 63, that is 65% of the patients, had effective treatment. That means no cures, no markedly effective, just effective. That's their head-to-head comparison. Difference between Ethanol and
the Bleo group again was statistically significant. Ethanol at 75 patients of 14 cases skin necrosis. Bleo group at 63 patients of 5 cases skin necrosis. And in that group they stated it is statistically superior to Bleo. 95 versus 60, that's a big deal.
Again, cured, disappearance post-treatment without recurrence. Markedly effective, meant that greater than 80% was ablated. Effective means about less that 80% reduction but improved. Ineffective, no change. That was their criterion on that paper.
Again, 30 cases, superficial VMs effective rate was 95% in the Ethanol group and the deep group 94%. Okay. What was in the Bleo group? 68% superficial, 56% of deep group. So that's a statistical significance
of failure, between the two agents, comparing head-to-head in anatomic areas. Ethanol VM papers, let's go on to that, we're goin' to do other stuff. "Lee et al", advanced management, 2003, midterm results. 399 procedures in 87 patients,
95% significant or complete ablation, 12.4% complication. "Johnson et al", Kansas. University of Kansas med center, 2002. 100% success rate in tongues. One patient had a massive tongue and had breathing difficulties prior to treatment
remained intubated 5 days and then uneventfully discharged, that was their only complication. "Su et al", ethanol sclerotherapy, face and neck. Again, these are complex anatomies with complex issues of cranial nerves as well as airway control. 2010, 56 of 60 procedures, 90%, four minimal residual,
no skin necrosis, no nerve injuries. "Orlando", outpatient percutaneous treatment, low doses under local anesthesia. This is a very interesting paper out of Brazil. They did 'em under IV sedation, just a little bit by little bit.
They said they had trouble gettin' general so they had to figure another way. Smart, I like people thinkin' things out. Who here doesn't have a problem with anesthesia? Gettin' 'em not to quit before two o'clock? (laughs)
Alright, used local only 39 patients extremity VMs, main symptoms of pain. Cure or significant improvement in 94%. One ulcer, 3 transient paresthesias. "Lee et al", sclerotherapy craniofacial again, 2009. 87 patients, 75% were reductions.
71 of 87 excellent outcomes. One patient transient, tongue decreased sensation. One transient facial nerve palsy, no skin injuries. "Vogelzang" is a very important paper of a single center. Is that author- anybody here? Again, they did VMs and AVMs in this series
and then a per patient complication rate is 13.3, in AMVs 9.7 per patient, but I think what also is important is to do things with regards to procedures. And they listed both. So we'll just, it's about time to quit. This is our embolization series.
And neck, upper extremity, all the anatomies. And we're about a 10 to three ratio with regards to VM/LMs to AVMs in numbers. I think everybody's pretty much like that, a third of their practice. Again, our minor complications are that.
Major complications are these. Summary, what we found in the literature is that Ethanol publications state its efficacy rate routinely at 90 to 100%. And all other second tier sclerosants are 60 to 80%. So I think that's the take home message.
- Thank you very much, Frank, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no disclosure. Standard carotid endarterectomy patch-plasty and eversion remain the gold standard of treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic patient with significant stenosis. One important lesson we learn in the last 50 years
of trial and tribulation is the majority of perioperative and post-perioperative stroke are related to technical imperfection rather than clamping ischemia. And so the importance of the technical accuracy of doing the endarterectomy. In ideal world the endarterectomy shouldn't be (mumbling).
It should contain embolic material. Shouldn't be too thin. While this is feasible in the majority of the patient, we know that when in clinical practice some patient with long plaque or transmural lesion, or when we're operating a lesion post-radiation,
it could be very challenging. Carotid bypass, very popular in the '80s, has been advocated as an alternative of carotid endarterectomy, and it doesn't matter if you use a vein or a PTFE graft. The result are quite durable. (mumbling) showing this in 198 consecutive cases
that the patency, primary patency rate was 97.9% in 10 years, so is quite a durable procedure. Nowadays we are treating carotid lesion with stinting, and the stinting has been also advocated as a complementary treatment, but not for a bail out, but immediately after a completion study where it
was unsatisfactory. Gore hybrid graft has been introduced in the market five years ago, and it was the natural evolution of the vortec technique that (mumbling) published a few years before, and it's a technique of a non-suture anastomosis.
And this basically a heparin-bounded bypass with the Nitinol section then expand. At King's we are very busy at the center, but we did 40 bypass for bail out procedure. The technique with the Gore hybrid graft is quite stressful where the constrained natural stint is inserted
inside internal carotid artery. It's got the same size of a (mumbling) shunt, and then the plumbing line is pulled, and than anastomosis is done. The proximal anastomosis is performed in the usual fashion with six (mumbling), and the (mumbling) was reimplanted
selectively. This one is what look like in the real life the patient with the personal degradation, the carotid hybrid bypass inserted and the external carotid artery were implanted. Initially we very, very enthusiastic, so we did the first cases with excellent result.
In total since November 19, 2014 we perform 19 procedure. All the patient would follow up with duplex scan and the CT angiogram post operation. During the follow up four cases block. The last two were really the two very high degree stenosis. And the common denominator was that all the patients
stop one of the dual anti-platelet treatment. They were stenosis wise around 40%, but only 13% the significant one. This one is one of the patient that developed significant stenosis after two years, and you can see in the typical position at the end of the stint.
This one is another patient who develop a quite high stenosis at proximal end. Our patency rate is much lower than the one report by Rico. So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the carotid endarterectomy remain still the gold standard,
and (mumbling) carotid is usually an afterthought. Carotid bypass is a durable procedure. It should be in the repertoire of every vascular surgeon undertaking carotid endarterectomy. Gore hybrid was a promising technology because unfortunate it's been just not produced by Gore anymore,
and unfortunately it carried quite high rate of restenosis that probably we should start to treat it in the future. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. So thirty day mortality following unselected non-cardiac surgery in patients 45 years and older has been reported to be as high as 1.9%. And in such patients we know that postoperative troponin elevation has
a very strong correlation with 30-day mortality. Considering that there are millions of major surgical procedures performed, it's clear that this equates to a significant health problem. And therefore, the accurate identification of patients at risk of complications
and morbidity offers many advantages. First, both the patient and the physician can perform an appropriate risk-benefit analysis based on the expected surgical benefit in relation to surgical risk. And surgery can then be declined,
deferred, or modified to maximize the patient's benefit. Secondly, pre-operative identification of high-risk patients allows physicians to direct their efforts towards those who might really benefit from additional interventions. And finally, postoperative management,
monitoring and potential therapies can be individualized according to predicted risk. So there's a lot of data on this and I'll try to go through the data on predictive biomarkers in different groups of vascular surgery patients. This study published in the "American Heart Journal"
in 2018 measured troponin levels in a prospective blinded fashion in 1000 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Major cardiac complications occurred overall in 11% but in 24% of the patients who were having vascular surgery procedures.
You can see here that among vascular surgery patients there was a really high prevalence of elevated troponin levels preoperatively. And again, if you look here at the morbidity in vascular surgery patients 24% had major cardiac complications,
the majority of these were myocardial infarctions. Among patients undergoing vascular surgery, preoperative troponin elevation was an independent predictor of cardiac complications with an odds ratio of 1.5, and there was an increased accuracy of this parameter
in vascular surgery as opposed to non-vascular surgery patients. So what about patients undergoing open vascular surgery procedures? This is a prospective study of 455 patients and elevated preoperative troponin level
and a perioperative increase were both independently associated with MACE. You can see here these patients were undergoing a variety of open procedures including aortic, carotid, and peripheral arterial. And you can see here that in any way you look at this,
both the preoperative troponin, the postoperative troponin, the absolute change, and the relative change were all highly associated with MACE. You could add the troponin levels to the RCRI a clinical risk stratification tool and know that this increased the accuracy.
And this is additionally shown here in these receiver operator curves. So this study concluded that a combination of the RCRI with troponin levels can improve the predictive accuracy and therefore allow for better patient management.
This doesn't just happen in open-vascular surgery patients. This is a study that studied troponin levels in acute limb ischaemia patients undergoing endovascular therapy. 254 patients all treated with endovascular intervention
with a 3.9% mortality and a 5.1% amputation rate. Patients who died or required amputation more frequently presented with elevated troponin levels. And the relationship between troponin and worse in-hospital outcome remains significant even when controlling for other factors.
In-hospital death or amputation again and amputation free survival were highly correlated with preoperative troponin levels. You can see here 16.9% in patients with elevated troponins versus 6% in others. And the cardiac troponin level
had a high hazard ratio for predicting worse in-hospital outcomes. This is a study of troponins just in CLI patients with a similar design the measurement of troponin on admission again was a significant independent predictor
of survival with a hazard ratio of 4.2. You can see here that the majority of deaths that did occur were in fact cardiac, and troponin levels correlated highly with both cardiac specific and all-cause mortality. The value of the troponin test was maintained
even when controlling for other risk factors. And these authors felt that the realistic awareness of likely long term prognosis of vascular surgery patients is invaluable when planning suitability for either surgical or endovascular intervention.
And finally, we even have data on the value of preoperative troponin in patients undergoing major amputation. This was a study in which 10 of 44 patients had a non-fatal MI or died from a cardiac cause following amputation.
A rise in the preoperative troponin level was associated with a very poor outcome and was the only significant predictor of postoperative cardiac events. As you can see in this slide. This clearly may be a "Pandora's box".
We really don't know who should have preoperative troponins. What is the cost effectiveness in screening everybody? And in patients with elevated troponin levels, what exactly do we do? Do we cancel surgery, defer it, or change our plan?
However, certainly as vascular surgeons with our high-risk patient population we believe in risk stratification tools. And the RCRI is routinely used as a clinical risk stratification tool. Adding preoperative troponin levels to the RCRI
clearly increases its accuracy in the prediction of patients who will have perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality. And you can see here that the preoperative troponin level had one of the highest independent hazard ratios at 5.4. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Our group has looked at the outcomes of patients undergoing carotid-subclavian bypass in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair. These are my obligatory disclosures, none of which are relevant to this study. By way of introduction, coverage of the left subclavian artery origin
is required in 10-50% of patients undergoing TEVAR, to achieve an adequate proximal landing zone. The left subclavian artery may contribute to critical vascular beds in addition to the left upper extremity, including the posterior cerebral circulation,
the coronary circulation if a LIMA graft is present, and the spinal cord, via vertebral collaterals. Therefore the potential risks of inadequate left subclavian perfusion include not only arm ischemia, but also posterior circulation stroke,
spinal cord ischemia, and coronary insufficiency. Although these risks are of low frequency, the SVS as early as 2010 published guidelines advocating a policy of liberal left subclavian revascularization during TEVAR
requiring left subclavian origin coverage. Until recently, the only approved way to maintain perfusion of the left subclavian artery during TEVAR, with a zone 2 or more proximal landing zone, was a cervical bypass or transposition procedure. As thoracic side-branch devices become more available,
we thought it might be useful to review our experience with cervical bypass for comparison with these newer endovascular strategies. This study was a retrospective review of our aortic disease database, and identified 112 out of 579 TEVARs
that had undergone carotid subclavian bypass. We used the standard operative technique, through a short, supraclavicular incision, the subclavian arteries exposed by division of the anterior scalene muscle, and a short 8 millimeter PTFE graft is placed
between the common carotid and the subclavian arteries, usually contemporaneous with the TEVAR procedure. The most important finding of this review regarded phrenic nerve dysfunction. To exam this, all pre- and post-TEVAR chest x-rays were reviewed for evidence of diaphragm elevation.
The study population was typical for patients undergoing TEVAR. The most frequent indication for bypass was for spinal cord protection, and nearly 80% of cases were elective. We found that 25 % of patients had some evidence
of phrenic nerve dysfunction, though many resolved over time. Other nerve injury and vascular graft complications occurred with much less frequency. This slide illustrates the grading of diaphragm elevation into mild and severe categories,
and notes that over half of the injuries did resolve over time. Vascular complications were rare, and usually treated with a corrective endovascular procedure. Of three graft occlusions, only one required repeat bypass.
Two pseudoaneurysms were treated endovascularly. Actuarial graft, primary graft patency, was 97% after five years. In summary then, the report examines early and late outcomes for carotid subclavian bypass, in the setting of TEVAR. We found an unexpectedly high rate
of phrenic nerve dysfunction postoperatively, although over half resolved spontaneously. There was a very low incidence of vascular complications, and a high long-term patency rate. We suggest that this study may provide a benchmark for comparison
with emerging branch thoracic endovascular devices. Thank you.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, first of all, I would like to thank Dr. Veith for the honor of the podium. Fenestrated and branched stent graft are becoming a widespread use in the treatment of thoracoabdominal
and pararenal aortic aneurysms. Nevertheless, the risk of reinterventions during the follow-up of these procedures is not negligible. The Mayo Clinic group has recently proposed this classification for endoleaks
after FEVAR and BEVAR, that takes into account all the potential sources of aneurysm sac reperfusion after stent graft implant. If we look at the published data, the reported reintervention rate ranges between three and 25% of cases.
So this is still an open issue. We started our experience with fenestrated and branched stent grafts in January 2016, with 29 patients treated so far, for thoracoabdominal and pararenal/juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. We report an elective mortality rate of 7.7%.
That is significantly higher in urgent settings. We had two cases of transient paraparesis and both of them recovered, and two cases of complete paraplegia after urgent procedures, and both of them died. This is the surveillance protocol we applied
to the 25 patients that survived the first operation. As you can see here, we used to do a CT scan prior to discharge, and then again at three and 12 months after the intervention, and yearly thereafter, and according to our experience
there is no room for ultrasound examination in the follow-up of these procedures. We report five reinterventions according for 20% of cases. All of them were due to endoleaks and were fixed with bridging stent relining,
or embolization in case of type II, with no complications, no mortality. I'm going to show you a couple of cases from our series. A 66 years old man, a very complex surgical history. In 2005 he underwent open repair of descending thoracic aneurysm.
In 2009, a surgical debranching of visceral vessels followed by TEVAR for a type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In 2016, the implant of a tube fenestrated stent-graft to fix a distal type I endoleak. And two years later the patient was readmitted
for a type II endoleak with aneurysm growth of more than one centimeter. This is the preoperative CT scan, and you see now the type II endoleak that comes from a left gastric artery that independently arises from the aneurysm sac.
This is the endoleak route that starts from a branch of the hepatic artery with retrograde flow into the left gastric artery, and then into the aneurysm sac. We approached this case from below through the fenestration for the SMA and the celiac trunk,
and here on the left side you see the superselective catheterization of the branch of the hepatic artery, and on the right side the microcatheter that has reached the nidus of the endoleak. We then embolized with onyx the endoleak
and the feeding vessel, and this is the nice final result in two different angiographic projections. Another case, a 76 years old man. In 2008, open repair for a AAA and right common iliac aneurysm.
Eight years later, the implant of a T-branch stent graft for a recurrent type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And one year later, the patient was admitted again for a type IIIc endoleak, plus aneurysm of the left common iliac artery. This is the CT scan of this patient.
You will see here the endoleak at the level of the left renal branch here, and the aneurysm of the left common iliac just below the stent graft. We first treated the iliac aneurysm implanting an iliac branched device on the left side,
so preserving the left hypogastric artery. And in the same operation, from a bowl, we catheterized the left renal branch and fixed the endoleak that you see on the left side, with a total stent relining, with a nice final result on the right side.
And this is the CT scan follow-up one year after the reintervention. No endoleak at the level of the left renal branch, and nice exclusion of the left common iliac aneurysm. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the risk of type I endoleak after FEVAR and BEVAR
is very low when the repair is planning with an adequate proximal sealing zone as we heard before from Professor Verhoeven. Much of reinterventions are due to type II and III endoleaks that can be treated by embolization or stent reinforcement. Last, but not least, the strict follow-up program
with CT scan is of paramount importance after these procedures. I thank you very much for your attention.
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.