- Thank you. Here are my disclosures. Our preferred method for zone one TAVR has evolved to a carotid/carotid transposition and left subclavian retro-sandwich. The technique begins with a low transverse collar incision. The incision is deepened through the platysma
and subplatysmal flaps are then elevated. The dissection is continued along the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid entering the carotid sheath anteromedial to the jugular vein. The common carotid artery is exposed
and controlled with a vessel loop. (mumbling) The exposure's repeated for the left common carotid artery and extended as far proximal to the omohyoid muscle as possible. A retropharyngeal plane is created using blunt dissection
along the anterior border of the cervical vertebra. A tunneling clamp is then utilized to preserve the plane with umbilical tape. Additional vessel loops are placed in the distal and mid right common carotid artery and the patient is systemically anticoagulated.
The proximal and distal vessel loops are tightened and a transverse arteriotomy is created between the middle and distal vessel loops. A flexible shunt is inserted and initially secured with the proximal and middle vessel loops. (whistling)
It is then advanced beyond the proximal vessel loop and secured into that position. The left common carotid artery is then clamped proximally and distally, suture ligated, clipped and then transected. (mumbling)
The proximal end is then brought through the retropharyngeal tunnel. - [Surgeon] It's found to have (mumbles). - An end-to-side carotid anastomosis is then created between the proximal and middle vessel loops. If preferred the right carotid arteriotomy
can be made ovoid with scissors or a punch to provide a better shape match with the recipient vessel. The complete anastomosis is back-bled and carefully flushed out the distal right carotid arteriotomy.
Flow is then restored to the left carotid artery, I mean to the right carotid artery or to the left carotid artery by tightening the middle vessel loop and loosening the proximal vessel loop. The shunt can then be removed
and the right common carotid artery safely clamped distal to the transposition. The distal arteriotomy is then closed in standard fashion and flow is restored to the right common carotid artery. This technique avoids a prosthetic graft
and the retropharyngeal space while maintaining flow in at least one carotid system at all times. Once, and here's a view of the vessels, once hemostasis is assured the platysma is reapproximated with a running suture followed by a subcuticular stitch
for an excellent cosmetic result. Our preferred method for left subclavian preservation is the retro-sandwich technique which involves deploying an initial endograft just distal to the left subclavian followed by both proximal aortic extension
and a left subclavian covered stent in parallel fashion. We prefer this configuration because it provides a second source of cerebral blood flow independent of the innominate artery
and maintains ready access to the renovisceral vessels if further aortic intervention is required in the future. Thank you.
- Thank you (mumbles). The purpose of deep venous valve repair is to correct the reflux. And we have different type of reflux. We know we have primary, secondary, the much more frequent and the rear valve agenesia. In primary deep venous incompetence,
valves are usually present but they are malfunctioning and the internal valvuloplasty is undoubtedly the best option. If we have a valve we can repair it and the results are undoubtedly the better of all deep vein surgery reconstruction
but when we are in the congenital absence of valve which is probably the worst situation or we are in post-thrombotic syndrome where cusps are fully destroyed, the situation is totally different. In this situation, we need alternative technique
to provide a reflux correction that may be transposition, new valve or valve transplants. The mono cuspid valve is an option between those and we can obtain it by parietal dissection. We use the fibrotic tissue determined by the
sickening of the PTS event obtaining a kind of flap that we call valve but as you can realize is absolutely something different from a native valve. The morphology may change depending on the wall feature and the wall thickness
but we have to manage the failure of the mono cuspid valve which is mainly due to the readhesion of the flap which is caused by the fact that if we have only a mono cuspid valve, we need a deeper pocket to reach the contralateral wall so bicuspid valve we have
smaller cusps in mono cuspid we have a larger one. And how can we prevent readhesion? In our first moment we can apply a technical element which is to stabilize the valve in the semi-open position in order not to have the collapse of the valve with itself and then we had decide to apply an hemodynamic element.
Whenever possible, the valve is created in front of a vein confluence. In this way we can obtain a kind of competing flow, a better washout and a more mobile flap. This is undoubtedly a situation that is not present in nature but helps in providing non-collapse
and non-thrombotic events in the cusp itself. In fact, if we look at the mathematical modeling in the flow on valve you can see how it does work in a bicuspid but when we are in a mono cuspid, you see that in the bottom of the flap
we have no flow and here there is the risk of thrombosis and here there is the risk of collapse. If we go to a competing flow pattern, the flap is washed out alternatively from one side to the other side and this suggest us the idea to go through a mono cuspid
valve which is not just opens forward during but is endovascular and in fact that's what we are working on. Undoubtedly open surgery at the present is the only available solution but we realized that obviously to have the possibility
to have an endovascular approach may be totally different. As you can understand we move out from the concept to mimic nature. We are not able to provide the same anatomy, the same structure of a valve and we have to put
in the field the possibility to have no thrombosis and much more mobile flap. This is the lesson we learn from many years of surgery. The problem is the mobile flap and the thrombosis inside the flap itself. The final result of a valve reconstruction
disregarding the type of method we apply is to obtain an anti-reflux mechanism. It is not a valve, it is just an anti-reflux mechanism but it can be a great opportunity for patient presenting a deep vein reflux that strongly affected their quality of life.
- Thank you very much. These are my disclosures. So, infected aorta, in terms of the primary infected aorta and secondary infected stent grafts is a difficult problem, and its instance is probably increasing the more we treat. These patients present late, they're often very malnourished,
and they have significant comorbidity. One place where endovascular therapy is definitely effective is in the emergency situation, both the primary infected aortas, like this case on the right hand side, and also for primary aorto-enteric fistula in an emergency.
This is a young man who had obesity surgery and leaked from his gastric anastomosis. He had an esophageal stent, which then caused a significant infection in the mediastinum and eroded through his aorta. He came in in extremis bleeding
and a short stent to cover that saves his life and gives you an opportunity for later on. It's also effective in secondary infections. This is a young lady who had an aortobifemoral bypass, who is bleeding in the retroperitoneum, and you can cover that with a stent graft
and think about further treatment later. Certainly in the short term, endovascular results from treating primary mycotic aneurysms are good. Our series on the left hand side, we had only one death in our endovascular group. In further case series and in systematic reviews,
the 30 day mortality is consistently somewhere between 10% and 15% in the early stage. Long term results from primary mycotic aneurysm treatment are not that bad. This is the biggest paper, I think, in circulation, showing the three, four, five year results
which are acceptable, but you have to remember that success was gained in this group. In those without persistent sepsis, in those without aortoenteric fistula, and probably in some bacterial types, particularly salmonella, which can be treated
well before the endograft is implanted. The secondary graft infection we have to remember, though, has a significant early mortality. This is our series from Imperial, our open graft excision surgery, for urgent and emergency cases included, is 25%,
but for that you swap an excellent five year mortality. Only a few patients die in that long period. If you're putting an endograft in for secondary graft infection and aortoenteric fistula, we can look to this systematic review which I was good to join in with Steve Kakkos.
The results for endovascular treatment are poor. The rate of current sepsis at two years is 42% in the endovascular group, far worse than that for excisional surgery, so they don't do well. I've got significant concerns for endovascular treatment, and we need to worry about these if we're going to put
endovascular grafts in and leave them in. The first is of antimicrobial resistance, there are more and more resistant bugs occurring in our practice, and it's certainly been our practice in our series. Over the last three years, the number of patients with resistant bugs is up to about 50%.
This is a young man who had infective endocarditis with a fungal disease, a multi-resistant fungus. This is the state of his aorta in the top left hand panel. Of course he needs a deep venous reconstruction, which we then cover with Omentum, and he did well after that.
For aortoenteric fistula, if you're going to put an endograft in, in our experience, these get reinfected and rupture, and they probably do need definitive treatment. In secondary graft infection, aortoenteric fistula, remember, is present in 1/3 of patients,
and you need to consider this. You're only going to find that at surgery if you're placing a stent graft in. Again, we discussed earlier in this session, further interventions: graft infection
is more commonly associated with multiple interventions, and it provides a further nidus for infection. So, when is endovascular therapy effective? Well, endovascular treatments in the emergency cases are life-saving and I think they are effective. For primary aortic infection, it's effective
when there is clearance of sepsis, a low -virulence microorganism, and no fistula. Then, the results are acceptable. For secondary cases treated with Endo techniques, the long term recurrence of sepsis is significant, and they really need definitive graft excision,
or you need to accept they have antibiotics and accept palliation. Thank you very much.
- Thank you 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 for introduction. Thanks to Frank Veith for the kind invitation to present here our really primarily single-center experience on this new technique. This is my disclosure. So what you really want
in the thromboembolic acute events is a quick flow restoration, avoid lytic therapies, and reduce the risk of bleeding. And this can be achieved by surgery. However, causal directed local thrombolysis
is much less invasive and also give us a panoramic view and topographic view that is very useful in these cases. But it takes time and is statistically implied
and increases risk of bleeding. So theoretically percutaneous thrombectomy can accomplish all these tasks including a shorter hospital stay. So among the percutaneous thrombectomy devices the Indigo System is based on a really simple
aspiration mechanism and it has shown high success in ischemic stroke. This is one of my first cases with the Indigo System using a 5 MAX needle intervention
adapted to this condition. And it's very easy to understand how is fast and effective this approach to treat intraprocedural distal embolization avoiding potential dramatic clinical consequences, especially in cases like this,
the only one foot vessel. This is also confirmed by this technical note published in 2015 from an Italian group. More recently, other papers came up. This, for example, tell us that
there has been 85% below-the-knee primary endpoint achievement and 54% in above-the-knee lesions. The TIMI score after VAT significantly higher for BTK lesions and for ATK lesions
a necessity of a concomitant endovascular therapy. And James Benenati has already told us the results of the PRISM trials. Looking into our case data very quickly and very superficially we can summarize that we had 78% full revascularization.
In 42% of cases, we did not perform any lytic therapy or very short lytic therapy within three hours. And in 36% a long lytic therapy was necessary, however within 24 hours. We had also 22% failure
with three surgery necessary and one amputation. I must say that among this group of patients, twenty patients, there were also patients like this with extended thrombosis from the groin to the ankle
and through an antegrade approach, that I strongly recommend whenever possible, we were able to lower the aspiration of the clots also in the vessel, in the tibial vessels, leaving only this region, thrombosis
needed for additional three hour infusion of TPA achieving at the end a beautiful result and the patient was discharged a day after. However not every case had similar brilliant result. This patient went to surgery and he went eventually to amputation.
Why this? And why VAT perform better in BTK than in ATK? Just hypotheses. For ATK we can have unknown underlying chronic pathology. And the mismatch between the vessel and the catheter can be a problem.
In BTK, the thrombus is usually soft and short because it is an acute iatrogenic event. Most importantly is the thrombotic load. If it is light, no short, no lytic or short lytic therapy is necessary. Say if heavy, a longer lytic therapy and a failure,
regardless of the location of the thrombosis, must be expected. So moving to the other topic, venous occlusive thrombosis. This is a paper from a German group. The most exciting, a high success rate
without any adjunctive therapy and nine vessels half of them prosthetic branch. The only caution is about the excessive blood loss as a main potential complication to be checked during and after the procedure. This is a case at my cath lab.
An acute aortic renal thrombosis after a open repair. We were able to find the proximate thrombosis in this flush occlusion to aspirate close to fix the distal stenosis
and the distal stenosis here and to obtain two-thirds of the kidney parenchyma on both sides. And this is another patient presenting with acute mesenteric ischemia from vein thrombosis.
This device can be used also transsympatically. We were able to aspirate thrombi but after initial improvement, the patient condition worsened overnight. And the CT scan showed us a re-thrombosis of the vein. Probably we need to learn more
in the management of these patients especially under the pharmacology point of view. And this is a rapid overview on our out-of-lower-limb case series. We had good results in reimplanted renal artery, renal artery, and the pulmonary artery as well.
But poor results in brachial artery, fistula, and superior mesenteric vein. So in conclusion, this technology is an option for quick thromboembolic treatment. It's very effective for BTK intraprocedural embolic events.
The main advantage is a speeding up the blood flow and reestablishing without prolonged thrombolysis or reducing the dosage of the thrombolysis. Completely cleaning up extensive thromobosed vessels is impossible without local lytic therapies. This must be said very clearly.
Indigo technology is promising and effective for treatment of acute renovisceral artery occlusion and sub massive pulmonary embolism. Thank you for your attention. I apologize for not being able to stay for the discussion
because I have a flight in a few hours. Thank you very much.
- So this is what I've been assigned to do, I think this is a rich topic so I'll just get into it. Here are my disclosures. So I hope to convince you at the end of this talk that what we need for massive PE when we're talking about catheter based therapy is a prospective registry. And what we need for catheter based therapy for
submassive PE is a randomized controlled trial. So we'll start with massive PE and my rational for this. So you know, really as you've heard, the goal of massive PE treatment is to rescue these patients from death. They have a 25 to 65% chance of dying
so our role, whatever type of physician we are, is to rescue that patient. So what are our tools to rescue that patient? You've heard about some of them already, intravenous thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, and catheter directed therapy.
The focus of my talk will be catheter directed therapy but let's remember that the fastest and easiest thing to do for these patients is to give them intravenous thrombolysis. And I think we under utilize this therapy and we need to think about this as a first line therapy for massive PE.
However, there's some patients in whom thrombolytics are contraindicated or in whom they fail and then we have to look at some other options. And that's where catheter directed therapy may play a role. So I want to show you a pretty dramatic case and this was an eye-opening case for me
and sort of what launched our PERT when I was at Cornell. It's a 30 year old man, transcranial resection of a pituitary tumor post-op seizures and of course he had a frontal lobe hemorrhage at that time. Sure enough, four or five days after this discovery
he developed hypertension and hypoxia. And then is he CT of the chest, which I still remember to this day because it was so dramatic. You see this caval thrombosis right, basically a clot in transit
and this enormous clot in the right main pulmonary artery. And of course he was starting to get altered, tachycardiac and a little bit hypotensive. So the question is, what to do with this patient with an intracranial hemorrhage? Obviously, systemic thrombolytics are
contraindicated in him. His systolics were in the 90 millimeter of mercury ranged, getting more altered and tachycardiac. He was referred for a CDT and he was brought to the IR suite. And really, at this point,
you could see the multidisciplinary nature of PE. The ICU attending was actively managing him while I was getting access and trying to do my work. So this was the initial pulmonary angiogram you can see there's absolutely no flow to the right lung even with a directed injection
you see this cast of thrombus there. Tried a little bit of aspiration, did a little bit of maceration, even injected a little TPA, wasn't getting anywhere. I was getting a little bit more panicked as he was getting more panicked
and I remembered this device that I had used in AV fistula work called the Cleaner. Totally off label use here, I should disclose that and I have no interest in the company, no financial interest in the company. And so we deployed this thing, activate it a few times,
it spins at 3,000 rpm's, he coughed a little bit, and that freaked us all out also. But low and behold we actually started seeing some profusion. And you can see it in the aortogram actually in this and that's the whole point of massive PE treatment with CDT,
is try to get forward flow into the left ventricle so that you have a systemic blood pressure. Now, you know, when we talk about catheter based therapies we have all sorts of things at our disposal. And my point to you is that you know really, thank you...
You guys can see that, great. So really, the point of these catheter therapies is that you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE because basically your role is to try to help this patient live. So, if I can get this thing to show up again.
There we go. It's not working very well, sorry. So, from clockwise we have the AngioVac circuit, you have, let's see if this will work again, okay. Nope, it's got a delay. So then you have your infusion catheter,
then you have the Inari FlowTriever, you saw the Cleaner in the previous cast, and you have the Penumbra aspiration device the CAT 8. And some of these will be spoken about in more detail in subsequent talks. But really, you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE
just to do whatever it takes to get profusion to the left side. So, the best analysis that has been done so far was Will Kuo in 2009. He conducted a meta-analysis of about 594 patients and he found this clinical success rate of 86.5%.
This basically meant these patients survived to 30 days. Well, if that we're the case, that's a much lower mortality than we've seen historically we should basically be doing catheter directed therapy for every single massive PE that comes into the hospital. But I think we have to remember with this meta-analysis
that only 94 of these patients came from prospective studies, 500 came from retrospective, single center studies. So even though it was a very well conducted meta-analysis, the substrate for this meta-analysis wasn't great. And I think my point to you is that
we really are going to have a hard time studying this in a prospective fashion. So what is the data, as far as massive PE tell us and not tell us? Techniques are available to remove thrombus, it can be used if systemic lysis is contraindicated,
but it doesn't tell us whether catheter based therapies are better than the other therapies. Whether they should be used in combination with them and which patients should get catheter based therapy, which should get surgery and which techniques are most effective and safe.
Now, I think something we have to remember is that massive PE has a 5% incidence which is probably a good thing, if this was even higher than that we would have even more of an epidemic on our hand. But this is what makes massive PE very difficult to study.
So, if you looked at a back of the envelope calculation an RCT is just not feasible. So in an 800 bed hospital, you have 200 PE's per year, 5% are massive which means you get 10 per year in that hospital, assume 40% enroll which is actually generous,
that means that 4 massive PE's per year per institution. And then what are you going to do? Are you going to randomize them to IV lytics versus surgery versus interventional therapy, a three arm study, what is the effect size, what difference do you expect between these therapies
and how would you power it? It's really an impossible question. So I do want to make the plug for a Massive PE Prospective Registry. I think something like the PERT consortium is very well-suited to run something like this
especially with this registry endeavors. Detailed baseline characteristics including all these patients, detailing the intervention and looking at both short and long-term outcomes. Moving on to submassive PE. As you've heard much more controversial,
a much more difficult question. ICOPER as you already heard from the previous talk, alerted the world to RV dysfunction which this right ventricular hypokinesis conferring a higher mortality at 90 days than no RV dysfunction. And that's where PEITHO came in as you heard.
This showed that the placebo group met the primary endpoint of hemodynamic decompensation more commonly than the Tenecteplase group. Of course, coming at the risk of higher rate of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. So I just want to reiterate what was just said
which is that systemic thrombolysis has a questionable risk benefit profile and most patients with submassive PE, as seen in the guideline documents as well. So that sort of opens a sort of door for catheter directed therapy.
Is this the next therapy to overcome some of the shortcomings of systemic thrombolysis? Well what we have in terms of CDT is these four trials, Ultima, Seattle II, Optalyse, and Perfect. Three of these trails were the ultrasound assisted catheter, the Ekos catheter.
And only one of them is randomized and that's the Ultima trial. I'm going to show you just one slide from each one of them. The Ultima trial is basically the only randomized trial and it showed that if you put catheters in these patients 24 hours later their RV to LV ratio will be lower
than if you just treat them with Heparin. Seattle II is a single arm study and there was an association with the reduction in the RV to LV ratio at 48 hours by CTA. PERFECT, I found this to be the most interesting figure from PERFECT which is that you're going to start it at
systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 51 and you're going to come down to about 37. Optalyse, a brand new study that was just published, four arms each arm has increasing dose associated with it and at 48 hours it didn't matter, all of these groups had a reduction in the RV to LV ratio.
And there was no control group here as well. What is interesting is that the more thrombolytics you used the more thrombus you cleared at 48 hours. What that means clinically is uncertain at this point. There is bleeding with CDT. 11% major bleeding rate in Seattle II,
no intracranial hemorrhages. Optalyse did have five major bleeds, most of the major bleeds happened in the highest dosed arms. So we know that thrombolytics cause bleeding that's still an issue. Now, clot extraction minus fibrinolytic,
this is an interesting question. We do have devices, you're going to hear about the FLARE trial later in this session. EXTRACT-PE is ongoing which we have enrolled about 75 patients into. What the data does and does not tell us
when it comes to CDT for submassive PE it probably reduces the RV to LV ratio at 24 hours, it's associated with a reduction at 48 hours, major bleeding is seen, we do not know what the short and long-term clinical outcomes are
following CDT for submassive PE. Whether it should be routinely used in submassive PE and in spite of the results of Optalyse this is a preliminary trial, we don't know the optimal dose and duration of thrombolytic drug. And even is spite of these early trials
on these non-lytic techniques, we don't know their true role yet. I'd liked to point out that greater than 1,600 patients have been randomized in systemic lytic trails yet only 59 have been randomized in a single, non-U.S. CDT trial.
So this means that you can randomize patients with submassive PE to one treatment or the other. And we want to get away from this PERT CDT roller coaster where you get enthusiasm, you do more cases, then you have a complication, then the number of cases drops.
You want that to be consistent because you're basing it on data. And that's where we're trying to come up with a way of answering that with this PE-TRACT trial. Which is a RCT of CDT versus no-CDT. We're looking at clinical endpoints
rather than radiographic ones greater than 400 patients, 30 to 50 sites across the country. So in summary I hope I've convinced you that we need a Prospective Registry for massive PE and a Randomized Controlled Trail for submassive PE. Thank you.
- Thank you Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. These are my disclosure. Open repair is the gold standard for patient with arch disease, and the gupta perioperative risk called the mortality and major morbidity remain not negligible.
Hybrid approach has only slightly improved these outcomes, while other off-the-shelf solution need to be tested on larger samples and over the long run. In this scenario, the vascular repair would double in the branch devices as emerging, as a tentative option with promising results,
despite addressing a more complex patient population. The aim of this multi-center retrospective registry is to assess early and midterm results after endovascular aortic arch repair. using the single model of doubling the branch stent graft in patient to fit for open surgery.
All patient are treated in Italy, with this technique. We're included in this registry for a total of 24 male patient, fit for open surgery. And meeting morphological criteria for double branch devices.
This was the indication for treatment and break-down by center, and these were the main end points. You can see here some operative details. Actually, this was theo only patient that did not require the LSA
re-revascularization before the endovascular procedure, because the left tibial artery rising directly from the aortic arch was reattached on the left common carotid artery. You can see here the large window in the superior aspect of the stent graft
accepting the two 13 millimeter in the branches, that are catheterized from right common carotid artery and left common carotid artery respectively. Other important feature of this kind of stent graft is the lock stent system, as you can see, with rounded barbs inside
the tunnels to prevent limb disconnection. All but one patient achieved technical success. And two of the three major strokes, and two retrograde dissection were the cause of the four early death.
No patient had any type one or three endoleak. One patient required transient dialysis and four early secondary procedure were needed for ascending aorta replacement and cervical bleeding. At the mean follow-up of 18 months,
one patient died from non-aortic cause and one patient had non-arch related major stroke. No new onset type one or three endoleak was detected, and those on standard vessel remained patent. No patient had the renal function iteration or secondary procedure,
while the majority of patients reported significant sac shrinkage. Excluding from the analysis the first six patients as part of a learning curve, in-hospital mortality, major stroke and retrograde dissection rate significant decrease to 11%, 11% and 5.67%.
Operative techniques significantly evolve during study period, as confirmed by the higher use of custom-made limb for super-aortic stenting and the higher use of common carotid arteries
as the access vessels for this extension. In addition, fluoroscopy time, and contrast median's significantly decrease during study period. We learned that stroke and retrograde dissection are the main causes of operative mortality.
Of course, we can reduce stroke rate by patient selection excluding from this technique all those patient with the Shaggy Aorta Supra or diseased aortic vessel, and also by the introduction and more recent experience of some technical points like sequentIal clamping of common carotid arteries
or the gas flushing with the CO2. We can also prevent the retrograde dissection, again with patient selection, according to the availability of a healthy sealing zone, but in our series, 6 of the 24 patients
presented an ascending aorta larger than 40 millimeter. And on of this required 48-millimeter proximal size custom-made stent graft. This resulted in two retrograde dissection, but on the other hand, the availability on this platform of a so large proximal-sized,
customized stent graft able to seal often so large ascending aorta may decrease the incidence of type I endoleak up to zero, and this may make sense in order to give a chance of repair to patients that we otherwise rejected for clinical or morphological reasons.
So in conclusion, endovascular arch repair with double branch devices is a feasible approach that enrich the armamentarium for vascular research. And there are many aspects that may limit or preclude the widespread use of this technology
with subsequent difficulty in drawing strong conclusion. Operative mortality and major complication rates suffer the effect of a learning curve, while mid-term results of survival are more than promising. I thank you for your attention.
- Thank you very much for the kind introduction and thank you very much to you Frank for being here once again to this outstanding symposium. So I have to report a rather rear technique, it's a revival of a technique, and to be honest it's a technique which originally comes from Cardiology. Cardiologist intervented the technique of Crush-Stenting.
Combining balloon expandable stents and we do this also in endovascular therapy for the reconstruction for example of the aortic bifurcation. Combining self expanding stents and balloon expandable stents. We do this sometimes in complications
or for complication management in emergency situations, combining balloon expandable stents, each other. And sometimes we use it if we have malplaced a stent in the distal SFA, we have crush with self expanding stent with another one and we've reported these kind of complications in one of our booklets.
But how to deal with occluded self expanding stents we implanted previous many months ago in the distal popliteal artery or in the SFA, usually we use standard debulking techniques. We use DCBs if we can pass the lesion intraluminally. But if this fails, then we might come into trouble
and then probably we have to go around the stent. That means we have to perform the so called pier technique and probably we have to trespassing pier wise the subintimal space to create a neo-lumen. This was almost reported 10 year ago with one case report but probably it was not that recognized.
There was another case report in Japan some years ago and it was called the |Double-Barrel Restenting technique. We nowadays use this called crush stenting technique with for example Hydrophilic Guide Wires with support catheters, we combine them. Very often we have to use the so called re-entry technique
and then once we have created the neo-lumen, we use balloon angioplasty. Then we implant a stent and we mainly use self expanding stent probably the interwoven nitinol stent. We feel this might be the most appropriate stent to overcome this situation.
But we need to use dual antiplatelet immediately in these cases and this is necessary for the use of self expanding stents, nitinol stents, for carbon stents for example, like the Viabahn as mentioned earlier for the interwoven nitinol stent. Once again dual antiplatelet therapy is of utmost importance
in order to avoid any re-occlusion of these things, you see we always perform different planes of the file angiogram, and at least one plane with the bended knee for 90 degree. And while doing that we can see how the stent works and if we need probably another stent proximally or distally
in order to support this technique for technical successful outcome. So my conclusions are rather clear, crush stenting is really a rear exception, it is a challenge, it can be a challenge. You need to dedicate to technique,
you need dedicated devices, you have to go for the pier technique, you have to be ready for re-entry devices and you need then an aggressive re-stenting of the neo-lumen and we call it crush stenting combined with intermediate dual antiplatelet therapy.
And probably the advantages are clear, you have a high technical success endovascular means. You have high intermediate term patency rates in these small patient populations. And the stents which are required for this are self expanding stents and I probably would go for
interwoven nitinol stent. Thank you very much for your attention high appreciate it. (audience applauds)
- [Doctor] Good morning, thank you Mr. Chairman. Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Dr. Veith for the very kind invitation and I really apologize for not being able to be able to be here today due to family reasons. These are our disclosures.
And obviously bust opened endovascular repair can fail over time and most commonly this difficult clinical scenario to deal with. Our group and also other institutions have already shown that FEVAR is a feasible technique to repair failed previous open or endovascular repair.
And here we see due to indications of secondary FEVAR. So after previous EVAR the main indication is actually to repair proximal endoleak into different several reasons as for example, into extension of disease over time, or migration, or even poor initial planning to start with. Now over open repair, the two main cases of FEVAR
are basically proximal extension of disease or anastomotic aneurysm for main. So FEVAR is indeed to feasible to repair failed EVAR and open repair. I want us to consider some additional technicalities used. For example, we have as we see here short working length
to work to use pre-existing stent raft or (mumbles) raft of things inside. One way to deal with this issue is to use only a short fenestrated tube and stay on approximately, but if one needs to go all the way down to have a complete relining and sealing, then we can design a bifurcated graft
with an inverted limb which enables us to work also in very short working lengths. And of course, maybe the best thing here is to try to be proactive, using a long body surgical graft during the primary operate. And the same goes for the primary lever procedure.
Using an endograft with a longer body provides a longer working length so second-graft FEVAR repair is needed in the future. Catheterization of the previous stent-graft can be also cumbersome, especially inoculated and nautilus, and also grafts with inner stent-graft.
Our suggestion, actually here, is to use always an inflated balloon, and by withdrawing this inflated balloon, we can easily confirm that we're behind the struts of the stent-graph as we see in the image. Now for oculated anatomy like this,
stretching the previous stent-graft can be also very challenging and how we do this through and through wire, and apply the wired plastic technique, we gain upper access and the femoral access can really helpful to stress aorta and finally enable position of the graft in the desired place.
Now catheterisations target vessels through previous stent-grafts is also not without problems. And as you see here, visualizations of marks is not quite easy due to the pre-existing grafts. So the rotation of this (mumbles) might be helpful in order to make more room for the catheter to follow
when sometimes we have to either catheterise again and again until we finally find a better entry that will enable advancement of the preexisting graphs. Here we see the summary of our experiencing Nuremberg. Up to June of 2018, we have performed a total of 92 secondary FEVAR procedures, 50 after open repair,
and 42 after (mumbles) endovascular. Technical success goes at 96 percent of the patients in the after open repair group, first of 93 percent in after EVAR group, including (mumbles) conversion of the (mumbles) required into seen here technical progress. 30 day mortality was two percent in the after open repair
group, while there was no mortality in the after EVAR group. Now major complications were four percent in the after open repair group, and seven percent in the after EVAR group with most of this complications in the after EVAR group been associated clearly with in comparative technical difficulties.
Finally, if we have a look at the preemptive primary advances, we see a cracked door to more advances over time in the FEVAR after EVAR group compared to FEVAR after open repair group, implying that probably FEVAR's open repair might be more stable background for a secondary FEVAR compared to previous EVAR.
So the concluders summarized their colleagues, ladies and gentleman, FEVAR for failed open and endovascular repair is probably the best option that is technically feasible but one has to consider that additional technical difficulties both in planning and execution. Results appear to be similar after open after
and endovascular repair, but FEVAR after EVAR is clearly more solid in (mumbles). Again, thank you very much, and I apologize for not being here today, thank you.
- Thank you very much both. It was a great pleasure to see you. I continue to be grateful for the guidance you have given me over the years. Thank you to the organizers for advising me to speak. These are my disclosures. So really there are two questions posed by this topic.
One is, is the patent popliteal vein necessary? I would assume from this is it necessary for patency and symptom relief to be achieved in treating patients with both acute DVT and potentially chronic. And has the evolution formic mechanical therapy
led to over stenting. Which means we have to ask the question what is an appropriate rate for stenting. I am not sure we know the answer to that. So being able to answer over stenting requires us to know how many patients
actually need the stent in the first place in acute DVT treatments. The problem is essentially this. Is that when we form lithic therapies and this is a classic case of treatment formed with formic and mechanical device
but without a follow up using lithic in the patient for whom lithic was not feasible. You end up opening up a vessel but you can see from the image on the left hand side that there is a degree still of luminol contrast deficit suggesting some cult left behind
in the external iliac vein. Well there is obviously a May-Thurner legion at the top. The question of over stenting is one of do we just stent the May-Thruner and extend it down into the external iliac vein to trap that thrombus
or would a period of time of lithic have resulted in this clot resolving and not needed a stent at the end of it. To get to the question of how many people should be stented. The only way we can really do this
is try and exstipulate from the literature to some extent. This is the short and long term outcome from the Kevin study. Where there is ultrasound follow up of patients underwent standard treatment only.
And a additional group in the patients had catheter-directed thrombolysis. We can see there that the patients did six months in catheter-directed thrombolysis group is around 60%. And the patency seen with the non treated group
is around 40%. If we kind of use these numbers as a guide we probably expect therefore that the stent rate would be somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. To account for treating the outflow structure that presumably patients see at six months.
But this is clearly not a very rebost method of being absolutely clear on who needs stents. Additional method is we don't really have and answer for who should be stented at the end of a procedure. So if you look at the massive variability
in the other studies. We see that attract stent rate is approximately 28% for the study. Which is obviously a operative discretion and has been criticized for that reason. But there is no comment on the Popliteal vein
or Popliteal vein patency. Cavent did an stent rate of 15% again with no real comment on whether the Popliteal vein was open and it wasn't a prerequisite for treatment in the study. This contrast with the Ansberg Aspirex Registry.
Which is a registry of a purely mechanical device to aspirex clot and the stent rate is 100%. Baekgaard Copenhagen used a catered-directed thrombolysis with a mandated open popliteal vein for purpose to be in the study. He has a stent rate of 60%.
My own personal experience of 160 odd patients is that were stenting around 80% of patients with outflow legion at the end of treatment. And were not really bothered by whether the popliteal vein is clear or not. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question
whether it makes a difference in the long run. So its very difficult even looking at the data we have because there is no standard definition of what a outflow stenosis is. There is no objective measure for an outflow stenosis. So stenting becomes and operative discretion decision.
But you would have to say that if your taking purely mechanical devices and the stent rates are going up to 100% that the inclination would be that there is potential for formic mechanical therapy to lead to overstenting and increase use
for stents for sure. In our experience then we had 81 patients who had CDT alone verse 70 patients who had AngioJet Thrombectomy. The basic characteristics of the group are pretty much identical.
With similar ages and no difference between whether the thrombus with left side or right side of body or so on. And these are the patency curves for the different groups with equivalent primary, primary assisted and secondary patency over two yeas.
We had no difference in stent rates with the median stenting of 80% in both groups with two stents used in average for each of those patients. However in our practice AngioJet is rarely used alone. So we had 70 patients for whom AngioJet was used. 24 of those where AngioJet was used up front
as the first line of treatment followed by some CDT. We have tended find that if we wanted full clock clearance. We have always had omit to some extent. And single stage therapy is quite difficult to achieve unless you spent a lot of time in it.
Patency in the popliteal vein is clearly affected by some extent. These are our follow up results if we don't have a patent popliteal vein at the end. It does drop off in stent patency. So the conclusions then I think.
Is that patent popliteal vein is necessary for long term results. But you can still treat patients that have acute popliteal vein for larsons that is not a contraindication. Pure mechanical therapies may well lead to higher stent rate.
But is this a bad thing or a good thing? We don't really know this at this stage as to what the long term outcomes will be. Thank you very much.
- Thank you. I have a little disclosure. I've got to give some, or rather, quickly point out the technique. First apply the stet graph as close as possible to the hypogastric artery.
As you can see here, the end of distal graft. Next step, come from the left brachial you can lay the catheter in the hypogastric artery. And then come from both
as you can see here, with this verge catheter and you put in position the culver stent, and from the femoral you just put in position the iliac limb orthostatic graft.
The next step, apply the stent graft, the iliac limb stent graft, keep the viabahn and deployed it in more the part here. What you have here is five centimeter overlap to avoid Type I endoleak.
The next step, use a latex balloon, track over to the iliac limb, and keep until the, as you can see here, the viabahn is still undeployed. In the end of the procedure,
at least one and a half centimeters on both the iliac lumen to avoid occlusion to viabahn. So we're going to talk about our ten years since I first did my first description of this technique. We do have the inclusion criteria
that's very important to see that I can't use the Sandwich Technique with iliac lumen unless they are bigger than eight millimeters. That's one advantage of this technique. I can't use also in the very small length
of common iliac artery and external iliac artery and I need at least four millimeters of the hypogastric artery. The majority patients are 73 age years old. Majority males. Hypertension, a lot of comorbidity of oldest patients.
But the more important, here you can see, when you compare the groups with the high iliac artery and aneurismal diameter and treat with the Sandwich Technique, you can see here actually it's statistically significant
that I can treat patient with a very small real lumen regarding they has in total diameter bigger size but I can treat with very small lumen. That's one of the advantages of this technique. You can see the right side and also in the left side. So all situations, I can treat very small lumen
of the aneurysm. The next step so you can show here is about we performed this on 151 patients. Forty of these patients was bilateral. That's my approach of that. And you can see, the procedure time,
the fluoroscope time is higher in the group that I performed bilaterally. And the contrast volume tends to be more in the bilateral group. But ICU stay, length of stay, and follow up is no different between these two groups.
The technical success are 96.7%. Early mortality only in three patients, one patient. Late mortality in 8.51 patients. Only one was related with AMI. Reintervention rate is 5, almost 5.7 percent. Buttock claudication rate is very, very rare.
You cannot find this when you do Sandwich Technique bilaterally. And about the endoleaks, I have almost 18.5% of endoleaks. The majority of them was Type II endoleaks. I have some Type late endoleaks
also the majority of them was Type II endoleaks. And about the other complications I will just remark that I do not have any neurological complications because I came from the left brachial. And as well I do not have colon ischemia
and spinal cord ischemia rate. And all about the evolution of the aneurysm sac. You'll see the majority, almost two-thirds have degrees of the aneurysm sac diameter. And some of these patients
we get some degrees but basically still have some Type II endoleak. That's another very interesting point of view. So you can see here, pre and post, decrease of the aneurysm sac.
You see the common iliac artery pre and post decreasing and the hypogastric also decreasing. So in conclusion, the Sandwich Technique facilitates safe and effective aneurysm exclusion
and target vessel revascularization in adverse anatomical scenarios with sustained durability in midterm follow-up. Thank you very much for attention.
- Thanks Dr. Weaver. Thank you Dr. Reed for the invitation, once again, to this great meeting. These are my disclosures. So, open surgical repair of descending aortic arch disease still carries some significant morbidity and mortality.
And obviously TEVAR as we have mentioned in many of the presentations has become the treatment of choice for appropriate thoracic lesions, but still has some significant limitations of seal in the aortic arch and more techniques are being developed to address that.
Right now, we also need to cover the left subclavian artery and encroach or cover the left common carotid artery for optimal seal, if that's the area that we're trying to address. So zone 2, which is the one that's,
it is most commonly used as seal for the aortic arch requires accurate device deployment to maximize the seal and really avoid ultimately, coverage of the left common carotid artery and have to address it as an emergency. Seal, in many of these cases is not maximized
due to the concern of occlusion of the left common carotid artery and many of the devices are deployed without obtaining maximum seal in that particular area. Failure of accurate deployment often leads to a type IA endoleak or inadvertent coverage
of the left common carotid artery which can become a significant problem. The most common hybrid procedures in this group of patients include the use of TEVAR, a carotid-subclavian reconstruction and left common carotid artery stenting,
which is hopefully mostly planned, but many of the times, especially when you're starting, it may be completely unplanned. The left common carotid chimney has been increasingly used to obtain a better seal
in this particular group of patients with challenging arches, but there's still significant concerns, including patients having super-vascular complications, stroke, Type A retrograde dissections and a persistent Type IA endoleak
which can be very challenging to be able to correct. There's limited data to discuss this specific topic, but some of the recent publications included a series of 11 to 13 years of treatment with a variety of chimneys.
And these publications suggest that the left common carotid chimneys are the most commonly used chimneys in the aortic arch, being used 76% to 89% of the time in these series. We can also look at these and the technical success
is very good. Mortality's very low. The stroke rate is quite variable depending on the series and chimney patency's very good. But we still have a relatively high persistent
Type IA endoleak on these procedures. So what can we do to try to improve the results that we have? And some of these techniques are clearly applicable for elective or emergency procedures. In the elective setting,
an open left carotid access and subclavian access can be obtained via a supraclavicular approach. And then a subclavian transposition or a carotid-subclavian bypass can be performed in preparation for the endovascular repair. Following that reconstruction,
retrograde access to left common carotid artery can be very helpful with a 7 French sheath and this can be used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes at the same time. The 7 French sheath can easily accommodate most of the available covered and uncovered
balloon expandable stents if the situation arises that it's necessary. Alignment of the TEVAR is critical with maximum seal and accurate placement of the TEVAR at this location is paramount to be able to have a good result.
At that point, the left common carotid artery chimney can be deployed under control of the left common carotid artery. To avoid any embolization, the carotid can be flushed, primary repaired, and the subclavian can be addressed
if there is concern of a persistent retrograde leak with embolization with a plug or other devices. The order can be changed for the procedure to be able to be done emergently as it is in this 46 year old policeman with hypertension and a ruptured thoracic aneurism.
The patient had the left common carotid access first, the device deployed appropriately, and the carotid-subclavian bypass performed in a more elective fashion after the rupture had been addressed. So, in conclusion, carotid chimney's and TEVAR
combination is a frequently used to obtain additional seal on the aortic arch, with pretty good results. Early retrograde left common carotid access allows safe TEVAR deployment with maximum seal,
and the procedure can be safely performed with low morbidity and mortality if we select the patients appropriately. Thank you very much.
- The only disclosure is the device I'm about to talk to you about this morning, is investigation in the United States. What we can say about Arch Branch Technology is it is not novel or particularly new. Hundreds of these procedures have been performed worldwide, most of the experiences have been dominated by a cook device
and the Terumo-Aortic formerly known as Bolton Medical devices. There is mattering of other experience through Medtronic and Gore devices. As of July of 2018 over 340 device implants have been performed,
and this series has been dominated by the dual branch device but actually three branch constructions have been performed in 25 cases. For the Terumo-Aortic Arch Branch device the experience is slightly less but still significant over 160 device implants have been performed as of November of this year.
A small number of single branch and large majority of 150 cases of the double branch repairs and only two cases of the three branch repairs both of them, I will discuss today and I performed. The Aortic 3-branch Arch Devices is based on the relay MBS platform with two antegrade branches and
a third retrograde branch which is not illustrated here, pointing downwards towards descending thoracic Aorta. The first case is a 59 year old intensivist who presented to me in 2009 with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection. This was being medically managed until 2014 when he sustained a second dissection at this time.
An acute ruptured type A dissection and sustaining emergent repair with an ascending graft. Serial imaging shortly thereafter demonstrated a very rapid growth of the Distal arch to 5.7 cm. This is side by side comparison of the pre type A dissection and the post type A repair dissection.
What you can see is the enlargement of the distal arch and especially the complex septal anatomy that has transformed as initial type B dissection after the type A repair. So, under FDA Compassion Use provision, as well as other other regulatory conditions
that had to be met. A Terumo or formerly Bolton, Aortic 3-branch Arch Branch device was constructed and in December 2014 this was performed. As you can see in this illustration, the two antegrade branches and a third branch
pointing this way for the for the left subclavian artery. And this is the images, the pre-deployment, post-deployment, and the three branches being inserted. At the one month follow up you can see the three arch branches widely patent and complete thrombosis of the
proximal dissection. Approximately a year later he presented with some symptoms of mild claudication and significant left and right arm gradient. What we noted on the CT Angiogram was there was a kink in the participially
supported segment of the mid portion of this 3-branch graft. There was also progressive enlargement of the distal thoracoabdominal segment. Our plan was to perform the, to repair the proximal segment with a custom made cuff as well as repair the thoracoabdominal segment
with this cook CMD thoracoabdominal device. As a 4 year follow up he's working full time. He's arm pressures are symmetric. Serum creatinine is normal. Complete false lumen thrombosis. All arch branches patent.
The second case I'll go over really quickly. 68 year old man, again with acute type A dissection. 6.1 cm aortic arch. Initial plan was a left carotid-subclavian bypass with a TEVAR using a chimney technique. We changed that plan to employ a 3-branch branch repair.
Can you advance this? And you can see this photo. In this particular case because the pre-operative left carotid-subclavian bypass and the extension of the dissection in to the innominate artery we elected to...
utilize the two antegrade branches for the bi-lateral carotid branches and actually utilize the downgoing branch through the- for the right subclavian artery for later access to the thoracoabdominal aorta. On post op day one once again he presented with
an affective co arctation secondary to a kink within the previous surgical graft, sustaining a secondary intervention and a placement of a balloon expandable stent. Current status. On Unfortunately the result is not as fortunate
as the first case. In 15 months he presented with recurrent fevers, multi-focal CVAs from septic emboli. Essentially bacteria endocarditis and he was deemed inoperable and he died. So in conclusion.
Repair of complex arch pathologies is feasible with the 3-branch Relay arch branch device. Experience obviously is very limited. Proper patient selection important. And the third antegrade branch is useful for later thoracoabdominal access.
- Thank you, Tim, and thank you, Frank, for giving me the opportunity to address this specific problem of the gutter endoleaks, which has been described up to 30% after ChEVAR and parallel grafting. But I have to say that in the most papers, not only gutter endoleaks were included,
but also new onset of type Ia endoleak. One paper coming from Stanford addressed specifically the question, how we should deal with the gutter-related type Ia endoleak, and they conclude that in the vast majority of the cases, these gutter endoleaks disappear
and the situation is benign. And based on my own experience, I can confirm this. This is one of the first cases treated with parallel grafts for symptomatic thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And I was a bit concerned as I saw this endoleak at the end of the angiography,
but the lady didn't have any pains and also no option for open or for other type of repair, so we waited. We waited and we saw that the endoleak disappeared after one month. And we saw also shrinkage of the aneurysm after one year.
So now, the next question was how to prevent this. And from the PERICLES registry, but also from the PROTAGORAS, we learned how to deal with this and how to prevent. And it's extremely important to oversize enough the aortic stent graft,
more than treating with the EVAR, normal EVAR. We should reach a sealing zone of at least 15, 20 millimeters. And we should avoid also to use more than two chimney grafts in such patients. The greater the number of the chimney used,
the higher is the risk of type Ia endoleak. And last but not least, we should use the right stent graft. And you see here the CT scan after using a flexible nitinol skeleton endograft on the left, and the gutters if you use a very stiff,
stainless steel skeleton in such situations. The last question was how to treat these patients. And based on the PERICLES, again, we should distinguish three different patterns. One is due to an excessive oversizing of the graft with infolding.
I have only one case, one professor of pathology, treated six years ago now without any endoleak due to this problem. The most are due to an undersized aortic endograft. And in the pattern C, we have an insufficient sealing zone and migration of the graft.
Now, we should consider the pattern B. And with an undersized aortic endograft and if the gutter is small, one possible solution would be to treat this patient with coiling, using coils or Onyx to occlude this gutter endoleaks,
like in this patient. And for the pattern C, if the sealing zone is insufficient, well, we should extend the sealing zone using the chimney parallel technique, as you can see in this case. So in conclusion, ladies and gentle,
gutters are usually benign and more than 95% disappeared in the follow-up. But in case of persistence, we should evaluate the CT scan exactly. And in case of oversizing and not enough oversizing and not enough length,
we should treat this patient accordingly. Thank you very much for your attention.
- 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 (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- Thank you Dr. Melissano for the kind interaction. TEVAR is the first option, or first line therapy for many pathologies of the thoracic aorta. But, it is not free from complications and two possible complications of the arch are the droop effect and the bird-beak. I was very interested as Gore came up with the new
Active Control System of the graft. The main features of this graft, of this deployment system are that the deployment is staged and controlled in putting in the graft at the intermediate diameter and then to the full diameter. The second important feature is that we can
optionally modify the angulation of the graft once the graft is in place. Was very, very interesting. This short video shows how it works. You see the graft at the intermediate diameter, we can modify the angulation also during this stage
but it's not really used, and then the expansion of the graft at the full diameter and the modification of the angulation, if we wished. This was one of the first cases done at our institution. A patient with an aneurysm after Type B dissection. You see the graft in place and you see the graft after
partial deployment and full deployment. Perhaps you can appreciate, also, a gap between the graft and the lesser curvature of the arch, which could be corrected with the angulation. As you can see here, at the completion angiography we have an ideal positioning of the graft inside the arch.
Our experience consisted only on 43 cases done during the last months. Mostly thoracic aneurysm, torn abdominal aneurysm, and patients with Type B aortic dissection. The results were impressive. No mortality, technical success, 100%,
but we had four cases with problems at the access probably due to the large bore delivery system as you can see here. No conversion, so far and no neurological injury in this patient group. We have some patients who came up for the six months follow-up and you see here we detected one Type 1b endoleak,
corrected immediately with a new graft. Type II endoleak which should be observed. This was our experience, but Gore has organized all the registry, the Surpass Registry, which is a prospective, single-arm, post market registry including 125 patients and all these patients
have been already included in these 20 centers in seven different countries in Europe. This was the pathology included, very thorough and generous, and also the landing zone was very different, including zone two down to zone five. The mean device used per patient were 1.3.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the Active Control System of the well known CTAG is a really unique system to achieve an ideal positioning of the graft. We don't need to reduce the blood pressure aggressively during the deployment because of the intermediate diameter
reached and the graft angulation can be adjusted in the arch. But, it's not reversible. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you Professor Veith. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present on behalf of my chief the results of the IRONGUARD 2 study. A study on the use of the C-Guard mesh covered stent in carotid artery stenting. The IRONGUARD 1 study performed in Italy,
enrolled 200 patients to the technical success of 100%. No major cardiovascular event. Those good results were maintained at one year followup, because we had no major neurologic adverse event, no stent thrombosis, and no external carotid occlusion. This is why we decided to continue to collect data
on this experience on the use of C-Guard stent in a new registry called the IRONGUARD 2. And up to August 2018, we recruited 342 patients in 15 Italian centers. Demographic of patients were a common demographic of at-risk carotid patients.
And 50 out of 342 patients were symptomatic, with 36 carotid with TIA and 14 with minor stroke. Stenosis percentage mean was 84%, and the high-risk carotid plaque composition was observed in 28% of patients, and respectively, the majority of patients presented
this homogenous composition. All aortic arch morphologies were enrolled into the study, as you can see here. And one third of enrolled patients presented significant supra-aortic vessel tortuosity. So this was no commerce registry.
Almost in all cases a transfemoral approach was chosen, while also brachial and transcervical approach were reported. And the Embolic Protection Device was used in 99.7% of patients, with a proximal occlusion device in 50 patients.
Pre-dilatation was used in 89 patients, and looking at results at 24 hours we reported five TIAs and one minor stroke, with a combined incidence rate of 1.75%. We had no myocardial infection, and no death. But we had two external carotid occlusion.
At one month, we had data available on 255 patients, with two additional neurological events, one more TIA and one more minor stroke, but we had no stent thrombosis. At one month, the cumulative results rate were a minor stroke rate of 0.58%,
and the TIA rate of 1.72%, with a cumulative neurological event rate of 2.33%. At one year, results were available on 57 patients, with one new major event, it was a myocardial infarction. And unfortunately, we had two deaths, one from suicide. To conclude, this is an ongoing trial with ongoing analysis,
and so we are still recruiting patients. I want to thank on behalf of my chief all the collaborators of this registry. I want to invite you to join us next May in Rome, thank you.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- Thank you for asking me to speak. Thank you Dr Veith. I have no disclosures. I'm going to start with a quick case again of a 70 year old female presented with right lower extremity rest pain and non-healing wound at the right first toe
and left lower extremity claudication. She had non-palpable femoral and distal pulses, her ABIs were calcified but she had decreased wave forms. Prior anterior gram showed the following extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease due to the small size we went ahead and did a CT scan and confirmed.
She had a very small aorta measuring 14 millimeters in outer diameter and circumferential calcium of her aorta as well as proximal common iliac arteries. Due to this we treated her with a right common femoral artery cutdown and an antegrade approach to her SFA occlusion with a stent.
We then converted the sheath to a retrograde approach, place a percutaneous left common femoral artery access and then placed an Endologix AFX device with a 23 millimeter main body at the aortic bifurcation. We then ballooned both the aorta and iliac arteries and then placed bilateral balloon expandable
kissing iliac stents to stent the outflow. Here is our pre, intra, and post operative films. She did well. Her rest pain resolved, her first toe amputation healed, we followed her for about 10 months. She also has an AV access and had a left arterial steel
on a left upper extremity so last week I was able to undergo repeat arteriogram and this is at 10 months out. We can see that he stent remains open with good flow and no evidence of in stent stenosis. There's very little literature about using endografts for occlusive disease.
Van Haren looked at 10 patients with TASC-D lesions that were felt to be high risk for aorta bifem using the Endologix AFX device. And noted 100% technical success rate. Eight patients did require additional stent placements. There was 100% resolution of the symptoms
with improved ABIs bilaterally. At 40 months follow up there's a primary patency rate of 80% and secondary of 100% with one acute limb occlusion. Zander et all, using the Excluder prothesis, looked at 14 high risk patients for aorta bifem with TASC-C and D lesions of the aorta.
Similarly they noted 100% technical success. Nine patients required additional stenting, all patients had resolution of their symptoms and improvement of their ABIs. At 62 months follow up they noted a primary patency rate of 85% and secondary of 100
with two acute limb occlusions. The indications for this procedure in general are symptomatic patient with a TASC C or D lesion that's felt to either be a high operative risk for aorta bifem or have a significantly calcified aorta where clamping would be difficult as we saw in our patient.
These patients are usually being considered for axillary bifemoral bypass. Some technical tips. Access can be done percutaneously through a cutdown. I do recommend a cutdown if there's femoral disease so you can preform a femoral endarterectomy and
profundaplasty at the same time. Brachial access is also an alternative option. Due to the small size and disease vessels, graft placement may be difficult and may require predilation with either the endograft sheath dilator or high-pressure balloon.
In calcified vessels you may need to place covered stents in order to pass the graft to avoid rupture. Due to the poor radial force of endografts, the graft must be ballooned after placement with either an aortic occlusion balloon but usually high-pressure balloons are needed.
It usually also needs to be reinforced the outflow with either self-expanding or balloon expandable stents to prevent limb occlusion. Some precautions. If the vessels are calcified and tortuous again there may be difficult graft delivery.
In patients with occluded vessels standard techniques for crossing can be used, however will require pre-dilation before endograft positioning. If you have a sub intimal cannulation this does put the vessel at risk for rupture during
balloon dilation. Small aortic diameters may occlude limbs particularly using modular devices. And most importantly, the outflow must be optimized using stents distally if needed in the iliac arteries, but even more importantly, assuring that you've
treated the femoral artery and outflow to the profunda. Despite these good results, endograft use for occlusive disease is off label use and therefor not reimbursed. In comparison to open stents, endograft use is expensive and may not be cost effective. There's no current studies looking
into the cost/benefit ratio. Thank you.
- Thank you. 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, 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.
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. 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)
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- Yeah, thank you very much. We all know that DCBs are kind of a workhorse right now for SFA-PA disease but when it comes, this has been proven randomized controlled studies, but when it comes to real world patients this might not have been included in the randomized conduit study and therefore
these registries are very available. And I present on this BIOLUX P-III study [Unintelligible] the standard versus the non-standard sub-group. This is just a quick overlook about the Passeo-18 Lux DCB it's an O-18 platform, has three micrograms
[Unintelligible] Paclitaxel on the balloon The excipient is a BTHC and this is an hydrophobic excipient and the sizes available are from two to seven millimeter in diameter and four 80 and 100 millimeter in length. This is the overlooks about the Passeo-18 Lux
they are out there, we have from phase one to phase three studies, randomized controlled and global registries. 1,600 patients including in this clinical program. With regard to the full cohort at 12 month we have now 878 patients available, you see with regard to the clinical characteristics
heavy smokers... a high percentage of smokers, high percentage of diabetes, more than 40% of CLI, 76% calcified lesions, the lesion length was around 9 centimeter and one-third of the patients had TASC C or D lesions. This is a higher payload stenting rate
this is not surprising with this complex cohort about 20% and with that the primary patency of the full cohort at 12 months is 84.3% and the freedom from clinical driven TLR is 93.5%. So this is the overlook of the full cohort at 12 months. With regard to the different subgroups you see
you have a consistent freedom from clinical driven TLR primary patency and freedom from major target limb amputation throughout all the subgroups. And I just now want to highlight the bail-out stented versus the DCB only group because this follows the concept of the so-called leave, at least leave less behind
as possible, this so-called spot-stenting concept. Out of this 878 patients we had 715 treated with a DCB only and in the bail-out stent group we had 163 patients. The patients in the bail-out stented group had a longer lesion length... 11 compared to 8 centimeters
in the DCB only group. With regard to all the others correctors there was no difference besides TASC C and D lesions there had been a higher percentage of TASC C and D lesions in the bail-out stented group than in the DCB only group.
We did the same vessel prep for both arms and with that we had the freedom from clinical driven TLR in the bail-out stented group of 92.8 compared to 92.2% in DCB only group. Primary patency was a little bit lower but freedom from a major adverse event
at 12 months was the same. When we bring this into context to other randomized, other real-world data out there freedom from clinical driven TLR in comparison to the In.Pact global stented group is the same as well as in the Lutonix global stented group.
With regard to freedom from major adverse event we can only refer to the In.Pact global stented group which is the same. So just let me conclude the Passeo-18 Biolux P-III study continues to show consistent, clinical performance of the Passeo-18 Lux Drug Coated Balloon
throughout all subgroups. There is no difference in clinical performance between DCB only versus payload stented even for the bail-out stented group had more complex lesions and the results of the Biolux P-III payload stenting subgroups are in line with the results
of current Global registries stented subgroups. Thank you very much.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- Thank you for the opportunity to present this arch device. This is a two module arch device. The main model comes from the innominated to the descending thoracic aorta and has a large fenestration for the ascending model that is fixed with hooks and three centimeters overlapping with the main one.
The beginning fenestration for the left carotid artery was projected but was abandoned for technical issue. The delivery system is precurved, preshaped and this allows an easy positioning of the graft that runs on a through-and-through wire from the
brachial to the femoral axis and you see here how the graft, the main model is deployed with the blood that supported the supraortic vessels. The ascending model is deployed after under rapid pacing.
And this is the compilation angiogram. This is a case from our experience is 6.6 centimeters arch and descending aneurysm. This is the planning we had with the Gore Tag. at the bottom of the implantation and these are the measures.
The plan was a two-stage procedure. First the hemiarch the branching, and then the endovascular procedure. Here the main measure for the graph, the BCT origin, 21 millimeters, the BCT bifurcation, 20 millimeters,
length, 30 millimeters, and the distal landing zone was 35 millimeters. And these are the measures that we choose, because this is supposed to be an off-the-shelf device. Then the measure for the ascending, distal ascending, 35 millimeters,
proximal ascending, 36, length of the outer curve of 9 centimeters, on the inner curve of 5 centimeters, and the ascending model is precurved and we choose a length between the two I cited before. This is the implantation of the graft you see,
the graft in the BCT. Here, the angiography to visualize the bifurcation of the BCT, and the release of the first part of the graft in the BCT. Then the angiography to check the position. And the release of the graft by pushing the graft
to well open the fenestration for the ascending and the ascending model that is released under cardiac pacing. After the orientation of the beat marker. And finally, a kissing angioplasty and this is the completion and geography.
Generally we perform a percutaneous access at auxiliary level and we close it with a progolide checking the closure with sheet that comes from the groin to verify the good occlusion of the auxiliary artery. And this is the completion, the CT post-operative.
Okay. Seven arch aneurysm patients. These are the co-morbidities. We had only one minor stroke in the only patient we treated with the fenestration for the left carotid and symptomology regressed completely.
In the global study, we had 46 implantations, 37 single branch device in the BCT, 18 in the first in men, 19 compassionate. These are the co-morbidities and indications for treatment. All the procedures were successful.
All the patients survived the procedure. 10 patients had a periscope performed to perfuse the left auxiliary artery after a carotid to subclavian bypass instead of a hemiarch, the branching. The mean follow up for 25 patients is now 12 months.
Good technical success and patency. We had two cases of aneurysmal growth and nine re-interventions, mainly for type II and the leak for the LSA and from gutters. The capilomiar shows a survival of 88% at three years.
There were three non-disabling stroke and one major stroke during follow up, and three patients died for unrelated reasons. The re-intervention were mainly due to endo leak, so the first experience was quite good in our experience and thanks a lot.
- Thank you chairman, ladies, and gentlemen. These are my disclosures. The objective was to asses the prognostic value of a high or immeasurable Ankle-Brachial Index at baseline for major amputation and Amputation Free Survival in patients with CLTI. And, we did this within two randomized control trials,
the PADI trial and the JUVENTAS trial, which I will spend a bit on later. We did a regression analysis of both trials, and had data pooled at a patient level, looking at risk factors such as Diabetes, Cardiovascular Comorbidities,
and Ankle-Brachial-Index. Patients were divided in either low, intermediate, or a high, or immeasurable, ABI. So, in short, the PADI trial was a Multicenter 2-arm randomized clinical trial with controls looking at Rutherford Category over three on
Infrapopliteal Lesions comparing Drug Eluting Stents verses PTA and without bail out stenting, endpoints, patency, major amputation, and mortality. This study was published in 2017. The JUVENTAS Trial, was a stem cells trial with double-blinded placebo controlled giving a
infusion of bone marrow stem cells versus placebo. And again, the endpoints were major amputation and mortality, published in 2015. Overall from these two trials, we were able to collect 260 patients, and this is the baseline table.
You can see that the majority of patients fitted in the Low ABI group, 146 patients. And, 33 patients fitted in the High ABI group. Overall, the prevalence of Diabetes, History of Stroke Coronary Disease, and Impaired Renal Function, was significantly higher in the High ABI group.
Follow-up of these patients with median of 229 weeks, and in this period we observed 59 amputations, and 103 deaths. The majority of this major amputations was performed, actually, in the first year after inclusion within these trials,
which you can see here in this Kaplan Meier Curve, showing that the amputation rate was about double in the High ABI group, as compared to the Low or Intermediate group. Looking at ABI for its Amputation Free Survival, again showed significantly higher rate of amputations
in the High ABI group, as compared to Low or Intermediate. And, at five years, you can see that almost all patients in the High ABI group either had amputation or had died. This was about 50% in the Low or Intermediate group. Looking at the Multivariate Regression Analysis, we observe the Rutherford Category and ABI
in the High or Immeasurable group, related to major amputation, and is same for amputation or death, now adding also age. So, the interrelation between ABI and major events, is J shaped, and actually, there's a higher risk for patients with a high or immeasurable ABI for major events,
as compared to patients with a low ABI. So why is this so? Well, it's not fully elucidated, but it's believed to be related to Medial Arterial Calcifications, being an independent age associated pathway different from Atherosclerosis.
And, the stiffness due to this calcification, may prevent compensatory positive remodeling related to Atherosclerosis when both diseases coincide. And, actually it's coexistence of Medial Calcification Atherosclerosis is not that uncommon, even up to 80%. So, what is the clinical relevance of all this?
Well, we did look at the PREVENT-III prediction model for Amputation Free Survival. You can see on the slide, the included factors in the original PREVENT-III model. We added the I, or Immeasurable ABI to this model, and has lead to an increase in C-statistics from 46% to 72%
Net Reclassification Improvement of 0.38. So, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, a high or immeasurable ABI in patients with CLTI and Infrapopliteal Arterial Obstructive Disease is an independent risk factor of major amputation and of poor Amputation Free Survival.
Incorporating this factor in a PREVENT-III prediction model improves its performance. Thank you very much, also to the research groups.
- Thank you. Thank you again for the invitation, and also my talk concerns the use of new Terumo Aortic stent graft for the arch. And it's the experience of three different countries in Europe. There's no disclosure for this topic.
Just to remind what we have seen, that there is some complication after surgery, with mortality and the stroke rate relatively high. So we try to find some solution. We have seen that we have different options, it could be debranching, but also
we know that there are some complications with this technique, with the type A aortic dissection by retrograde way. And also there's a way popular now, frozen elephant trunk. And you can see on the slide the principle.
But all the patients are not fit for this type of surgery. So different techniques have been developed for endovascular options. And we have seen before the principle of Terumo arch branch endograft.
One of the main advantages is a large window to put the branches in the different carotid and brachiocephalic trunk. And one of the benefit is small, so off-the-shelf technique, with one size for the branch and different size
for the different carotids. This is a more recent experience, it's concerning 15 patients. And you can see the right column that it is. All the patients was considered unfit for conventional surgery.
If we look about more into these for indication, we can see four cases was for zone one, seven cases for zone two, and also four cases for zone three. You can see that the diameter of the ascending aorta, the min is 38,
and for the innominate artery was 15, and then for left carotid was eight. This is one example of what we can obtain with this type of handling of the arch with a complete exclusion of the lesion, and we exclude the left sonography by plyf.
This is another, more complex lesion. It's actually a dissection and the placement of a stent graft in this area. So what are the outcomes of patients? We don't have mortality, one case of hospital mortality.
We don't have any, sorry, we have one stroke, and we can see the different deaths during the follow-up. If we look about the endoleaks, we have one case of type three endoleak started by endovascular technique,
and we have late endoleaks with type one endoleaks. In this situation, it could be very difficult to treat the patient. This is the example of what we can observe at six months with no endoleak and with complete exclusion of the lesion.
But we have seen at one year with some proximal type one endoleak. In this situation, it could be very difficult to exclude this lesion. We cannot propose this for this patient for conventional surgery, so we tried
to find some option. First of all, we tried to fix the other prosthesis to the aortic wall by adjusted technique with a screw, and we can see the fixation of the graft. And later, we go through the,
an arrangement inside the sac, and we put a lot of colors inside so we can see the final results with complete exclusion. So to conclude, I think that this technique is very useful and we can have good success with this option, and there's a very low
rate of disabling stroke and endoleaks. But, of course, we need more information, more data. 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.