- So Beyond Vascular procedures, I guess we've conquered all the vascular procedures, now we're going to conquer the world, so let me take a little bit of time to say that these are my conflicts, while doing that, I think it's important that we encourage people to access the hybrid rooms,
It's much more important that the tar-verse done in the Hybrid Room, rather than moving on to the CAT labs, so we have some idea basically of what's going on. That certainly compresses the Hybrid Room availability, but you can't argue for more resources
if the Hybrid Room is running half-empty for example, the only way you get it is by opening this up and so things like laser lead extractions or tar-verse are predominantly still done basically in our hybrid rooms, and we try to make access for them. I don't need to go through this,
you've now think that Doctor Shirttail made a convincing argument for 3D imaging and 3D acquisition. I think the fundamental next revolution in surgery, Every subspecialty is the availability of 3D imaging in the operating room.
We have lead the way in that in vascular surgery, but you think how this could revolutionize urology, general surgery, neurosurgery, and so I think it's very important that we battle for imaging control. Don't give your administration the idea that
you're going to settle for a C-arm, that's the beginning of the end if you do that, this okay to augment use C-arms to augment your practice, but if you're a finishing fellow, you make sure you go to a place that's going to give you access to full hybrid room,
otherwise, you are the subservient imagers compared to radiologists and cardiologists. We need that access to this high quality room. And the new buzzword you're going to hear about is Multi Modality Imaging Suites, this combination of imaging suites that are
being put together, top left deserves with MR, we think MR is the cardiovascular imaging modality of the future, there's a whole group at NIH working at MR Guided Interventions which we're interested in, and the bottom right is the CT-scan in a hybrid op
in a hybrid room, this is actually from MD Anderson. And I think this is actually the Trauma Room of the future, makes no sense to me to take a patient from an emergency room to a CT scanner to an and-jure suite to an operator it's the most dangerous thing we do
with a trauma patient and I think this is actually a position statement from the Trauma Society we're involved in, talk about how important it is to co-localize this imaging, and I think the trauma room of the future is going to be an and-jure suite
down with a CT scanner built into it, and you need to be flexible. Now, the Empire Strikes Back in terms of cloud-based fusion in that Siemans actually just released a portable C-arm that does cone-beam CT. C-arm's basically a rapidly improving,
and I think a lot of these things are going to be available to you at reduced cost. So let me move on and basically just show a couple of examples. What you learn are techniques, then what you do is look for applications to apply this, and so we've been doing
translumbar embolization using fusion and imaging guidance, and this is a case of one of my partners, he'd done an ascending repair, and the patient came back three weeks later and said he had sudden-onset chest pain and the CT-scan showed that there was a
sutured line dehiscence which is a little alarming. I tried to embolize that endovascular, could not get to that tiny little orifice, and so we decided to watch it, it got worse, and bigger, over the course of a week, so clearly we had to go ahead and basically and fix this,
and we opted to use this, using a new guidance system and going directly parasternal. You can do fusion of blood vessels or bones, you can do it off anything you can see on flu-roid, here we actually fused off the sternal wires and this allows you to see if there's
respiratory motion, you can measure in the workstation the depth really to the target was almost four and a half centimeters straight back from the second sternal wire and that allowed us really using this image guidance system when you set up what's called the bullseye view,
you look straight down the barrel of a needle, and then the laser turns on and the undersurface of the hybrid room shows you where to stick the needle. This is something that we'd refined from doing localization of lung nodules
and I'll show you that next. And so this is the system using the C-star, we use the breast, and the localization needle, and we can actually basically advance that straight into that cavity, and you can see once you get in it,
we confirmed it by injecting into it, you can see the pseudo-aneurism, you can see the immediate stain of hematoma and then we simply embolize that directly. This is probably safer than going endovascular because that little neck protects about
the embolization from actually taking place, and you can see what the complete snan-ja-gram actually looked like, we had a pig tail in the aura so we could co-linearly check what was going on and we used docto-gramming make sure we don't have embolization.
This patient now basically about three months follow-up and this is a nice way to completely dissolve by avoiding really doing this. Let me give you another example, this actually one came from our transplant surgeon he wanted to put in a vas,
he said this patient is really sick, so well, by definition they're usually pretty sick, they say we need to make a small incision and target this and so what we did was we scanned the vas, that's the hardware device you're looking at here. These have to be
oriented with the inlet nozzle looking directly into the orifice of the mitro wall, and so we scanned the heart with, what you see is what you get with these devices, they're not deformed, we take a cell phone and implant it in your chest,
still going to look like a cell phone. And so what we did, image fusion was then used with two completely different data sets, it mimicking the procedure, and we lined this up basically with a mitro valve, we then used that same imaging guidance system
I was showing you, made a little incision really doing onto the apex of the heart, and to the eur-aph for the return cannula, and this is basically what it looked like, and you can actually check the efficacy of this by scanning the patient post operatively
and see whether or not you executed on this basically the same way, and so this was all basically developed basing off Lung Nodule Localization Techniques with that we've kind of fairly extensively published, use with men can base one of our thoracic surgeons
so I'd encourage you to look at other opportunities by which you can help other specialties, 'cause I think this 3D imaging is going to transform what our capabilities actually are. Thank you very much indeed for your attention.
- Thank you, thanks for the opportunity to present. I have no disclosures. So, we all know that wounds are becoming more prevalent in our population, about 5% of the patient population has these non-healing wounds at a very significant economic cost, and it's a really high chance of lower extremity amputation
in these patients compared to other populations. The five-year survival following amputation from a foot ulcer is about 50%, which is actually a rate that's worse than most cancer, so this is a really significant problem. Now, even more significant than just a non-healing wound
is a wound that has both a venous and an arterial component to it. These patients are about at five to seven times the risk of getting an amputation, the end patients with either isolated venous disease or isolated PAD. It's important because the venous insufficiency component
brings about a lot more inflammation, and as we know, this is associated with either superficial or deep reflux, a history of DVT or incompetent perforators, but this adds an increasing complexity to these ulcers that refuse to heal.
So, it's estimated now about 15% of these ulcers are more of a mixed etiology, we define these as anyone who has some component of PAD, meaning an ABI of under point nine, and either superficial or deep reflux or a DVT on duplex ultrasound.
So we're going to talk for just a second about how do we treat these. Do we revascularize them first, do we do compression therapy? It has been shown in many, many studies, as with most things, that a multi-disciplinary approach
will improve the outcome of these patients, and the first step in any algorithm for these patients involves removing necrotic and infected tissue, dressings, if compression is feasible, based on the PAD level, you want to go ahead and do this secondary, if it's not, then you need to revascularize first,
and I'm going to show you our algorithm at Michigan that's based on summa the data. But remember that if the wounds fail to heal despite all of this, revascularization is a good option. So, based on the data, the algorithm that we typically use is if an ABI is less than point five
or a toe pressure is under 50, you want to revascularize first, I'll talk for a minute about the data of percutaneous versus open in these patients, but these are the patients you want to avoid compression in as a first line therapy.
If you have more moderate PAD, like in the point five to point eight range, you want to consider compression at the normal 40 millimeters of mercury, but you may need to modify it. It's actually been shown that that 40 millimeter of mercury
compression actually will increase flow to those wounds, so, contrary to what had previously been thought. So, revascularization, the data's pretty much equivocal right now, for these patients with these mixed ulcers, of whether you want to do endovascular or open. In diabetics, I think the data strongly favors
doing an open bypass if they have a good autogenous conduit and a good target, but you have to remember, in these patients, they have so much inflammation in the leg that wound healing from the surgical incisions is going to be significantly more difficult
than in a standard PAD patient, but the data has shown that about 60% of these ulcers heal at one year following revascularization. So, compression therapy, which is the mainstay either after revascularization in the severe PAD group or as a first line in the moderate group,
is really important 'cause it, again, increases blood flow to the wound. They've shown that that 40 millimeters of mercury compression is associated with a significant healing rate if you can do that, you additionally have to be careful, though,
about padding your bony areas, also, as we know, most patients don't actually keep their compression level at that 40, so there are sensors and other wearable technologies that are coming about that help patients with that, keeping in mind too, that the venous disease component
in these patients is really important, it's really important to treat the superficial venous reflux, EVLT is kind of the standard for that, treatment of perforators greater than five, all of that will help.
And I'm not going to go into any details of wound dressings, but there are plenty of new dressings that are available that can be used in conjunction with compression therapy. So, our final algorithm is we have a patient with these mixed arterial venous ulcers, we do woundcare debridement, determine the degree of PAD,
if it's severe, they go down the revascularization pathway, followed by compression, if it's moderate, then they get compression therapy first, possible treatment of venous disease, if it still doesn't heal at about 35 weeks, then you have to consider other things,
like biopsy for cancer, and then also consider revacularization. So, these ulcers are on a rise, they're a common problem, probably we need randomized control trials to figure out the optimal treatment strategies.
- Thank you, Dr. Ouriel, Dr. Lurie. Ladies and gentlemen. Brian, that was a very fair overview of the ATTRACT trial as it was published in the New England Journal, so thank you. And these are my disclosures. So Dr. DeRubertis did a very nice review of this paper
that was published in the New England Journal December 7th of last year. He went over very nicely that it was NIH sponsored, phase III, randomized, controlled, multicenter, 692 patients randomized, anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation plus catheter-based techniques.
Now one thing I want to call your attention to is the fact that patients with deep venous thrombosis, acute deep venous thrombosis, who were eligible for randomization, were stratified before they were randomized into two different groups, iliofemoral DVT or fem-pop DVT.
So in my opinion, these are not subgroups because the randomization of one group had no effect on the randomization of another, so I would argue that these are independent groups. That makes a big difference when you do statistical analyses.
The other important issue that I want to point out is that the outcomes were pre-determined to what we were going to analyze. We had to choose one as a primary endpoint and the others as secondary, but these were pre-determined end points that were up for analysis, not post hoc analyses.
And post-thrombotic syndrome was determined at the time, 12 years ago when we wrote the protocol, to be the primary end point. I would submit that we would not choose that as a primary end point if we wrote the protocol today. Moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome
certainly would be more appropriate. Leg pain, swelling, health-related quality of life, certainly important. This is the outcome, and unfortunately, it did not reach significance. There was no difference between the two groups
and there was an increased risk of bleeding, but this is the outcome that drove opinion about ATTRACT, but we don't really do catheter-directed thrombolysis for fem-pop DVT. Therefore, the results of the iliofemoral patients will be the most meaningful and that paper was written
and that paper has been accepted by circulation. It should be out shortly, but there were 391 iliofemoral DVT patients and the primary outcome was no different than the primary outcome in the overall trial. But are they?
If we had chosen the Venous Clinical Severity Score in place of the Villalta score for analysis of that primary end point, it would've been a positive study. So if we chose a different tool to analyze, our primary end point would've been positive for the iliofemoral DVT patients.
If we look at moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome, a significant difference. Control patients had a 56% increased risk of moderate to severe PTS versus the control patients. If we look at severe post-thrombotic syndrome, control patients had a 72% increased risk
of severe PTS versus control. If we look at the overall severity of the Villalta score in PTS, we can see that there is a significant difference favoring percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis. When we look at pain, the patient's pain was significantly reduced in the PCDT patients compared to control.
We look at edema, significant reduction in edema at day 10 and day 30 in patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis compared to control. Disease-specific quality of life significantly favored patients who had PCDT compared to control. So we look at moderate to severe, severe, pain,
quality of life. There was a price to pay. Major bleeding was increased, but the P-value was no different. I will not argue that patients are not at increased risk. They are at increased risk for bleeding,
but this is an historically low bleeding rate for catheter-directed thrombolysis and there were no intracranial bleeds. No difference in recurrent deep venous thrombosis. No difference in mortality at 24 months between the two groups.
So in conclusion, the primary end point, reduction of any PTS defined by a Villalta score of 5 or more, no difference, but an item that has not reached the level of discussion that we will need to consider is that 14% of our patients had a normal Villalta score coming into the study.
It's impossible to improve upon that, but there is a significant reduction in any PTS if you use the Venous Clinical Severity Score, reduction of moderate and severe post-thrombotic syndrome, reduction of pain and swelling, and improved disease-specific quality of life compared to controls.
And I think these are the meaningful end points that patients appreciate and these are the points of discussion that will be covered in the article in circulation that will be published very soon. Thank you for your attention.
- Good morning. I'd like to thank Dr. Veith and Symposium for my opportunity to speak. I have no disclosures. So the in Endovascular Surgery, there is decrease open surgical bypass. But, bypass is still required for many patients with PAD.
Autologous vein is preferred for increase patency lower infection rate. And, Traditional Open Vein Harvest does require lengthy incisions. In 1996 cardiac surgery reported Endoscopic Vein Harvest. So the early prospective randomized trial
in the cardiac literature, did report wound complications from Open Vein Harvest to be as high as 19-20%, and decreased down to 4% with Endoscopic Vein Harvest. Lopes et al, initially, reported increase risk of 12-18 month graft failure and increased three year mortality.
But, there were many small studies that show no effect on patency and decreased wound complications. So, in 2005, Endoscopic Vein Harvest was recommended as standard of care in cardiac surgical patients. So what about our field? The advantages of Open Vein Harvest,
we all know how to do it. There's no learning curve. It's performed under direct visualization. Side branches are ligated with suture and divided sharply. Long term patency of the bypass is established. Disadvantages of the Open Vein Harvest,
large wound or many skip wounds has an increased morbidity. PAD patients have an increased risk for wound complications compared to the cardiac patients as high as 22-44%. The poor healing can be due to ischemia, diabetes, renal failure, and other comorbid conditions.
These can include hematoma, dehiscense, infection, and increased length of stay. So the advantages of Endoscopic Vein Harvest, is that there's no long incisions, they can be performed via one or two small incisions. Limiting the size of an incision
decreases wound complications. It's the standard of care in cardiac surgery, and there's an overall lower morbidity. The disadvantages of is that there's a learning curve. Electro-cautery is used to divide the branches, you need longer vein compared to cardiac surgery.
There's concern about inferior primary patency, and there are variable wound complications reported. So recent PAD data, there, in 2014, a review of the Society of Vascular Surgery registry, of 5000 patients, showed that continuous Open Vein Harvest
was performed 49% of the time and a Endo Vein Harvest about 13% of the time. The primary patency was 70%, for Continuous versus just under 59% for Endoscopic, and that was significant. Endoscopic Vein Harvest was found to be an independent risk factor for a lower one year
primary patency, in the study. And, the length of stay due to wounds was not significantly different. So, systematic review of Endoscopic Vein Harvest data in the lower extremity bypass from '96 to 2013 did show that this technique may reduce
primary patency with no change in wound complications. Reasons for decreased primary patency, inexperienced operator, increased electrocautery injury to the vein. Increase in vein manipulation, you can't do the no touch technique,
like you could do with an Open Harvest. You need a longer conduit. So, I do believe there's a roll for this, in the vascular surgeon's armamentarium. I would recommend, how I use it in my practices is, I'm fairly inexperienced with Endoscopic Vein Harvest,
so I do work with the cardiac PA's. With increased percutaneous procedures, my practice has seen decreased Saphenous Vein Bypasses, so, I've less volume to master the technique. If the PA is not available, or the conduit is small, I recommend an Open Vein Harvest.
The PA can decrease the labor required during these cases. So, it's sometimes nice to have help with these long cases. Close surveillance follow up with Non-Invasive Arterial Imaging is mandatory every three months for the first year at least. Thank you.
- 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.
- 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.
- Here are my disclosures, none are relevant to today's talks. So what is the role of compressions stockings to prevent Postthrombotic Syndrome for patients with acute DVT? Well it's become rather complicated because as shown by recent studies,
it depends on what question is being asked. Question one is do compression stockings started at the time of DVT diagnosis prevent PTS, such as the Socks trial and other similar trials? Or question two, if you're already worn compression stockings for a period of time after DVT
and have not developed PTS, does stopping them increase the risk of developing PTS, such as the recent OCTAVIA and IDEAL trials? This is a meta-analysis that was done to address question one, namely the role of compression stockings started at the time of DVT diagnosis,
and this meta-analysis considered unblinded studies. The one blinded study, which was the Socks trial, and then attempted to combine that data, and you can see that if one looks at the unblinded studies there's suggestion of a 30% protective effect, or, excuse me, 40% protective effect.
The blinded study showed no effect of compression stockings. And combining all the studies together seemed to show about a 30% protective effect, however the confidence interval crossed one. There's very low confidence in this total estimate because of the substantial heterogeneity across studies.
And indeed, in their discussion, the authors point out the following: "We have very serious concerns about the unblinded studies because such designs may inflate treatment effects". And also, "differing results across studies suggest that the decision to use compression stockings
may be value and preference dependent for our patients". And we'll come back to that shortly. What about question two, if you've already worn compression stockings for a period of time after DVT, and you haven't developed PTS, does stopping them increase the risk of getting PTS?
There've been two new trials. One is the OCTAVIA study, of 518 proximal DVT patients. All wore compression stockings for one year after their DVT. If they were free of PTS at one year, they were randomized to continue for an additional year, or to stop.
And the results of this trial showed that stopping after one year was inferior to continuing for two years for the PTS outcome. On the other hand, we have the IDEAL study, of 865 proximal DVT patients. In this study, all patients wore compression stockings
for six months after proximal DVT, and if they were free of PTS at six months, they were randomized to continue for an additional 18 months, or to tailor continued use of stockings according to the Villalta score that was assessed every three months
at study follow-up visits. And the results of this trial showed that tailoring use after six months, which was the experimental arm, was actually non-inferior to continuing for 18 more months. So these results are interesting but somewhat conflicting. So how do I use compression stockings in 2018?
I don't routinely prescribe stockings to all of my proximal DVT patients. They can be difficult to apply, uncomfortable, expensive, and they need to be replaced every few months. And we all know that many patients won't wear them
in real life, especially if they have no symptoms whatsoever. And also, it's really not clear to me whether stockings prevent Postthrombotic Syndrome versus merely palliate symptoms of Postthrombotic Syndrome that has already developed.
And it may simply be as effective and more convenient and we may achieve better compliance if we ask our patients to start compression stockings at the time they develop symptoms of Postthrombotic Syndrome. I do however prescribe a trial of stockings
to any DVT patient, whether they have proximal or distal DVT who has residual symptoms after their DVT, and I'd continue them for as long as the patient derives symptomatic benefit or is able to tolerate them, and I certainly take patients' values and preferences into account
in making this decision. Moving on to the role of interventional treatment for patients with acute DVT. We have all heard and seen the results of the ATTRACT trial. Just very briefly, we know that the primary study outcome, any Postthrombotic Syndrome was not different
in the PCDT arm versus the No-PCDT arm. However, it did appear that PCDT reduced the risk of developing moderate or severe Postthrombotic Syndrome, and this was driven primarily by the subgroup with Iliofemoral DVT. In terms of short-term results, PCDT caused more
bleeding, major and any bleeding, and it caused statistically significant but clinically modest improvements in leg pain and leg swelling. Based on these results, what's the role of interventional treatment for patients with acute DVT? I would say that it's not indicated for routine use
in proximal DVT, it doesn't prevent Postthrombotic Syndrome, it does increase bleeding, and older patients above the age of 60 to 65 or more appear to be particularly poor candidates because of more bleeding and less efficacy. And further study in clinical use of these modalities
should be targeted. One would still consider PCDT in patients with severe symptoms, Iliofemoral DVT, and the other factors shown here on the slide. And finally, always remember that it's always an option to anticoagulate first for the initial
five to seven days if the limb is not acutely threatened. Thank you very much.
- Good morning. I'd like to thank everybody who's in attendance for the 7 A.M. session. So let's talk about a case. 63 year old male, standard risk factors for aneurismal disease. November 2008, he had a 52 mm aneurism,
underwent Gore Excluder, endovascular pair. Follow up over the next five, relatively unremarkable. Sac regression 47 mm no leak. June 2017, he was lost for follow up, but came back to see us. Duplex imaging CTA was done to show the sac had increased
from 47 to 62 in a type 2 endoleak was present. In August of that year, he underwent right common iliac cuff placement for what appeared to be a type 1b endoleak. September, CT scan showed the sac was stable at 66 and no leak was present. In March, six months after that, scan once again
showed the sac was there but a little bit larger, and a type two endoleak was once again present. He underwent intervention. This side access on the left embolization of the internal iliac, and a left iliac limb extension. Shortly thereafter,
contacted his PCP at three weeks of weakness, fatigue, some lethargy. September, he had some gluteal inguinal pain, chills, weakness, and fatigue. And then October, came back to see us. Similar symptoms, white count of 12, and a CT scan
was done and here where you can appreciate is, clearly there's air within the sac and a large anterior cell with fluid collections, blood cultures are negative at that time. He shortly thereafter went a 2 stage procedure, Extra-anatomic bypass, explant of the EVAR,
there purulent fluid within the sac, not surprising. Gram positive rods, and the culture came out Cutibacterium Acnes. So what is it we know about this case? Well, EVAR clearly is preferred treatment for aneurism repair, indications for use h
however, mid-term reports still show a significant need for secondary interventions for leaks, migrations, and rupture. Giles looked at a Medicare beneficiaries and clearly noted, or at least evaluated the effect of re-interventions
and readmissions after EVAR and open and noted that survival was negatively impacted by readmissions and re-interventions, and I think this was one of those situations that we're dealing with today. EVAR infections and secondary interventions.
Fortunately infections relatively infrequent. Isolated case reports have been pooled into multi-institutional cohorts. We know about a third of these infections are related to aortoenteric fistula, Bacteremia and direct seeding are more often not the underlying source.
And what we can roughly appreciate is that at somewhere between 14 and 38% of these may be related to secondary catheter based interventions. There's some data out there, Matt Smeed's published 2016, 180 EVARs, multi-center study, the timing of the infection presumably or symptomatic onset
was 22 months and 14% or greater had secondary endointerventions with a relatively high mortality. Similarly, the study coming out of Italy, 26 cases, meantime of diagnosis of the infection is 20 months, and that 34.6% of these cases underwent secondary endovascular intervention.
Once again, a relatively high mortality at 38.4%. Study out of France, 11 institutions, 33 infective endographs, time of onset of symptoms 414 days, 30% of these individuals had undergone secondary interventions. In our own clinical experience of Pittsburgh,
we looked at our explants. There were 13 down for infection, and of those nine had multiple secondary interventions which was 69%, a little bit of an outlier compared to the other studies. Once again, a relatively high mortality at one year. There's now a plethora of information in the literature
stating that secondary interventions may be a source for Bacteremia in seeding of your endovascular graft. And I think beyond just a secondary interventions, we know there's a wide range of risk factors. Perioperative contamination, break down in your sterile technique,
working in the radiology suite as opposed to the operating room. Wound complications to the access site. Hematogenous seeding, whether it's from UTIs, catheter related, or secondary interventions are possible.
Graft erosion, and then impaired immunity as well. So what I can tell you today, I think there is an association without question from secondary interventions and aortic endograft infection. Certainly the case I presented appears to show causation but there's not enough evidence to fully correlate the two.
So in summary, endograft infections are rare fortunately. However, the incidence does appear to be subtly rising. Secondary interventions following EVAR appear to be a risk factor for graft infection. Graft infections are associated without question
a high morbidity and mortality. I think it's of the utmost importance to maintain sterile technique, administer prophylactic antibiotics for all secondary endovascular catheter based interventions. Thank you.
- I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for this kind invitation and the committee as well. So these are my disclosures, there's none. So for a quick background regarding closure devices. Vascular closure devices have been around
for almost 20 years, various types. Manual compression in most studies have always been shown to be superior to vascular closure devices mainly because there's been no ideal device that's been innovated to be able
to handle all sorts of anatomies, which include calcified vessels, soft plaque, etc. So in this particular talk we wanted to look at to two particular devices. One is the Vascade vascular closure device
made by Cardiva and the other is the CELT arterial closure device made by Vasorum in Ireland. Both these devices are somewhat similar in that they both use a disc. The Vascade has a nitinol disc
as you can see here that's used out here to adhere to the interior common femoral artery wall. And then once tension is applied, a series of steps is involved to deploy the collagen plug
directly on to the artery which then allows it to expand over a period of time. The CELT is similar in that it also uses a stainless steel disc as you can see here. Requires tension up against the interior wall of the common femoral artery.
Nice and tight and then you screw on the top end of the device on to the interior wall of the artery creating a nice little cylinder that compresses both walls of artery. As far as comparability is concerned between the two devices you can see
here that they're both extravascular, one's nitinol, one's stainless steel. One uses a collagen material, the other uses an external clip in a spindle-type fashion. Both require about, anywhere between three to seven minutes of pressure
to essentially stop the tract ooze. But the key differences between the two devices, is the amount of time it takes for patients to ambulate. So the ambulation time is two hours roughly for Vascade, whereas for a CELT device
it's anywhere from being immediate off the table at the cath lab room to about 20 minutes. The data for Vascade was essentially showing the RESPECT trial which I'll summarize here, With 420 patients that was a randomized trial
to other manual compression or the device itself. The mean points of this is that the hemostasis time was about three minutes versus 21 minutes for manual compression. And time to ambulation was about 3.2 hours versus 5.7 hours.
No major complications were encountered. There were 1.1% of minor complications in the Vascade versus 7% in the manual compression arm. This was actually the first trial that showed that a actual closure devices
had better results than manual compression. The main limitations in the trial didn't involved complex femoral anatomy and renal insufficiency patients which were excluded. The CELT ACD trial involved 207 patients that were randomized to CELT or to manual
compression at five centers. Time to hemostasis was anywhere between zero minutes on average versus eight minutes in the manual compression arm. There was one complication assessed at 30 days and that was a distal embolization that occurred
early on after the deployment with a successfully retrieved percutaneously with a snare. So complication rate in this particular trial was 0.7% versus 0% for manual compression. So what are some pros and cons with the Vascade device?
Well you can see the list of pros there. The thing to keep in mind is that it is extravascular, it is absorbable, it's safe, low pain tolerance with this and the restick is definitely possible. As far as the cons are involved.
The conventional bedrest time is anywhere between two to three hours. It is a passive closure device and it can create some scarring when surgical exploration is necessary on surgical dissections.
The key thing also is you can not visualize the plug after deployment. The pros and cons of the CELT ACD device. You can see is the key is the instant definitive closure that's achieved with this particular device, especially in
calcified arteries as well. Very easy to visualize under fluoroscopy and ultrasound. It can be used in both antegrade and retrograde approaches. The key cons are that it's a permanent implant.
So it's like a star closed devised, little piece of stainless steel that sits behind. There's a small learning curve with the device. And of course there's a little bit of discomfort associated with the cinching under the (mumbles) tissue.
So we looked at our own experience with both devices at the Christie Clinic. We looked at Vascade with approximately 300 consecutive patients and we assessed their time to hemostasis, their time to ambulation,
and their time to discharge, as well as the device success and minor and major complications. And the key things to go over here is that the time to hemostasis was about 4.7 minutes for Vascade, at 2.1 hours for ambulation, and roughly an average
of 2.4 hours for discharge. The device success was 99.3% with a minor complication rate of .02% which we have four hematomas and two device failures requiring manual compression. The CELT ACD device we also similarly did
a non-randomized perspective single center trial assessing the same factors and assessing the patients at seven days. We had 400 consecutive patients enrolled. And you can see we did 232 retrograde. We did a little bit something different
with this one, we did we 168 antegrade but we also did direct punctures to the SFA both at the proximal and the mid-segments of the SFA. And the time to hemostasis in this particular situation was 3.8 minutes,
ambulation was 18.3 minutes, and discharge was at 38.4 minutes. We did have two minor complications. One of which was a mal-deployment of the device requiring manual compression. And the second one was a major complication
which was an embolization of the device immediately after deployment which was done successfully snared through an eighth front sheath. So in conclusion both devices are safe and effective and used for both
antegrade and retrograde access. They're definitely comparable when it comes, from the standpoint of both devices (mumbles) manual compression and they're definitely really cost effective in that they definitely do increase the
throughput in the cath lab allowing us to be able to move patients through our cath lab in a relatively quick fashion. Thank you for your attention.
- So again, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for the opportunity to participate in this interesting debate. So, I have been tasked with the position Intra-operative Completion Study is not mandatory, and in fact I will show you why a selective approach will actually provide better results for our patients. These are my disclosures related to ongoing
clinical research and clinical trials. So again, Professor Eckstein and his colleagues should be very significantly commended for getting the entire German vascular surgery community to look at their data in a very rigorous fashion. However, both he and his co-authors will acknowledge
within the manuscript that there are significant problems with this database. A very large number of 142,000 elective carotid endarterectomy procedures with very ballotable stroke and death rates of 1.4 and 2.5%. However, a typical criticism from outside the
vascular surgery community, these are all self-reported. These are not 30 day outcomes, they're actually in-hospital outcomes. And while in Germany that still may be four days, it's not the 30 days that we see. I'll show you a little bit later on within the Crest data.
And interestingly, within their own manuscript only 50% of the patients actually had neurologic assessment both pre- and post-procedural. So, how can we make a relevant decision in terms of thinking about how we're going to treat these patients if we only have neuro data on half of them.
Lets for the moment assume we can call out those patients. How does this relate to clinical practice? Well the authors also admit that this is an observational study, and that even though there is some association, there clearly is no causal relationship
as my previous debater just admitted. And in fact, they argue that this is perhaps the best method to look at generating hypotheses for future randomized trials, much like Dr. Aborama has done with the use of carotid endarterectomy with patching. So, let's look a little bit more about the data
and see how relevant it is to your current practice. So in the Germany registry, a quarter of the patients are treated under local anesthetic. 40% have no type of neurologic monitoring, and over 40% are performed with aversion endarterectomy. Very, very different than the practice that we see
in our institution, and in the New England region. And I would argue that there's a lot of concern in terms of what the indications are for monitoring, what the indications are for shunt use. Again, that's 43%. But there's absolutely no data in this registry about
indications for shunting, when it was used, or when patients were re-explored and what they found at the time. And a little bit concerning is in 17% of the patients, there was no anti-platelet agent used in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.
And, I would argue that that number is just a little bit high. How about when we go to the univariate analysis? Once again, we see that there's a benefit of 0.4% decrease in stroke and death for a local anesthetic, although we are well aware that there are numerous other
perspectives that have looked at this and not shown that same relationship. Again, there's a benefit for aversion endarterectomy, but I would argue at least in the New England region and perhaps in the United States except for select centers, aversion endarterectomy is used the minority of the time
and that in fact is an indication in my mind to have a lower threshold for either angiogram or completion duplex. Most concerning, there was 0.3% difference in the stroke and death rate with the lack of an intraoperative completion study, but there was no data about indications, findings,
whether that resulted in an intervention, or what the result of that intervention was. And initially in the univariate analysis, neuro-psyche, physiologic monitoring was protective, but later on in the multivariate, it was not. Here is that same multivariate analysis that shows again
that in fact shunting and neuro-physiologic monitoring are increased risk factors for stroke. Certainly there's going to be some bias. My concern is I'm not convinced the authors are able to call out the co founding variables, even in their multivariate regression analysis.
And in fact, in their concluding paragraphs they state there's no information supplied on whether intraoperative completion studies caused an operative revision or not, and no information about cause of death. In fact, they don't even have information about
intraoperative heparin or protamine application. So I would argue I'd be very skeptical about making my final decisions based on this. Thinking about the technical aspects of angiography, there's no doubt that this is very helpful at times, but think about the details of where do you put the needle.
What type of imaging? Is it a C-arm, is it a flat plate? Who interprets it, and what are your thresholds for intervention? So, it certainly may be harmful, may be unnecessary, and may even give you false positives.
Similarly with Completion Duplex studies, there certainly is a false positive rate and then there's risk for re-clamping. I reached out to my friend and colleague Braglol to see if there was any data from Crest that would help us, and unfortunately other than the fact that stroke happens
up to 30 days after our initial endarterectomy, there was no data supporting that. So, perhaps the best study that we have is our current practice in New England where we had 6,000 patients, a third of whom received completion studies. We broke this down into rare, selective, and routine
duplex or angio studies. And in fact, in the selective group we had a very low rate of re-exploration versus the other group, and a much lower incidence of overall stroke and death. In fact, the only benefit that was statistically significant was a decrease one year rate of re-stenosis.
So in conclusion, I would argue that this is probably unnecessary, and in fact maybe harmful. Meticulous technique, intra-procedural monitoring with selective shunt use, and continuous wave doppler use may, in fact, be the way to go. But this does give us an opportunity for prospective,
randomized trial as part of another study to look for completion study indications. Thank you very much.
- [Presenter] Thanks again, Laurel, for this kind invitation. We're going to discuss about how I do the treatment for varicose veins for the foot. And we're going to show you our experience for that. I have no disclosure. I came from Natal, Brazil.
There's our wonderful beach that we have there, but we don't have time to go there, unfortunately. This is our hospital, and these are the people that worked with us. To do this treatment we have to pay attention of the history and the physical examination.
It's very important to decide what you can do to these patients, because we have to associate some tools to do this kind of treatment. So phleboscopy, transillumination is very important to define the feeder veins,
so it's very important in this case to show us where is the veins that we feed these spider veins to treat that. And of course, the ultrasound associated with all the physical examinations of course and then the black scan. You can see in this case, a patient does not have any
varicose veins on the thigh, of the leg. They have only varicose veins by the foot. If you can see, the reflux of there, comes from the junction to the foot. If you don't have the good ultrasound
or duplex scan it can have a mistake and treat wrong way these patients. So, what are the tools we have to do to treat these patients? A lot of tools, you can see the liquid sclerotherapy with a low concentration of 75%.
Foam polidocanol for these two concentrations. Of course, transdermal laser, hooks that we can apply in the surgery and polidocanol laser. How about this procedure? This paper from the Netherlands, show us patient satisfaction after ambulatory phlebectomy
of varicose veins, what they conclude about that. The most important factors that influence the patient satisfaction is: discoloration, persistent pain, and the perception of varices after surgery. This last one is very important for us,
because the patient comes to us to be cleaning off veins of the foot, if we miss that everything we did, the patient will complain about after their surgery. We have two kinds of treatment, ambulatory treatment being the option
and the hospital we can do the procedures. We have separate patients with CO grade, CEAP classifications and C2 classifications. When we have a C1 grade classification we use transdermal laser and liquid sclerotherapy. You can see one case is a cosmetic
and one is a severe one. A C2 case we have ambulatory treatment, we have transdermal laser and we associate all this with foam sclerotherapy. But the concentrations are 0.5% and 0.25%, you can see its low concentrations.
At the hospital we have can do almost everything nearly in the same day. Transdermal laser, liquid sclerotherapy, foam sclerotherapy. Yes, we can associate liquid sclerotherapy, sometimes the people say that you cannot do that, but we do that.
In case like this, we also say transdermal laser in spider veins, phlebectomy and you can see in this case we have a use for sclerotherapy and is this is the result of 60 days. This other case that we use phlebectomy and we have to be careful because you
can take nerves, the patient will complain about after surgery. And these are the results. Polidocanol with laser tool, yes, but it's not our routine to use that. In conclusion:
Physical exam and a precise diagnosis of the feet varicose veins is essential to do a good surgery. With all these tools, that we have, the treatment of varicose veins of the foot is safe and effective. This is my fugu in Natal, Brazil.
- Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. So thirty day mortality following unselected non-cardiac surgery in patients 45 years and older has been reported to be as high as 1.9%. And in such patients we know that postoperative troponin elevation has
a very strong correlation with 30-day mortality. Considering that there are millions of major surgical procedures performed, it's clear that this equates to a significant health problem. And therefore, the accurate identification of patients at risk of complications
and morbidity offers many advantages. First, both the patient and the physician can perform an appropriate risk-benefit analysis based on the expected surgical benefit in relation to surgical risk. And surgery can then be declined,
deferred, or modified to maximize the patient's benefit. Secondly, pre-operative identification of high-risk patients allows physicians to direct their efforts towards those who might really benefit from additional interventions. And finally, postoperative management,
monitoring and potential therapies can be individualized according to predicted risk. So there's a lot of data on this and I'll try to go through the data on predictive biomarkers in different groups of vascular surgery patients. This study published in the "American Heart Journal"
in 2018 measured troponin levels in a prospective blinded fashion in 1000 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Major cardiac complications occurred overall in 11% but in 24% of the patients who were having vascular surgery procedures.
You can see here that among vascular surgery patients there was a really high prevalence of elevated troponin levels preoperatively. And again, if you look here at the morbidity in vascular surgery patients 24% had major cardiac complications,
the majority of these were myocardial infarctions. Among patients undergoing vascular surgery, preoperative troponin elevation was an independent predictor of cardiac complications with an odds ratio of 1.5, and there was an increased accuracy of this parameter
in vascular surgery as opposed to non-vascular surgery patients. So what about patients undergoing open vascular surgery procedures? This is a prospective study of 455 patients and elevated preoperative troponin level
and a perioperative increase were both independently associated with MACE. You can see here these patients were undergoing a variety of open procedures including aortic, carotid, and peripheral arterial. And you can see here that in any way you look at this,
both the preoperative troponin, the postoperative troponin, the absolute change, and the relative change were all highly associated with MACE. You could add the troponin levels to the RCRI a clinical risk stratification tool and know that this increased the accuracy.
And this is additionally shown here in these receiver operator curves. So this study concluded that a combination of the RCRI with troponin levels can improve the predictive accuracy and therefore allow for better patient management.
This doesn't just happen in open-vascular surgery patients. This is a study that studied troponin levels in acute limb ischaemia patients undergoing endovascular therapy. 254 patients all treated with endovascular intervention
with a 3.9% mortality and a 5.1% amputation rate. Patients who died or required amputation more frequently presented with elevated troponin levels. And the relationship between troponin and worse in-hospital outcome remains significant even when controlling for other factors.
In-hospital death or amputation again and amputation free survival were highly correlated with preoperative troponin levels. You can see here 16.9% in patients with elevated troponins versus 6% in others. And the cardiac troponin level
had a high hazard ratio for predicting worse in-hospital outcomes. This is a study of troponins just in CLI patients with a similar design the measurement of troponin on admission again was a significant independent predictor
of survival with a hazard ratio of 4.2. You can see here that the majority of deaths that did occur were in fact cardiac, and troponin levels correlated highly with both cardiac specific and all-cause mortality. The value of the troponin test was maintained
even when controlling for other risk factors. And these authors felt that the realistic awareness of likely long term prognosis of vascular surgery patients is invaluable when planning suitability for either surgical or endovascular intervention.
And finally, we even have data on the value of preoperative troponin in patients undergoing major amputation. This was a study in which 10 of 44 patients had a non-fatal MI or died from a cardiac cause following amputation.
A rise in the preoperative troponin level was associated with a very poor outcome and was the only significant predictor of postoperative cardiac events. As you can see in this slide. This clearly may be a "Pandora's box".
We really don't know who should have preoperative troponins. What is the cost effectiveness in screening everybody? And in patients with elevated troponin levels, what exactly do we do? Do we cancel surgery, defer it, or change our plan?
However, certainly as vascular surgeons with our high-risk patient population we believe in risk stratification tools. And the RCRI is routinely used as a clinical risk stratification tool. Adding preoperative troponin levels to the RCRI
clearly increases its accuracy in the prediction of patients who will have perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality. And you can see here that the preoperative troponin level had one of the highest independent hazard ratios at 5.4. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you very much Frank and thanks for the invitation. My first thing is to deal with the patient who's awaiting CABG who's had a previous stroke or TIA. This is the only study of it's kind showing that if you proceed with isolated CABG, the risk of stroke is extremely high and if you look at the meta-analysis that we've done of whether you do endarterectomy or
stenting in symptomatic patients, this is all the literature there is. And what you can clearly see is that the death and stroke rates in patients undergoing CAS followed by CABG are much higher than after carotid and endarterectomy. And that lead us to recommend that a stage of
synchronous carotid intervention should be considered in CABG patients with a history of stroke or TIA and who have a 50 to 99% stenosis. But advise that for now, if you're going to do that such an intervention, surgery should probably be considered instead of stenting.
But 96% of all interventions of the CABG and carotid variety are in asymptomatic patients, so what about them? Well, this is all the literature there is on stroke risk in patients undergoing isolated CABG with a unilateral asymptomatic stenosis of 70 to 99 or 80 to 99 and you can see there is an awful lot of zeroes
in that table and if you go at patients with bilateral significant disease, the death and stroke rate is much higher but again there is not too many strokes here. And if you look critically at the literature and ask yourself okay we've had so many strokes, how many of them can be attributable to underlying
carotid disease by looking at the CT scans or the distribution of lesions, you'll see that between 85 and 95% of all strokes cannot be attributed to an underlying significant carotid stenosis. And if you look at all the death and stroke rates and this is a multiple meta-analysis that our
group have done over the last 15 years, these are the death and stroke rates depending on how you treat the patients, and 80% of these are asymptomatic and 80% have got unilateral stenosis and the death and stroke rates are far in excess of the risk of stroke if you just perform an
isolated CABG in patients with unilateral asymptomatic disease. There have been two randomized trials. This is one, the Iluminati trial that Jean-Baptiste was involved in, 30-day death and stroke rates not significantly different.
There is quite an astonishing trial from Germany, which was again unilaterally asymptomatic stenosis with a near 20% death and stroke rate with synchronous carotid CABG and a 10% definite stroke rate with medical therapy, ah isolated CABG, sorry. So the ESVS have advised that a staged synchronous
carotid intervention is not recommended in CABG patients with an asymptomatic unilateral, 70 to 99% stenosis for preventing stroke after CABG. A staged synchronous intervention may be considered in patients with bilateral disease, the evidence is not brilliant but it's such a rare thing that it's
probably not worth arguing about. Now what about patients who are undergoing non-cardiac surgery? This is quite an interesting group, because if say, a gastrectomy, a hip replacement or whatever, if they've had a previous history of stroke or TIA
they should undergo carotid imaging and if they've got a significant stenosis they should undergo prior carotid revascularization prior to undergoing their gastrectomy et cetera. But what about the asymptomatic patient? This is quite interesting.
First of all, let's just look at a very large study by Jorgensen, 4 nearly 500,000 elective non-cardiac operations and 7,000 had suffered a prior stroke or TIA, and the most important thing was, the stroke risk was directly related to the time from the onset of the TIA to doing the operation.
So if you did it within three months of the stroke or TIA there was a 12% peri-operative stroke rate, but if you managed to get out to six months, the stroke rate was only 0.1% so the lesson learned there is that if it's possible to delay surgery in patients who've had a prior stroke or TIA
or a recent one, you should delay it for six months. Only two studies have looked at whether asymptomatic carotid stenosis increased the stroke risk in patients undergoing non-cardiac operations. Ballotta did a randomized trial, and Sonny, which is a very large observational study,
looked at the impact of asymptomatic carotid stenosis on outcome and found that there was no evidence that a pre-existing carotid stenosis increased the risk of stroke in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Similarly, in a huge study on TAVI patients,
no evidence that carotid disease was a risk factor for perioperative stroke. So in our recommendations we advised routine carotid imaging in asymptomatic patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery is not recommended and prophylactics and arterial stenting is not
recommended in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenoses undergoing non-cardiac/vascular procedures. And if you'd like to look at all the literature and data that we came to in using to our conclusions, the guidelines are free to access on the internet.
Thank you very much.
- Thanks Fieres. Thank you very much for attending this session and Frank for the invitation. These are my disclosures. We have recently presented the outcomes of the first 250 patients included in this prospective IDE at the AATS meeting in this hotel a few months ago.
In this study, there was no in-hospital mortality, there was one 30-day death. This was a death from a patient that had intracranial hemorrhage from the spinal drain placement that eventually was dismissed to palliative care
and died on postoperative day 22. You also note that there are three patients with paraplegia in this study, one of which actually had a epidural hematoma that was led to various significant and flacid paralysis. That prompted us to review the literature
and alter our outcomes with spinal drainage. This review, which includes over 4700 patients shows that the average rate of complications is 10%, some of those are relatively moderate or minor, but you can see a rate of intracranial hemorrhage of 1.5% and spinal hematoma of 1% in this large review,
which is essentially a retrospective review. We have then audited our IDE patients, 293 consecutive patients treated since 2013. We looked at all their spinal drains, so there were 240 placement of drains in 187 patients. You can see that some of these were first stage procedures
and then the majority of them were the index fenestrated branch procedure and some, a minority were Temporary Aneurysm Sac Perfusions. Our rate of complication was identical to the review, 10% and I want to point out some of the more important complications.
You can see here that intracranial hypotension occurred in 6% of the patients, that included three patients, or 2%, with intracranial hemorrhage and nine patients, or 5%, with severe headache that prolonged hospital stay and required blood patch for management.
There were also six patients with spinal hematomas for a overall rate of 3%, including the patient that I'll further discuss later. And one death, which was attributed to the spinal drain. When we looked at the intracranial hypotension in these 12 patients, you can see
the median duration of headache was four days, it required narcotics in seven patients, blood patch in five patients. All these patients had prolonged hospital stay, in one case, the prolongation of hospital stay was of 10 days.
Intracranial hemorrhage in three patients, including the patient that I already discussed. This patient had a severe intracranial hemorrhage which led to a deep coma. The patient was basically elected by the family to be managed with palliative care.
This patient end up expiring on postoperative day 21. There were other two patients with intracranial hemorrhage, one remote, I don't think that that was necessarily related to the spinal drain, nonetheless we had it on this review. These are some of the CT heads of the patients that had intracranial hemorrhage,
including the patient that passed away, which is outlined in the far left of your slide. Six patients had spinal hematoma, one of these patients was a patient, a young patient treated for chronic dissection. Patient evolved exceptionally well, moving the legs,
drain was removed on postoperative day two. As the patient is standed out of the bed, felt weakness in the legs, we then imaged the spine. You can see here, very severe spinal hematoma. Neurosurgery was consulted, decided to evacuate, the patient woke up with flacid paralysis
which has not recovered. There were two other patients with, another patient with paraplegia which was treated conservatively and improved to paraparesis and continues to improve and two other patients with paraparesis.
That prompted changes in our protocol. We eliminated spinal drains for Extent IVs, we eliminated for chronic dissection, in first stages, on any first stage, and most of the Extent IIIs, we also changed our protocol of drainage
from the routine drainage of a 10 centimeters of water for 15 minutes of the hours to a maximum of 20 mL to a drainage that's now guided by Near Infrared Spectroscopy, changes or symptoms. This is our protocol and I'll illustrate how we used this in one patient.
This is a patient that actually had this actual, exact anatomy. You can see the arch was very difficult, the celiac axis was patent and provided collateral flow an occluded SMA. The right renal artery was chronically occluded.
As we were doing this case the patient experienced severe changes in MEP despite the fact we had flow to the legs, we immediately stopped the procedure with still flow to the aneurysm sac. The patient develops pancreatitis, requires dialysis
and recovers after a few days in the ICU with no neurological change. Then I completed the repair doing a subcostal incision elongating the celiac axis and retrograde axis to this graft to complete the branch was very difficult to from the arm
and the patient recovered with no injury. So, in conclusion, spinal drainage is potentially dangerous even lethal and should be carefully weighted against the potential benefits. I think that our protocol now uses routine drainage for Extent I and IIs,
although I still think there is room for a prospective randomized trial even on this group and selective drainage for Extent IIIs and no drainage for Extent IVs. We use NIRS liberally to guide drainage and we use temporary sac perfusion
in those that have changes in neuromonitoring. Thank you very much.
- These are my disclosures. So central venous access is frequently employed throughout the world for a variety of purposes. These catheters range anywhere between seven and 11 French sheaths. And it's recognized, even in the best case scenario, that there are iatrogenic arterial injuries
that can occur, ranging between three to 5%. And even a smaller proportion of patients will present after complications from access with either a pseudoaneurysm, fistula formation, dissection, or distal embolization. In thinking about these, as you see these as consultations
on your service, our thoughts are to think about it in four primary things. Number one is the anatomic location, and I think imaging is very helpful. This is a vas cath in the carotid artery. The second is th
how long the device has been dwelling in the carotid or the subclavian circulation. Assessment for thrombus around the catheter, and then obviously the size of the hole and the size of the catheter.
Several years ago we undertook a retrospective review and looked at this, and we looked at all carotid, subclavian, and innominate iatrogenic injuries, and we excluded all the injuries that were treated, that were manifest early and treated with just manual compression.
It's a small cohort of patients, we had 12 cases. Eight were treated with a variety of endovascular techniques and four were treated with open surgery. So, to illustrate our approach, I thought what I would do is just show you four cases on how we treated some of these types of problems.
The first one is a 75 year-old gentleman who's three days status post a coronary bypass graft with a LIMA graft to his LAD. He had a cordis catheter in his chest on the left side, which was discovered to be in the left subclavian artery as opposed to the vein.
So this nine French sheath, this is the imaging showing where the entry site is, just underneath the clavicle. You can see the vertebral and the IMA are both patent. And this is an angiogram from a catheter with which was placed in the femoral artery at the time that we were going to take care of this
with a four French catheter. For this case, we had duel access, so we had access from the groin with a sheath and a wire in place in case we needed to treat this from below. Then from above, we rewired the cordis catheter,
placed a suture-mediated closure device, sutured it down, left the wire in place, and shot this angiogram, which you can see very clearly has now taken care of the bleeding site. There's some pinching here after the wire was removed,
this abated without any difficulty. Second case is a 26 year-old woman with a diagnosis of vascular EDS. She presented to the operating room for a small bowel obstruction. Anesthesia has tried to attempt to put a central venous
catheter access in there. There unfortunately was an injury to the right subclavian vein. After she recovered from her operation, on cross sectional imaging you can see that she has this large pseudoaneurysm
coming from the subclavian artery on this axial cut and also on the sagittal view. Because she's a vascular EDS patient, we did this open brachial approach. We placed a stent graft across the area of injury to exclude the aneurism.
And you can see that there's still some filling in this region here. And it appeared to be coming from the internal mammary artery. We gave her a few days, it still was patent. Cross-sectional imaging confirmed this,
and so this was eventually treated with thoracoscopic clipping and resolved flow into the aneurism. The next case is a little bit more complicated. This is an 80 year-old woman with polycythemia vera who had a plasmapheresis catheter,
nine French sheath placed on the left subclavian artery which was diagnosed five days post procedure when she presented with a posterior circulation stroke. As you can see on the imaging, her vertebral's open, her mammary's open, she has this catheter in the significant clot
in this region. To manage this, again, we did duel access. So right femoral approach, left brachial approach. We placed the filter element in the vertebral artery. Balloon occlusion of the subclavian, and then a stent graft coverage of the area
and took the plasmapheresis catheter out and then suction embolectomy. And then the last case is a 47 year-old woman who had an attempted right subclavian vein access and it was known that she had a pulsatile mass in the supraclavicular fossa.
Was noted to have a 3cm subclavian artery pseudoaneurysm. Very broad base, short neck, and we elected to treat this with open surgical technique. So I think as you see these consults, the things to factor in to your management decision are: number one, the location.
Number two, the complication of whether it's thrombus, pseudoaneurysm, or fistula. It's very important to identify whether there is pericatheter thrombus. There's a variety of techniques available for treatment, ranging from manual compression,
endovascular techniques, and open repair. I think the primary point here is the prevention with ultrasound guidance is very important when placing these catheters. Thank you. (clapping)
- Good morning, for all of you who got up early. It's a pleasure to be here, thank you Frank for the invitation. I'm going to talk about a problem that is extremely rare, and consequently can only be investigated by putting together databases from multiple institutions, called adventitial cystic disease.
Okay, I have no conflicts. So adventitial cystic disease is an extremely uncommon problem, but it's important because it occurs often in young people. Virtually all series of adventitial cystic disease have fewer than five patients in it,
so they essentially become case reports. And yet it's a very treatable problem. There are several theories about why it occurs, you can see this picture here. The mucin-assisting material that occurs in the popliteal artery region most commonly.
The etiology of that and the origin of that is debated, whether it comes from the joint space, whether it comes from rest, whatever. But it's not really known. In addition, what's not known is the best treatment. There are several options.
Some would advocate just simple aspiration of the cystic material, although it's very viscous. Others simply excising the cyst and leaving the vessel in place. Some both excising and either doing
an interposition graft or a bypass. Early results with every one of these options have been reported, but they're quite variable as far as the outcome. And therefore, we really don't know not only the optimal approach,
but also the best outcome. For that reason, we did a study with 13 institutions on adventitial cystic disease using a technique called vascular low-frequency disease consortium.
Where everybody uses a standardized database and similar collection to act like a single institution. The aim of this study, which is one of 20 that we've conducted over the last 15 years, was to determine first of all what people were doing
as far as current practice patterns, and then look at the outcomes with the different treatment options. And this was published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Adventitial cystic disease of any site was identified using both the CPT ICD-9 physician logbooks,
pathology databases, and procedure codes. And then we collected epidemiologic data as well as operative and follow-up data, with our primary endpoints being vessel patency and the need for re-intervention, since amputation is extremely uncommon and rare.
This is the process for the low-frequency disease consortium. Where not only is a standardized database used, but each institution collects their data after getting IRB approval. And then deidentifies it
before sending it to a central server. So there's no way that there could be a security breach. And then we do an analysis of the data. The results of this study were that in the small number of institutions, 15 institutions, 47 patients were identified.
The majority were male, and the majority were smokers. What was interesting to us was that not all are in the popliteal region. And actually there were several patients as you can see, who had upper-extremity adventitial cystic disease, although it's far more common in the popliteal space.
And also there was actually one patient who had adventitial cystic disease of the femoral vein. The symptoms were typically claudication, and ischemic rest pain or tissue loss were quite rare. If you look at the risk factors, smoking, which was probably a comorbidity
and would not be claimed to be the etiology but was present. Other than that, this is a typical distribution of patients with vascular disease. As far as imaging here, you can see a duplex ultrasound
showing the cystic mass and how it typically looks. The majority of patients had a duplex, but also they often had an MRA or CTA as well as an angiogram. And the angiogram was typically part of the treatment paradigm.
This is just the typical appearance of an MRA showing what some people would call the scimitar sign, which is that it's not a typical plaque. And this is a picture of a CT angiogram showing a similar view of a vessel. The results,
so there were some that did not treat only the cyst, but also resected the artery. And either bypassed it, as you can see here, or did an interposition graft,
here's just a picture of one of those. And there were others that just treated the cyst, and either aspirated it alone or resected the cyst and patched the artery. Or did cyst drainage and nothing else to the vessel. If you look at the typical incision of these patients,
this is a posterior approach of the popliteal region. And the small saphenous vein as you can see is marked, and uses the conduit for bypass. The outcomes of these patients were similar as far as length of stay, complications. The one you'll notice is that
two of the five with cyst resection had a complication, so that's a little bit higher. But otherwise they're quite similar as far as the short-term outcomes and results. The main problem, and also if we look at the improvement in ABI,
although cyst resection with bypass had a higher increase in ABI, the rest of the treatments were similar. In other words, the initial outcome was similar with any of those different options.
The one thing you can see circled in red is the patients who had simple cyst aspiration. It was not durable, and consequently they often had to have a second procedure. And the resection of the artery was generally, or bypass of the artery,
generally had better long-term outcomes. The follow-up was 20 months, and here you can see the recurrence and the types of modality of follow-up. So I just conclude by saying that our experience from multiple institutions
is that this is an uncommon problem, that cyst recurrence is very high if aspiration alone is used, and either interposition or bypass is the optimal treatment. Thanks very much for your attention.
- I want to thank the organizers for putting together such an excellent symposium. This is quite unique in our field. So the number of dialysis patients in the US is on the order of 700 thousand as of 2015, which is the last USRDS that's available. The reality is that adrenal disease is increasing worldwide
and the need for access is increasing. Of course fistula first is an important portion of what we do for these patients. But the reality is 80 to 90% of these patients end up starting with a tunneled dialysis catheter. While placement of a tunneled dialysis catheter
is considered fairly routine, it's also clearly associated with a small chance of mechanical complications on the order of 1% at least with bleeding or hema pneumothorax. And when we've looked through the literature, we can notice that these issues
that have been looked at have been, the literature is somewhat old. It seemed to be at variance of what our clinical practice was. So we decided, let's go look back at our data. Inpatients who underwent placement
of a tunneled dialysis catheter between 1998 and 2017 reviewed all their catheters. These are all inpatients. We have a 2,220 Tesio catheter places, in 1,400 different patients. 93% of them placed on the right side
and all the catheters were placed with ultrasound guidance for the puncture. Now the puncture in general was performed with an 18 gauge needle. However, if we notice that the vein was somewhat collapsing with respiratory variation,
then we would use a routinely use a micropuncture set. All of the patients after the procedures had chest x-ray performed at the end of the procedure. Just to document that everything was okay. The patients had the classic risk factors that you'd expect. They're old, diabetes, hypertension,
coronary artery disease, et cetera. In this consecutive series, we had no case of post operative hemo or pneumothorax. We had two cut downs, however, for arterial bleeding from branches of the external carotid artery that we couldn't see very well,
and when we took out the dilator, patient started to bleed. We had three patients in the series that had to have a subsequent revision of the catheter due to mal positioning of the catheter. We suggest that using modern day techniques
with ultrasound guidance that you can minimize your incidents of mechanical complications for tunnel dialysis catheter placement. We also suggest that other centers need to confirm this data using ultrasound guidance as a routine portion of the cannulation
of the internal jugular veins. The KDOQI guidelines actually do suggest the routine use of duplex ultrasonography for placement of tunnel dialysis catheters, but this really hasn't been incorporated in much of the literature outside of KDOQI.
We would suggest that it may actually be something that may be worth putting into the surgical critical care literature also. Now having said that, not everything was all roses. We did have some cases where things didn't go
so straight forward. We want to drill down a little bit into this also. We had 35 patients when we put, after we cannulated the vein, we can see that it was patent. If it wasn't we'd go to the other side
or do something else. But in 35%, 35 patients, we can put the needle into the vein and get good flashback but the wire won't go down into the central circulation.
Those patients, we would routinely do a venogram, we would try to cross the lesion if we saw a lesion. If it was a chronically occluded vein, and we weren't able to cross it, we would just go to another site. Those venograms, however, gave us some information.
On occasion, the vein which is torturous for some reason or another, we did a venogram, it was torturous. We rolled across the vein and completed the procedure. In six of the patients, the veins were chronically occluded
and we had to go someplace else. In 20 patients, however, they had prior cannulation in the central vein at some time, remote. There was a severe stenosis of the intrathoracic veins. In 19 of those cases, we were able to cross the lesion in the central veins.
Do a balloon angioplasty with an 8 millimeter balloon and then place the catheter. One additional case, however, do the balloon angioplasty but we were still not able to place the catheter and we had to go to another site.
Seven of these lesions underwent balloon angioplasty of the innominate vein. 11 of them were in the proximal internal jugular vein, and two of them were in the superior vena cava. We had no subsequent severe swelling of the neck, arm, or face,
despite having a stenotic vein that we just put a catheter into, and no subsequent DVT on duplexes that were obtained after these procedures. Based on these data, we suggest that venous balloon angioplasty can be used in these patients
to maintain the site of an access, even with the stenotic vein that if your wire doesn't go down on the first pass, don't abandon the vein, shoot a little dye, see what the problem is,
and you may be able to use that vein still and maintain the other arm for AV access or fistular graft or whatever they need. Based upon these data, we feel that using ultrasound guidance should be a routine portion of these procedures,
and venoplasty should be performed when the wire is not passing for a central vein problem. Thank you.
- Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak carbon dioxide angiography, which is one of my favorite topics and today I will like to talk to you about the value of CO2 angiography for abdominal and pelvic trauma and why and how to use carbon dioxide angiography with massive bleeding and when to supplement CO2 with iodinated contrast.
Disclosures, none. The value of CO2 angiography, what are the advantages perhaps? Carbon dioxide is non-allergic and non-nephrotoxic contrast agent, meaning CO2 is the only proven safe contrast in patients with a contrast allergy and the renal failure.
Carbon dioxide is very highly soluble (20 to 30 times more soluble than oxygen). It's very low viscosity, which is a very unique physical property that you can take advantage of it in doing angiography and CO2 is 1/400 iodinated contrast in viscosity.
Because of low viscosity, now we can use smaller catheter, like a micro-catheter, coaxially to the angiogram using end hole catheter. You do not need five hole catheter such as Pigtail. Also, because of low viscosity, you can detect bleeding much more efficiently.
It demonstrates to the aneurysm and arteriovenous fistula. The other interesting part of the CO2 when you inject in the vessel the CO2 basically refluxes back so you can see the more central vessel. In other words, when you inject contrast, you see only forward vessel, whereas when you inject CO2,
you do a pass with not only peripheral vessels and also see more central vessels. So basically you see the vessels around the lesions and you can use unlimited volumes of CO2 if you separate two to three minutes because CO2 is exhaled by the respirations
so basically you can inject large volumes particularly when you have long prolonged procedures, and most importantly, CO2 is very inexpensive. Where there are basically two methods that will deliver CO2. One is the plastic bag system which you basically fill up with a CO2 tank three times and then empty three times
and keep the fourth time and then you connect to the delivery system and basically closest inject for DSA. The other devices, the CO2mmander with the angio assist, which I saw in the booth outside. That's FDA approved for CO2 injections and is very convenient to use.
It's called CO2mmander. So, most of the CO2 angios can be done with end hole catheter. So basically you eliminate the need for pigtail. You can use any of these cobra catheters, shepherd hook and the Simmons.
If you look at this image in the Levitor study with vascular model, when you inject end hole catheter when the CO2 exits from the tip of catheter, it forms very homogenous bolus, displaces the blood because you're imaging the blood vessel by displacing blood with contrast is mixed with blood, therefore as CO2
travels distally it maintains the CO2 density whereas contrast dilutes and lose the densities. So we recommend end hole catheter. So that means you can do an arteriogram with end hole catheter and then do a select arteriogram. You don't need to replace the pigtail
for selective injection following your aortographies. Here's the basic techniques: Now when you do CO2 angiogram, trauma patient, abdominal/pelvic traumas, start with CO2 aortography. You'll be surprised, you'll see many of those bleeding on aortogram, and also you can repeat, if necessary,
with CO2 at the multiple different levels like, celiac, renal, or aortic bifurcation but be sure to inject below diaphragm. Do not go above diaphragm, for example, thoracic aorta coronary, and brachial, and the subclavian if you inject CO2, you'll have some serious problems.
So stay below the diaphragm as an arterial contrast. Selective injection iodinated contrast for a road map. We like to do super selective arteriogram for embolization et cetera. Then use a contrast to get anomalies. Super selective injection with iodinated contrast
before embolization if there's no bleeding then repeat with CO2 because of low viscocity and also explosion of the gas you will often see the bleeding. That makes it more comfortable before embolization. Here is a splenic trauma patient.
CO2 is injected into the aorta at the level of the celiac access. Now you see the extra vascularization from the low polar spleen, then you catheterize celiac access of the veins. You microcatheter in the distal splenic arteries
and inject the contrast. Oops, there's no bleeding. Make you very uncomfortable for embolizations. We always like to see the actual vascularization before place particle or coils. At that time you can inject CO2 and you can see
actual vascularization and make you more comfortable before embolization. You can inject CO2, the selective injection like in here in a patient with the splenic trauma. The celiac injection of CO2 shows the growth, laceration splenic with extra vascularization with the gas.
There's multiple small, little collection. We call this Starry Night by Van Gogh. That means malpighian marginal sinus with stagnation with the CO2 gives multiple globular appearance of the stars called Starry Night.
You can see the early filling of the portal vein because of disruption of the intrasplenic microvascular structures. Now you see the splenic vein. Normally, you shouldn't see splenic vein while following CO2 injections.
This is a case of the liver traumas. Because the liver is a little more anterior the celiac that is coming off of the anterior aspect of the aorta, therefore, CO2 likes to go there because of buoyancy so we take advantage of buoyancy. Now you see the rupture here in this liver
with following the aortic injections then you inject contrast in the celiac axis to get road map so you can travel through this torus anatomy for embolizations for the road map for with contrast. This patient with elaston loss
with ruptured venal arteries, massive bleeding from many renal rupture with retro peritoneal bleeding with CO2 and aortic injection and then you inject contrast into renal artery and coil embolization but I think the stent is very dangerous in a patient with elaston loss.
We want to really separate the renal artery. Then you're basically at the mercy of the bleeding. So we like a very soft coil but basically coil the entire renal arteries. That was done. - Thank you very much.
- Time is over already? - Yeah. - Oh, OK. Let's finish up. Arteriogram and we inject CO2 contrast twice. Here's the final conclusions.
CO2 is a valuable imaging modality for abdominal and pelvic trauma. Start with CO2 aortography, if indicated. Repeat injections at multiple levels below diaphragm and selective injection road map with contrast. The last advice fo
t air contamination during the CO2 angiograms. Thank you.
- Good morning, thank you, Dr. Veith, for the invitation. My disclosures. So, renal artery anomalies, fairly rare. Renal ectopia and fusion, leading to horseshoe kidneys or pelvic kidneys, are fairly rare, in less than one percent of the population. Renal transplants, that is patients with existing
renal transplants who develop aneurysms, clearly these are patients who are 10 to 20 or more years beyond their initial transplantation, or maybe an increasing number of patients that are developing aneurysms and are treated. All of these involve a renal artery origin that is
near the aortic bifurcation or into the iliac arteries, making potential repair options limited. So this is a personal, clinical series, over an eight year span, when I was at the University of South Florida & Tampa, that's 18 patients, nine renal transplants, six congenital
pelvic kidneys, three horseshoe kidneys, with varied aorto-iliac aneurysmal pathologies, it leaves half of these patients have iliac artery pathologies on top of their aortic aneurysms, or in place of the making repair options fairly difficult. Over half of the patients had renal insufficiency
and renal protective maneuvers were used in all patients in this trial with those measures listed on the slide. All of these were elective cases, all were technically successful, with a fair amount of followup afterward. The reconstruction priorities or goals of the operation are to maintain blood flow to that atypical kidney,
except in circumstances where there were multiple renal arteries, and then a small accessory renal artery would be covered with a potential endovascular solution, and to exclude the aneurysms with adequate fixation lengths. So, in this experience, we were able, I was able to treat eight of the 18 patients with a fairly straightforward
endovascular solution, aorto-biiliac or aorto-aortic endografts. There were four patients all requiring open reconstructions without any obvious endovascular or hybrid options, but I'd like to focus on these hybrid options, several of these, an endohybrid approach using aorto-iliac
endografts, cross femoral bypass in some form of iliac embolization with an attempt to try to maintain flow to hypogastric arteries and maintain antegrade flow into that pelvic atypical renal artery, and a open hybrid approach where a renal artery can be transposed, and endografting a solution can be utilized.
The overall outcomes, fairly poor survival of these patients with a 50% survival at approximately two years, but there were no aortic related mortalities, all the renal artery reconstructions were patented last followup by Duplex or CT imaging. No aneurysms ruptures or aortic reinterventions or open
conversions were needed. So, focus specifically in a treatment algorithm, here in this complex group of patients, I think if the atypical renal artery comes off distal aorta, you have several treatment options. Most of these are going to be open, but if it is a small
accessory with multiple renal arteries, such as in certain cases of horseshoe kidneys, you may be able to get away with an endovascular approach with coverage of those small accessory arteries, an open hybrid approach which we utilized in a single case in the series with open transposition through a limited
incision from the distal aorta down to the distal iliac, and then actually a fenestrated endovascular repair of his complex aneurysm. Finally, an open approach, where direct aorto-ilio-femoral reconstruction with a bypass and reimplantation of that renal artery was done,
but in the patients with atypical renals off the iliac segment, I think you utilizing these endohybrid options can come up with some creative solutions, and utilize, if there is some common iliac occlusive disease or aneurysmal disease, you can maintain antegrade flow into these renal arteries from the pelvis
and utilize cross femoral bypass and contralateral occlusions. So, good options with AUIs, with an endohybrid approach in these difficult patients. Thank you.
- Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. And our faculty here. Thank you so much for having me, and I'm thrilled to be here as I think some of the few interventionalists who are here. So, the idea was, what is the, is the stance
being overused after the Orbita Trial? And I bring it up because what is the Orbita Trial? This was a trial that really got a lot of, a lot of attention and I think it's important for you to kind of think about it.
It was actually the very first sham-controlled study of 230 patients who were enrolled, 200 who were randomized. Comparing actually PCI to placebo in patients with severe single vessel disease who were medically optimized but were stable.
Very, very interesting. They followed up these patients and the, based, looked at the change in exercise time in these patients and found absolutely no benefit for PCI in changing the exercise time.
So they said, in medically, in patients with medically-treated angina and severe coronary artery stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by by, in any difference from placebos. So, this really, really brought up so much attention
and that we were really, really doing unnecessary procedures and the last thing we heard is the last nail in the coffin of PCI. And so, I think it's important to think about what were the issues with that important disease and where we are with the scope of coronary disease.
Which is not insignificant. At the moment, with 326 million patients in the United States, and prevalence of CAD at 16.5, PCI is being performed in 667,000 patients per year. And I think it is important to note
that for the most part, about 50% of this is for acute coronary syndromes, which is not all the Orbita Trial. It's supportive evidence for routine revascularization with guideline-based therapy, directive therapy.
Very, very important that observational data does show a very important relationship between ischemia and death and MI. Revascularization relieves ischemia and that is what it's supposed to do. Large scale studies have shown
a reduction in spontaneous MI, following revascularization versus guideline-directed therapy. And importantly, continued improvement in both PCI and CABG techniques have really shown excellent relief of symptoms
and that we are not here to really, really think about death and MI in the big, big picture. But more immediate reductions as preferred by patients and importantly, we have to note that ischemia directed therapy with revascularization can have important issues.
Regarding whether or not there is an overuse of PCI's, let me just take a, show you the map of the United States. The heat map. The hotter, the more PCI's. And you can see, it really is very much variable and that there is important appropriate use criteria
for coronary revascularization that continues to be updated on a very, very important issue. And there's no question that the media loves the hysteria about overuse of PCI. But I wanted to put that into the context
of what we were doing. In PCI, we are using FFR guidance and physiology guided PCI to show an enhanced outcome. And more and more, we're incorporating that into the armamentarium of both AUC, Appropriate-Use Criteria, as well as evaluating
the valuable patients. And it is important for you to take a look at what have we shown. So far, based on revascularization versus optimal medical therapy in relieving angina and has been a very, very important
improvement in exercise capacity. Albeit, that the one and only trial of the sham procedure didn't show a change in exercise, but there are a lot of issues in this underpowered study that shouldn't really, really turn you away.
For the fact that PCI does relive symptoms. Because there's a tremendous amount of evidence in, in view of reducing angina with a really, really good p value of 12 randomized clinical trials in this area. It is also important that the freedom of angina is shown.
Not just within the Orbita Trial that actually did show a reduction in angina, but very similar to previous studies. And the guidelines are telling us a very, very important Class 1A indication for patients with CID for both
prognosis and treatment. There is an upcoming ischemia trial in ischemic heart disease that will show in 8,000 patients on their NHLBI, with evidence of ischemia hopefully that we could show
that there is benefits. So to conclude, the current guidelines recommend use of revascularization for relief of symptoms with patients with ischemic, a stable ischemic disease. And while placebo remains an important aspect of this medical management up front,
and making sure that there is an important management, we should really, really understand that there's no question that optimal medical therapy has to stay in the background. And the use of PCI is, continues to be of important value.
Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you. I have a little disclosure. I've got to give some, or rather, quickly point out the technique. First apply the stet graph as close as possible to the hypogastric artery.
As you can see here, the end of distal graft. Next step, come from the left brachial you can lay the catheter in the hypogastric artery. And then come from both
as you can see here, with this verge catheter and you put in position the culver stent, and from the femoral you just put in position the iliac limb orthostatic graft.
The next step, apply the stent graft, the iliac limb stent graft, keep the viabahn and deployed it in more the part here. What you have here is five centimeter overlap to avoid Type I endoleak.
The next step, use a latex balloon, track over to the iliac limb, and keep until the, as you can see here, the viabahn is still undeployed. In the end of the procedure,
at least one and a half centimeters on both the iliac lumen to avoid occlusion to viabahn. So we're going to talk about our ten years since I first did my first description of this technique. We do have the inclusion criteria
that's very important to see that I can't use the Sandwich Technique with iliac lumen unless they are bigger than eight millimeters. That's one advantage of this technique. I can't use also in the very small length
of common iliac artery and external iliac artery and I need at least four millimeters of the hypogastric artery. The majority patients are 73 age years old. Majority males. Hypertension, a lot of comorbidity of oldest patients.
But the more important, here you can see, when you compare the groups with the high iliac artery and aneurismal diameter and treat with the Sandwich Technique, you can see here actually it's statistically significant
that I can treat patient with a very small real lumen regarding they has in total diameter bigger size but I can treat with very small lumen. That's one of the advantages of this technique. You can see the right side and also in the left side. So all situations, I can treat very small lumen
of the aneurysm. The next step so you can show here is about we performed this on 151 patients. Forty of these patients was bilateral. That's my approach of that. And you can see, the procedure time,
the fluoroscope time is higher in the group that I performed bilaterally. And the contrast volume tends to be more in the bilateral group. But ICU stay, length of stay, and follow up is no different between these two groups.
The technical success are 96.7%. Early mortality only in three patients, one patient. Late mortality in 8.51 patients. Only one was related with AMI. Reintervention rate is 5, almost 5.7 percent. Buttock claudication rate is very, very rare.
You cannot find this when you do Sandwich Technique bilaterally. And about the endoleaks, I have almost 18.5% of endoleaks. The majority of them was Type II endoleaks. I have some Type late endoleaks
also the majority of them was Type II endoleaks. And about the other complications I will just remark that I do not have any neurological complications because I came from the left brachial. And as well I do not have colon ischemia
and spinal cord ischemia rate. And all about the evolution of the aneurysm sac. You'll see the majority, almost two-thirds have degrees of the aneurysm sac diameter. And some of these patients
we get some degrees but basically still have some Type II endoleak. That's another very interesting point of view. So you can see here, pre and post, decrease of the aneurysm sac.
You see the common iliac artery pre and post decreasing and the hypogastric also decreasing. So in conclusion, the Sandwich Technique facilitates safe and effective aneurysm exclusion
and target vessel revascularization in adverse anatomical scenarios with sustained durability in midterm follow-up. Thank you very much for attention.
- Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the BlueLeaf Endovenous Valve with potential benefits of on an all-autogenous solution. The last slide was a nice segue to this presentation, so the financial relationship. So we've discussed extensively at this meeting treatments for superficial venous
reflux outflow obstruction, and, really, the last sort of frontier is the deep vein reflux where invasive surgery is still the gold standard, but I basically say that the majority of us, or at least myself and many of us in our practice,
resort to what I refer to as palliative care or conservative managements in patients who have maximally been treated for their outflow obstruction and superficial venous reflux. This is sort of an outstanding review
of the current state of deep venous reconstructive surgery by Dr. Maleti, Lugli, and Tripathi who said the trap door technique as well as the neovalve and the corresponding outcomes, and I encourage all of you to look at it, are pretty reassuring even with the limitations.
The ulcer recurrence rates are in the 20-30% range and the vales remain competent in 70% of cases, and the results of the neovalve reconstruction are also reasonably promising. So how do we take these reasonably and pretty promising results and try to expand them?
Potentially, what would it look like as a percutaneous approach? And it might look something like this. And this is the BlueLeaf Endovenous Valve Formation System which uses a catheter system, a nitinol dissector, and a needle assembly,
and it's done under intravascular ultrasound guidance. This is what the procedure looks like in the basic three steps. After you've gained access with a 16 French sheath in the common femoral vein you identify the valve site,
the appropriate valve site with the IVUS, you perform, you gain sub-intimal access, and then perform the hydrodissection, and then you create your valve. And this is how it goes. So after you've gained wire access
you advance your intravascular ultrasound in order to identify the valve formation site. Right now it's quantitated at seven to 11 millimeters in diameter and at least three centimeters in length. You then inflate the balloon to appose the vein wall,
to create some tension in the vein wall, and thereafter your needle assembly can create that sub-intimal plane with the hydrodissection, and you see how the bevel tip retracts to make it less traumatic. You're checking with intravascular ultrasound.
You advance the dissector. And then under IVUS guidance you create the valve with the nitinol scoring blades on the dissector as well as the tensioner which kind of bows out towards the IVUS, and you can see it on the corresponding IVUS images.
And the very last step is to leave the blades open to open up the mouth of that percutaneous valve fully. And the advantages. You can create a monocuspid, a bicuspid valve, potentially multilevel valves as well. In this tissue demonstration
you're essentially looking from within the vein walls, so the tensioner is pointing out towards you as if you're within the lumen of the vessel, and it's just showing you how the nitinol scoring blades create the valve and then when left open for the final passage
to incise the valve mouth. And this is what the result looks like on intravascular ultrasound. It projects well the last couple seconds of the slide. So the potential advantages is that there's an increased potential for customization.
Again, monocuspid, bicuspid valve orientation, multilevel valves. (mumbles) may lead to a larger eligible patient population and expanded utilization amongst various venous practitioners. The extended feasibility study.
The trial details are currently enrolling outside of the United States. 11 patient in Australia and New Zealand. The US trial is pending IDE approval, and the inclusion criteria will be those patients with the most severe disease with C5 and C6 disease
and significant deep vein reflux. Exclusion criteria relate to inflow, outflow, and having an adequate conduit with an appropriate valve formation site. Thank you.
- Our group has looked at the outcomes of patients undergoing carotid-subclavian bypass in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair. These are my obligatory disclosures, none of which are relevant to this study. By way of introduction, coverage of the left subclavian artery origin
is required in 10-50% of patients undergoing TEVAR, to achieve an adequate proximal landing zone. The left subclavian artery may contribute to critical vascular beds in addition to the left upper extremity, including the posterior cerebral circulation,
the coronary circulation if a LIMA graft is present, and the spinal cord, via vertebral collaterals. Therefore the potential risks of inadequate left subclavian perfusion include not only arm ischemia, but also posterior circulation stroke,
spinal cord ischemia, and coronary insufficiency. Although these risks are of low frequency, the SVS as early as 2010 published guidelines advocating a policy of liberal left subclavian revascularization during TEVAR
requiring left subclavian origin coverage. Until recently, the only approved way to maintain perfusion of the left subclavian artery during TEVAR, with a zone 2 or more proximal landing zone, was a cervical bypass or transposition procedure. As thoracic side-branch devices become more available,
we thought it might be useful to review our experience with cervical bypass for comparison with these newer endovascular strategies. This study was a retrospective review of our aortic disease database, and identified 112 out of 579 TEVARs
that had undergone carotid subclavian bypass. We used the standard operative technique, through a short, supraclavicular incision, the subclavian arteries exposed by division of the anterior scalene muscle, and a short 8 millimeter PTFE graft is placed
between the common carotid and the subclavian arteries, usually contemporaneous with the TEVAR procedure. The most important finding of this review regarded phrenic nerve dysfunction. To exam this, all pre- and post-TEVAR chest x-rays were reviewed for evidence of diaphragm elevation.
The study population was typical for patients undergoing TEVAR. The most frequent indication for bypass was for spinal cord protection, and nearly 80% of cases were elective. We found that 25 % of patients had some evidence
of phrenic nerve dysfunction, though many resolved over time. Other nerve injury and vascular graft complications occurred with much less frequency. This slide illustrates the grading of diaphragm elevation into mild and severe categories,
and notes that over half of the injuries did resolve over time. Vascular complications were rare, and usually treated with a corrective endovascular procedure. Of three graft occlusions, only one required repeat bypass.
Two pseudoaneurysms were treated endovascularly. Actuarial graft, primary graft patency, was 97% after five years. In summary then, the report examines early and late outcomes for carotid subclavian bypass, in the setting of TEVAR. We found an unexpectedly high rate
of phrenic nerve dysfunction postoperatively, although over half resolved spontaneously. There was a very low incidence of vascular complications, and a high long-term patency rate. We suggest that this study may provide a benchmark for comparison
with emerging branch thoracic endovascular devices. Thank you.
- Thank you. I have two talks because Dr. Gaverde, I understand, is not well, so we- - [Man] Thank you very much. - We just merged the two talks. All right, it's a little joke. For today's talk we used fusion technology
to merge two talks on fusion technology. Hopefully the rest of the talk will be a little better than that. (laughs) I think we all know from doing endovascular aortic interventions
that you can be fooled by the 2D image and here's a real life view of how that can be an issue. I don't think I need to convince anyone in this room that 3D fusion imaging is essential for complex aortic work. Studies have clearly shown it decreases radiation,
it decreases fluoro time, and decreases contrast use, and I'll just point out that these data are derived from the standard mechanical based systems. And I'll be talking about a cloud-based system that's an alternative that has some advantages. So these traditional mechanical based 3D fusion images,
as I mentioned, do have some limitations. First of all, most of them require manual registration which can be cumbersome and time consuming. Think one big issue is the hardware based tracking system that they use. So they track the table rather than the patient
and certainly, as the table moves, and you move against the table, the patient is going to move relative to the table, and those images become unreliable. And then finally, the holy grail of all 3D fusion imaging is the distortion of pre-operative anatomy
by the wires and hardware that are introduced during the course of your procedure. And one thing I'd like to discuss is the possibility that deep machine learning might lead to a solution to these issues. How does 3D fusion, image-based 3D fusion work?
Well, you start, of course with your pre-operative CT dataset and then you create digitally reconstructed radiographs, which are derived from the pre-op CTA and these are images that resemble the fluoro image. And then tracking is done based on the identification
of two or more vertebral bodies and an automated algorithm matches the most appropriate DRR to the live fluoro image. Sounds like a lot of gobbledygook but let me explain how that works. So here is the AI machine learning,
matching what it recognizes as the vertebral bodies from the pre-operative CT scan to the fluoro image. And again, you get the CT plus the fluoro and then you can see the overlay with the green. And here's another version of that or view of that.
You can see the AI machine learning, identifying the vertebral bodies and then on your right you can see the fusion image. So just, once again, the AI recognizes the bony anatomy and it's going to register the CT with the fluoro image. It tracks the patient, not the table.
And the other thing that's really important is that it recognizes the postural change that the patient undergoes between the posture during the CT scan, versus the posture on the OR table usually, or often, under general anesthesia. And here is an image of the final overlay.
And you can see the visceral and renal arteries with orange circles to identify them. You can remove those, you can remove any of those if you like. This is the workflow. First thing you do is to upload the CT scan to the cloud.
Then, when you're ready to perform the procedure, that is downloaded onto the medical grade PC that's in your OR next to your fluoro screen, and as soon as you just step on the fluoro pedal, the CYDAR overlay appears next to your, or on top of your fluoro image,
next to your regular live fluoro image. And every time you move the table, the computer learning recognizes that the images change, and in a couple of seconds, it replaces with a new overlay based on the obliquity or table position that you have. There are some additional advantages
to cloud-based technology over mechanical technology. First of all, of course, or hardware type technology. Excuse me. You can upgrade it in real time as opposed to needing intermittent hardware upgrades. Works with any fluoro equipment, including a C-arm,
so you don't have to match your 3D imaging to the brand of your fluoro imaging. And there's enhanced accuracy compared to mechanical registration systems as imaging. So what are the clinical applications that this can be utilized for?
Fluoroscopy guided endovascular procedures in the lower thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, so that includes EVAR and FEVAR, mid distal TEVAR. At present, we do need two vertebral bodies and that does limit the use in TEVAR. And then angioplasty stenting and embolization
of common iliac, proximal external and proximal internal iliac artery. Anything where you can acquire a vertebral body image. So here, just a couple of examples of some additional non EVAR/FEVAR/TEVAR applications. This is, these are some cases
of internal iliac embolization, aortoiliac occlusion crossing, standard EVAR, complex EVAR. And I think then, that the final thing that I'd like to talk about is the use with C-arm, which is think is really, extremely important.
Has the potential to make a very big difference. All of us in our larger OR suites, know that we are short on hybrid availability, and yet it's difficult to get our institutions to build us another hybrid room. But if you could use a high quality 3D fusion imaging
with a high quality C-arm, you really expand your endovascular capability within the operating room in a much less expensive way. And then if you look at another set of circumstances where people don't have a hybrid room at all, but do want to be able to offer standard EVAR
to their patients, and perhaps maybe even basic FEVAR, if there is such a thing, and we could use good quality imaging to do that in the absence of an actual hybrid room. That would be extremely valuable to be able to extend good quality care
to patients in under-served areas. So I just was mentioning that we can use this and Tara Mastracci was talking yesterday about how happy she is with her new room where she has the use of CYDAR and an excellent C-arm and she feels that she is able to essentially run two rooms,
two hybrid rooms at once, using the full hybrid room and the C-arm hybrid room. Here's just one case of Dr. Goverde's. A vascular case that he did on a mobile C-arm with aortoiliac occlusive disease and he places kissing stents
using a CYDAR EV and a C-arm. And he used five mils of iodinated contrast. So let's talk about a little bit of data. This is out of Blain Demorell and Tara Mastrachi's group. And this is use of fusion technology in EVAR. And what they found was that the use of fusion imaging
reduced air kerma and DSA runs in standard EVAR. We also looked at our experience recently in EVAR and FEVAR and we compared our results. Pre-availability of image based fusion CT and post image based fusion CT. And just to clarify,
we did have the mechanical product that Phillip's offers, but we abandoned it after using it a half dozen times. So it's really no image fusion versus image fusion to be completely fair. We excluded patients that were urgent/emergent, parallel endographs, and IBEs.
And we looked at radiation exposure, contrast use, fluoro time, and procedure time. The demographics in the two groups were identical. We saw a statistically significant decrease in radiation dose using image based fusion CT. Statistically a significant reduction in fluoro time.
A reduction in contrast volume that looks significant, but was not. I'm guessing because of numbers. And a significantly different reduction in procedure time. So, in conclusion, image based 3D fusion CT decreases radiation exposure, fluoro time,
and procedure time. It does enable 3D overlays in all X-Ray sets, including mobile C-arm, expanding our capabilities for endovascular work. And image based 3D fusion CT has the potential to reduce costs
and improve clinical outcomes. Thank you.
- So I'm just going to talk a little bit about what's new in our practice with regard to first rib resection. In particular, we've instituted the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera at times to better visualize the structures. I will give you a little bit of a update
about our results and then I'll address very briefly some controversies. Dr. Gelbart and Chan from Hong Kong and UCLA have proposed and popularized the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for a better visualization of the structures
and I'll show you some of those pictures. From 2007 on, we've done 125 of these procedures. We always do venography first including intervascular intervention to open up the vein, and then a transaxillary first rib resection, and only do post-operative venography if the vein reclots.
So this is a 19 year old woman who's case I'm going to use to illustrate our approach. She developed acute onset left arm swelling, duplex and venogram demonstrated a collusion of the subclavian axillary veins. Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy
and then balloon angioplasty were performed with persistent narrowing at the thoracic outlet. So a day later, she was taken to the operating room, a small incision made in the axilla, we air interiorly to avoid injury to the long thoracic nerve.
As soon as you dissect down to the chest wall, you can identify and protect the vein very easily. I start with electrocautery on the peripheral margin of the rib, and use that to start both digital and Matson elevator dissection of the periosteum pleura
off the first rib, and then get around the anterior scalene muscle under direct visualization with a right angle and you can see that the vein and the artery are identified and easily protected. Here's the 30 degree laparoscopic image
of getting around the anterior scalene muscle and performing the electrocautery and you can see the pulsatile vein up here anterior and superficial to the anterior scalene muscle. Here is a right angle around the first rib to make sure there are no structures
including the pleura still attached to it. I always divide, or try to divide, the posterior aspect of the rib first because I feel like then I can manipulate the ribs superiorly and inferiorly, and get the rib shears more anterior for the anterior cut
because that's most important for decompressing the vein. Again, here's the 30 degree laparoscopic view of the rib shears performing first the posterior cut, there and then the anterior cut here. The portion of rib is removed, and you can see both the artery and the vein
are identified and you can confirm that their decompressed. We insufflate with water or saline, and then perform valsalva to make sure that they're hasn't been any pneumothorax, and then after putting a drain in,
I actually also turn the patient supine before extirpating them to make sure that there isn't a pneumothorax on chest x-ray. You can see the Jackson-Pratt drain in the left axilla. One month later, duplex shows a patent vein. So we've had pretty good success with this approach.
23 patients have requires post operative reintervention, but no operative venous reconstruction or bypass has been performed, and 123 out of 125 axillosubclavian veins have been patent by duplex at last follow-up. A brief comment on controversies,
first of all, the surgical approach we continue to believe that a transaxillary approach is cosmetically preferable and just as effective as a paraclavicular or anterior approach, and we have started being more cautious
about postoperative anticoagulation. So we've had three patients in that series that had to go back to the operating room for washout of hematoma, one patient who actually needed a VATS to treat a hemathorax,
and so in recent times we've been more cautious. In fact 39 patients have been discharged only with oral antiplatelet therapy without any plan for definitive therapeutic anticoagulation and those patients have all done very well. Obviously that's contraindicated in some cases
of a preoperative PE, or hematology insistence, or documented hypercoagulability and we've also kind of included that, the incidence of postop thrombosis of the vein requiring reintervention, but a lot of patients we think can be discharged
on just antiplatelets. So again, our approach to this is a transaxillary first rib resection after a venogram and a vascular intervention. We think this cosmetically advantageous. Surgical venous reconstruction has not been required
in any case, and we've incorporated the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for better intraoperative visualization, thanks.
- Thank you chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I have no conflict of interest for this talk. So, basically for vTOS we have the well known treatment options. Either the conservative approach with DOAC or anticoagulation for three months or longer supported by elastic stockings.
And alternatively there's the invasive approach with catheter thrombolysis and decompression surgery and as we've just heard in the talk but Ben Jackson, also in surgeons preference, additional PTA and continuation or not of anticoagulation.
And basically the chosen therapy is very much based on the specific specialist where the patient is referred to. Both treatment approaches have their specific complications. Rethrombosis pulmonary embolism,
but especially the post-thrombotic syndrome which is reported in conservative treatment in 26 up to 66%, but also in the invasive treatment approach up to 25%. And of course there are already well known complications related to surgery.
The problem is, with the current evidence, that it's only small retrospective studies. There is no comparative studies and especially no randomized trials. So basically there's a lack of high quality evidence leading to varying guideline recommendations.
And I'm not going through them in detail 'cause it's a rather busy slide. But if you take a quick look then you can see some disparencies between the different guidelines and at some aspects there is no recommendation at all,
or the guidelines refer to selected patients, but they define how they should be selected. So again, the current evidence is insufficient to determine the most clinically and cost effective treatment approach, and we believe that a randomized trial is warranted.
And this is the UTOPIA trial. And I'm going to take you a bit through the design. So the research question underline this trial is, does surgical treatment, consisting of catheter directed thrombolysis and first rib section, significantly reduce post-thrombotic syndrome
occurrence, as compared to conservative therapy with DOAC anticoagulation, in adults with primary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis? The design is multicenter randomized and the population is all adults with first case of primary Upper Extremity
Deep Venous Thrombosis. And our primary outcome is occurrence of post-thrombotic syndrome, and this the find according the modified Villalta score. And there are several secondary outcomes, which of course we will take into account,
such as procedural complications, but also quality of life. This is the trial design. Inclusion informed consent and randomization are performed at first presentation either with the emergency department or outpatient clinic.
When we look at patients 18 years or older and the symptoms should be there for less than 14 days. Exclusion criteria are relevant when there's a secondary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis or any contra-indication for DOACs or catheter directed thrombolysis.
We do perform imaging at baseline with a CT venography. We require this to compare baseline characteristics of both groups to mainly determine what the underlying cause of the thrombosis being either vTOS or idiopathic.
And then a patient follows the course of the trial either the invasive treatment with decompression surgery and thrombolysis and whether or not PTA is required or not, or conservative treatment and we have to prefer DOAC Rivaroxaban or apixaban to be used.
Further down the patient is checked for one month and the Villalta score is adapted for use in the upper extremity and we also apply quality of life scores and scores for cost effectiveness analysis. And this is the complete flowchart of the whole trial.
Again, very busy slide, but just to show you that the patient is followed up at several time points, one, three, six, and 12 months and the 12 months control is actually the endpoint of the trial
And then again, a control CT venography is performed. Sample size and power calculation. We believe that there's an effect size of 20% reduction in post-thrombotic syndrome in favor of the invasive treatment and there's a two-side p-value of 0.05
and at 80% power, we consider that there will be some loss to follow up, and therefore we need just over 150 patients to perform this trial. So, in short, this slide more or less summarize it. It shows the several treatment options
that are available for these patients with Upper Extremity Venous Thrombosis. And in the trial we want to see, make this comparison to see if anticoagulation alone is as best as invasive therapy. I thank for your attention.
- Good morning. Thank you Dr. Veith for this kind invitation to present our data. These are my disclosures. So despite multimodal strategies to improve spinal cord perfusion permanent paraplegia still occurs in up to ten percent of patients undergoing
complex thoracoabdominal procedures. And the rates of transient lower extremity weakness are even higher. Hyperglycemia is associated with worsened clinical outcomes after acute ischemic stroke, severe head injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage.
In experimental date in animal studies suggests that hyperglycemia may be deleterious in the setting of spinal cord ischemic injury, but human studies are lacking. We have previously shown that elevated blood and CSF glucose levels were significantly associated
with postoperative lower extremity weakness in patients undergoing multi-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. And importantly these elevated glucose levels preceded the onset of lower extremity weakness. Based on the findings of this study, we initiated
an insulin infusion protocol to maintain postoperative glucose levels to less than 120 milligrams per deciliter in all patients undergoing MBEVAR. And the purpose of this current study was to determine whether using this insulin infusion protocol to achieve tight postoperative blood glucose control
decrease the rate of lower extremity weakness after MBEVAR. This was a single center prospective clinical trail of asymptomatic patients with thoracoabdominal or pararenal aneurysms who underwent MBEVAR. All patients were admitted one day prior to the procedure and treated with IV fluid hydration and their
antihypertensive medications were held peri-operatively. All of these patients underwent preoperative placement of a lumbar catheter for drainage of CSF. And in October of 2013 we began to collect blood and CSF samples on these patients for further analysis. In July of 2016 we began the insulin infusion protocol.
And in all patients who had a blood glucose level of greater than or equal to 120 milligrams per deciliter, they were started on a regular IV insulin infusion which was further titrated based on subsequent glucose measurements and then continued in the ICU for the first 48 hours postoperatively.
Between October of 2013 and April of 2018, 43 patients without pre-existing paraplegia underwent MBEVAR. The mean age of the cohort was 73 years and the majority were men. 19% of these patients had diabetes mellitus, but none of these patients were on insulin preoperatively.
53% of patients underwent treatment for either a type four or a pararenal aneurysm, but the proximal seal zone was in the superceliac aorta in all of these patients. Before initiation of the insulin infusion protocol 22 patients underwent MBEVAR, and after initiation of the insulin infusion protocol
21 patients underwent MBEVAR. There's no difference in demographic characteristics, comorbidity, or operative parameters between the two groups of patients. Before initiation of the insulin infusion protocol, seven of twenty-two patients developed
lower extremity weakness within the first 48 hours of repair. This was temporary in five patients, leaving two patients with permanent paraplegia. After we instituted the insulin infusion protocol, no patients developed lower extremity weakness
within the first 48 hours of repair. One patient did develop paraplegia on postoperative day four which was two days after the insulin had been stopped. This rate of early lower extremity weakness was significantly lower after initiation of the insulin infusion protocol.
And important to note that all patients in group B did require insulin at some point in the postoperative period. This table just describes the onset, laterality and nature of the deficit in the two groups of patients with lower extremity weakness.
Before initiation of the insulin infusion protocol, the blood and CSF glucose levels were significantly higher in the postoperative period in patients who develop lower extremity weakness compared to those who did not. After initiation of the insulin infusion protocol the glucose levels in the blood and CSF in this group
of patients was similar to those patients in the earlier group who did not have lower extremity weakness. So in conclusion, patients with elevated blood and CSF glucose levels are at higher risk for postoperative lower extremity weakness.
And strict control of their blood glucose levels in the first 48 hours appears to decrease this risk. And maybe that elevated glucose levels are directly toxic to neuronal tissue and what we're seeing are the protective effects of euglycemia. However, insulin receptors are abundant throughout the CNS,
so it's possible that we're also seeing one of the pleiotropic effects of insulin as it's known to have anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory effects throughout the CNS. So we're actually speculating that this postoperative hyperglycemia could be due to a state
of acute insulin resistance. And we're currently studying some changes in neuron-derived blood exosomes before and after MBEVAR to try to understand the processes at play. So stay tuned.
- Good morning, I would like to thank Dr. Veith, and the co-chairs for inviting me to talk. I have nothing to disclose. Some background on this information, patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are at least three times more likely to suffer a thrombo-embolic event, when compared to the general population.
The incidence is 0.1 - 0.5% per year. Overall mortality associated with these events can be as high as 25%, and postmortem exams reveal an incidence of 39-41% indicating that systemic thrombo-embolism is probably underdiagnosed. Thrombosis mainly occurs during disease exacerbation,
however proctocolectomy has not been shown to be preventative. Etiology behind this is not well known, but it's thought to be multifactorial. Including decrease in fibrinolytic activity, increase in platelet activation,
defects in the protein C pathway. Dyslipidemia and long term inflammation also puts patients at risk for an increase in atherosclerosis. In addition, these patients lack vitamins, are often dehydrated, anemic, and at times immobilized. Traditionally, the venous thrombosis is thought
to be more common, however recent retrospective review of the Health Care Utilization Project nationwide inpatient sample database, reported not only an increase in the incidence but that arterial complications may happen more frequently than venous.
I was going to present four patients over the course of one year, that were treated at my institution. The first patient is 25 year old female with Crohn's disease, who had a transverse colectomy one year prior to presentation. Presented with right flank pain, she was found to have
right sided PE, a right sided pulmonary vein thrombosis and a left atrial thrombosis. She was admitted for IV heparin, four days later she had developed abdominal pains, underwent an abdominal CTA significant for SMA occlusion prompting an SMA thrombectomy.
This is a picture of her CAT scan showing the right PE, the right pulmonary vein thrombosis extending into the left atrium. The SMA defect. She returned to the OR for second and third looks, underwent a subtotal colectomy,
small bowel resection with end ileostomy during the third operation. She had her heparin held post-operatively due to significant post-op bleeding, and over the next three to five days she got significantly worse, developed progressive fevers increase found to have
SMA re-thrombosis, which you can see here on her CAT scan. She ended up going back to the operating room and having the majority of her small bowel removed, and went on to be transferred to an outside facility for bowel transplant. Our second patient is a 59 year old female who presented
five days a recent flare of ulcerative colitis. She presented with right lower extremity pain and numbness times one day. She was found to have acute limb ischemia, category three. An attempt was made at open revascularization with thrombectomy, however the pedal vessels were occluded.
The leg was significantly ischemic and flow could not be re-established despite multiple attempts at cut-downs at different levels. You can see her angiogram here at the end of the case. She subsequently went on to have a below knee amputation, and her hospital course was complicated by
a colonic perforation due to the colitis not responding to conservative measures. She underwent a subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy. Just in the interest of time we'll skip past the second, third, and fourth patients here. These patients represent catastrophic complications of
atypical thrombo-embolic events occurring in IBD flares. Patients with inflammatory disease are at an increased risk for both arterial and venous thrombotic complications. So the questions to be answered: are the current recommendations adequate? Currently heparin prophylaxis is recommended for
inpatients hospitalized for severe disease. And, if this is not adequate, what treatments should we recommend, the medication choice, and the duration of treatment? These arterial and venous complications occurring in the visceral and peripheral arteries
are likely underappreciated clinically as a risk for patients with IBD flares and they demonstrate a need to look at further indications for thrombo-prophylaxis. Thank you.
- So this was born out of the idea that there were some patients who come to us with a positive physical exam or problems on dialysis, bleeding after dialysis, high pressures, low flows, that still have normal fistulograms. And as our nephrology colleagues teach us, each time you give a patient some contrast,
you lose some renal function that they maintain, even those patients who are on dialysis have some renal function. And constantly giving them contrasts is generally not a good thing. So we all know that intimal hyperplasia
is the Achilles Heel of dialysis access. We try to do surveillance. Debbie talked about the one minute check and how effective dialysis is. Has good sensitivity on good specificity, but poor sensitivity in determining
dialysis access problems. There are other measured parameters that we can use which have good specificity and a little better sensitivity. But what about ultrasound? What about using ultrasound as a surveillance tool and how do you use it?
Well the DOQI guidelines, the first ones, not the ones that are coming out, I guess, talked about different ways to assess dialysis access. And one of the ways, obviously, was using duplex ultrasound. Access flows that are less than 600
or if they're high flows with greater than 20% decrease, those are things that should stimulate a further look for clinical stenosis. Even the IACAVAL recommendations do, indeed, talk about volume flow and looking at volume flow. So is it volume flow?
Or is it velocity that we want to look at? And in our hands, it's been a very, very challenging subject and those of you who are involved with Vasculef probably have the same thing. Medicare has determined that dialysis shouldn't, dialysis access should not be surveilled with ultrasound.
It's not medically necessary unless you have a specific reason for looking at the dialysis access, you can't simply surveil as much as you do a bypass graft despite the work that's been done with bypass graft showing how intervening on a failing graft
is better than a failed graft. There was a good meta-analysis done a few years ago looking at all these different studies that have come out, looking at velocity versus volume. And in that study, their conclusion, unfortunately, is that it's really difficult to tell you
what you should use as volume versus velocity. The problem with it is this. And it becomes, and I'll show you towards the end, is a simple math problem that calculating volume flows is simply a product of area and velocity. In terms of area, you have to measure the luminal diameter,
and then you take the luminal diameter, and you calculate the area. Well area, we all remember, is pi r squared. So you now divide the diameter in half and then you square it. So I don't know about you,
but whenever I measure something on the ultrasound machine, you know, I could be off by half a millimeter, or even a millimeter. Well when you're talking about a four, five millimeter vessel, that's 10, 20% difference.
Now you square that and you've got a big difference. So it's important to use the longitudinal view when you're measuring diameter. Always measure it if you can. It peaks distally, and obviously try to measure it in an non-aneurysmal area.
Well, you know, I'm sure your patients are the same as mine. This is what some of our patients look like. Not many, but this is kind of an exaggerated point to make the point. There's tortuosity, there's aneurysms,
and the vein diameter varies along the length of the access that presents challenges. Well what about velocity? Well, I think most of us realize that a velocity between 100 to 300 is probably normal. A velocity that's over 500, in this case is about 600,
is probably abnormal, and probably represents a stenosis, right? Well, wait a minute, not necessarily. You have to look at the fluid dynamic model of this, and look at what we're actually looking at. This flow is very different.
This is not like any, not like a bypass graft. You've got flow taking a 180 degree turn at the anastomosis. Isn't that going to give you increased turbulence? Isn't that going to change your velocity? Some of the flow dynamic principles that are important
to understand when looking at this is that the difference between plug and laminar flow. Plug flow is where every bit is moving at the same velocity, the same point from top to bottom. But we know that's not true. We know that within vessels, for the most part,
we have laminar flow. So flow along the walls tends to be a little bit less than flow in the middle. That presents a problem for us. And then when you get into the aneurysmal section, and you've got turbulent flow,
then all bets are off there. So it's important, when you take your sample volume, you take it across the whole vessel. And then you get into something called the Time-Averaged mean velocity which is a term that's used in the ultrasound literature.
But it basically talks about making sure that your sample volume is as wide as it can be. You have to make sure that your angle is as normal in 60 degrees because once you get above 60 degrees, you start to throw it off.
So again, you've now got angulation of the anastomosis and then the compliance of a vein and a graft differs from the artery. So we use the two, we multiply it, and we come up with the volume flow. Well, people have said you should use a straight segment
of the graft to measure that. Five centimeters away from the anastomosis, or any major branches. Some people have actually suggested just using a brachial artery to assess that. Well the problems in dialysis access
is there are branches and bifurcations, pseudoaneurysms, occlusions, et cetera. I don't know about you, but if I have a AV graft, I can measure the volume flow at different points in the graft to get different numbers. How is that possible?
Absolutely not possible. You've got a tube with no branches that should be the same at the beginning and the end of the graft. But again, it becomes a simple math problem. The area that you're calculating is half the diameter squared.
So there's definitely measurement area with the electronic calipers. The velocity, you've got sampling error, you've got the anatomy, which distorts velocity, and then you've got the angle with which it is taken. So when you start multiplying all this,
you've got a big reason for variations in flow. We looked at 82 patients in our study. We double blinded it. We used a fistulagram as the gold standard. The duplex flow was calculated at three different spots. Duplex velocity at five different spots.
And then the diameters and aneurysmal areas were noted. This is the data. And basically, what it showed, was something totally non-significant. We really couldn't say anything about it. It was a trend toward lower flows,
how the gradients (mumbles) anastomosis, but nothing we could say. So as you all know, you can't really prove the null hypothesis. I'm not here to tell you to use one or use the other, I don't think that volume flow is something that
we can use as a predictor of success or failure, really. So in conclusion, what we found, is that Debbie Brow is right. Clinical examinations probably still the best technique. Look for abnormalities on dialysis. What's the use of duplex ultrasound in dialysis or patients?
And I think we're going to hear that in the next speaker. But probably good for vein mapping. Definitely good for vein mapping, arterial inflow, and maybe predicting maturation. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Tal. It's a privilege again to take the podium here. No disclosures. Everyone in here in this audience understands how important Traumatic Aortic Injury is, the second leading cause of death, primarily due to blunt mechanisms,
that are well known to the trauma and vascular community. And, we've learned a lot about how to care for these patient's in the transition in the vascular age. And, that began with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Studies in 2008 and 2009, which showed that TEVAR was associated
with an improved mortality and decreased paraplegia compared to older modalities. And, these are the graphs at my old training grounds at UT Houston, which, I'm sure would be the same at most other centers. A gradual transition to almost completely TEVAR
for every patient who has appropriate anatomy. And, we now have over a decade worth of survival data to show the outcome comparisons are the same as the older modalities. But the question has become now, are we over treating some of these injuries?
We need an optimal algorithm and an optimal algorithm requires an optimal grading system. And, that grading system should determine the treatment we utilize, it should guide the timing of the treatment. And, should provide some prediction of the natural history
in those patient's that we do not immediately treat. The SVS in 2011 developed a very nice anatomical based grading system, however, this is a lesionology type algorithm if you will, and not incorporating any of the valuable information that the patient also may possess
in terms of associated injuries. There have been alternative proposals: Vancouver, the Harborview "Minimal Aortic Injuries" is one that is very familiar and commonly utilized in the literature. And, even the Baltimore Classification which includes some physiology elements.
And the reality is, there are also other elements of ongoing issues Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury, including not only how to manage those Grade 1/Grade 2 injuries but the timing of repair. How do we prioritize repair in the context of other sev
rain Injury and other bleeding solid organs and what's the optimal follow up regimen for these patients? It was with those questions in mind that 3 years ago we developed the Aortic Trauma Foundation. This is a non-profit organization with a Multispecialty
International Medical Advisory Board and a Board of Directors. We really wanted to improve outcomes of patient's with Traumatic Aortic Injury through education and research. We started with several initial, kind of low hanging fruit exercises, the first of which was a practice pattern survey
from members of the SVS, trauma organization, thoracic surgery organizations in interventional radiology and we found that there were some contingents here, and some very interesting findings in this survey. In fact, a majority of providers who care for these injuries don't rely on any guidelines at all.
Just their own personal knowledge of literature and their experience over their practice lifespan. Likewise, these mid-grade injuries represent some significant controversy with almost half the providers thinking that these just need medical therapy and observation as an outpatient.
And the remainder treating them emergently with TEVAR. Or, urgently with TEVAR. And we also conducted a large Retrospective Multicenter Study, 382 patient's from US Level 1 Trauma Centers and we found the at TEVAR compared to Open Repair
was associated with lower transfusion, lower overall mortality, lower aortic related mortality. None of these were surprising findings. But again, this study identified some controversy here, particularly with the, there's no difference in outcomes with those Minimal BTAI patient's if they're treated
with TEVAR or undergo medical non-operative management. Which suggests at least that in some of these patient's we are actually over-treating them. We have, as ongoing effort, our Aortic Trauma Foundation International, Multicenter PROSPECTIVE Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury Registry
designed to identify predictors of early rupture, develop some multi-specialty consensus guidelines on treatment and management and establish long term outcomes. Anyone in this audience can join this effort, we have always gotten good contribution from VEITH.
We have a region based involvement, mechanism to promote the not only ATF involvement but the prospective registry in the US and abroad. And, we've had some good results. This initial registry went live in 2016, as of 2018, we have 381 patient's
in 23 centers internationally. And we plan to do a feasibility report when we cross the 500 patient threshold. And we invite anyone who seeks to become a member of the Aortic Trauma Foundation and actively contributes to utilize this data.
We all want to as a community, identify and define optimal care practices. We are going to actively solicit and review proposals for use and we hope that this data will produce a foundational platform upon which we can develop some really meaningful multi-specialty guidelines
that are evidence and practice based. Thank you.
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.