- Thanks very much Tim and thanks again to Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to speak on this topic. These are my disclosures. I'm just going to review a lot of the same data that you saw but I reach a slightly different conclusion than my opponent. We'll review randomized trials of open endovascular
and a review of current information on repair. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial was recently published out to twelve years. Over a thousand patients followed up for twelve years. 75% of the surveillance group ultimately did undergo aneurysm repair and these were the indications
that you see here. The time to repair by about eight years. The majority of patients who had come to repair were ultimately at that point but there is a significant number of patients who did not require repair.
And early repair did not affect mortality or rupture risk at all in these patients overall. These patients were extensively studied for their follow-up. You can see the primary rupture was slightly increased in the surveillance group but it was not
statistically significant and understand there is a primary rupture rate in the surgical group as the well as the secondary rupture risk in this group as well. The ADAM trial done in the US, over 1,100 patients followed-up to about five years.
And a little over 60% of the surveillance group ultimately underwent aneurysm repair for these indications. And about 10% of the patients were repaired outside of these recommendations to proceed onto repair. This is just a graphic look at the time to repair. At again about six to eight years you see the
flattening of that curve and there is a significant group of patients who do not require repair. This again did not have an affect on overall mortality early repair, and in fact when you look in this group at rupture, about 2% in the surveillance group,
.4% in the immediate surgery group. And sudden death which may be predictive of aneurysm rupture was essentially the same in the two groups. So I think this is a good look at what rupture was. In order to assess the outcomes with endovascular repair, we implemented the PIVOTAL Trial under
Ken Ouriel's guidance over 700 patients the mean follow-up in the publication was out to 20 months. Again about 60% of the group ultimately underwent aneurysm repair for the indications you see here. And again this curve looks fairly similar. At three years about 40% of the patients in the
surveillance group had undergone repair. No change in overall mortality. And in fact when you look at a composite end point of aneurysm rupture and aneurysm-related mortality, they're exactly the same. The CAESAR Trial in Italy,
a smaller group of patients followed up to over 4 years. Sixty percent ultimately undergoing a repair. No change in mortality. There are some differences in the rate of expansion of aneurysms, the larger aneurysms expanded at larger rates.
That's why recommendations are to survey them at a more frequent interval. I would point out though that when you look at aneurysm growth, in the EVAR group out at three years, about 10% of the population actually had
aneurysm growth even with the EVAR in place. Clearly EVAR alone does not protect these patients. The same paper that looked at a report of International consortium of registries, my opponent failed to point out that this cut-off right here,
is the difference between fee-for-service populations where this is done, and capitated systems where this is done. Clearly when you get paid more, you do more of these operations. In the VQI when you look overall,
40% of aneurysms are done in males, outside of indications are less than five and a half centimeters and a significant percentage in women less than five centimeters. When you look at the outcomes for endovascular repair, clearly there is a risk of reintervention,
If you look at two to three years, about 10 to 15% of patients will undergo reintervention. And in this same paper, the authors found that intervention, reintervention after EVAR clearly has an increased risk of mortality.
Here in pink you see the survival in the group of patients who had EVAR with reintervention. We assume that these are benign but the fact is, reinterventions carry their own mortality. So once we put these endographs in, we march these patients towards a process of
reintervention increasing mortality. And the fact is that right now, we should not be doing these. Aneurysm repair should according to guidelines. And the guidelines are based upon the best available evidence.
Small aneurysm repair does not make clinical, economic or overall sense. Thank you.
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. Thank you.
- Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for the opportunity to present at this great meeting. I have nothing to disclose. Since Dr. DeBakey published the first paper 60 years ago, the surgical importance of deep femoral artery has been well investigated and documented.
It can be used as a reliable inflow for low extremity bypass in certain circumstances. To revascularize the disease, the deep femoral artery can improve rest pain, prevent or delay the amputation, and help to heal amputation stump.
So, in this slide, the group patient that they used deep femoral artery as a inflow for infrainguinal bypass. And 10-year limb salvage was achieved in over 90% of patients. So, different techniques and configurations
of deep femoral artery angioplasty have been well described, and we've been using this in a daily basis. So, there's really not much new to discuss about this. Next couple minutes, I'd like to focus on endovascular invention 'cause I lot I think is still unclear.
Dr. Bath did a systemic review, which included 20 articles. Nearly total 900 limbs were treated with balloon angioplasty with or without the stenting. At two years, the primary patency was greater than 70%. And as you can see here, limb salvage at two years, close to, or is over 98% with very low re-intervention rate.
So, those great outcomes was based on combined common femoral and deep femoral intervention. So what about isolated deep femoral artery percutaneous intervention? Does that work or not? So, this study include 15 patient
who were high risk to have open surgery, underwent isolated percutaneous deep femoral artery intervention. As you can see, at three years, limb salvage was greater than 95%. The study also showed isolated percutaneous transluminal
angioplasty of deep femoral artery can convert ischemic rest pain to claudication. It can also help heal the stump wound to prevent hip disarticulation. Here's one of my patient. As you can see, tes-tee-lee-shun with near
or total occlusion of proximal deep femoral artery presented with extreme low-extremity rest pain. We did a balloon angioplasty. And her ABI was increased from 0.8 to 0.53, and rest pain disappeared. Another patient transferred from outside the facility
was not healing stump wound on the left side with significant disease as you can see based on the angiogram. We did a hybrid procedure including stenting of the iliac artery and the open angioplasty of common femoral artery and the profunda femoral artery.
Significantly improved the perfusion to the stump and healed wound. The indications for isolated or combined deep femoral artery revascularization. For those patient presented with disabling claudication or rest pain with a proximal
or treatable deep femoral artery stenosis greater than 50% if their SFA or femoral popliteal artery disease is unsuitable for open or endovascular treatment, they're a high risk for open surgery. And had the previous history of multiple groin exploration, groin wound complications with seroma or a fungal infection
or had a muscle flap coverage, et cetera. And that this patient should go to have intervascular intervention. Or patient had a failed femoral pop or femoral-distal bypass like this patient had, and we should treat this patient.
So in summary, open profundaplasty remains the gold standard treatment. Isolated endovascular deep femoral artery intervention is sufficient for rest pain. May not be good enough for major wound healing, but it will help heal the amputation stump
to prevent hip disarticulation. Thank you for much for your attention.
- Thank you so much. We have no disclosures. So I think everybody would agree that the transposed basilic vein fistula is one of the most important fistulas that we currently operate with. There are many technical considerations
related to the fistula. One is whether to do one or two stage. Your local criteria may define how you do this, but, and some may do it arbitrarily. But some people would suggest that anything less than 4 mm would be a two stage,
and any one greater than 4 mm may be a one stage. The option of harvesting can be open or endovascular. The option of gaining a suitable access site can be transposition or superficialization. And the final arterial anastomosis, if you're not superficializing can either be
a new arterial anastomosis or a venovenous anastomosis. For the purposes of this talk, transposition is the dissection, transection and re tunneling of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the arm, either as a primary or staged procedure. Superficialization is the dissection and elevation
of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the upper arm, which may be done primarily, but most commonly is done as a staged procedure. The natural history of basilic veins with regard to nontransposed veins is very successful. And this more recent article would suggest
as you can see from the upper bands in both grafts that either transposed or non-transposed is superior to grafts in current environment. When one looks at two-stage basilic veins, they appear to be more durable and cost-effective than one-stage procedures with significantly higher
patency rates and lower rates of failure along comparable risk stratified groups from an article from the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Meta-ana, there are several meta-analysis and this one shows that between one and two stages there is really no difference in the failure and the patency rates.
The second one would suggest there is no overall difference in maturation rate, or in postoperative complication rates. With the patency rates primary assisted or secondary comparable in the majority of the papers published. And the very last one, again based on the data from the first two, also suggests there is evidence
that two stage basilic vein fistulas have higher maturation rates compared to the single stage. But I think that's probably true if one really realizes that the first stage may eliminate a lot of the poor biology that may have interfered with the one stage. But what we're really talking about is superficialization
versus transposition, which is the most favorite method. Or is there a favorite method? The early data has always suggested that transposition was superior, both in primary and in secondary patency, compared to superficialization. However, the data is contrary, as one can see,
in this paper, which showed the reverse, which is that superficialization is much superior to transposition, and in the primary patency range quite significantly. This paper reverses that theme again. So for each year that you go to the Journal of Vascular Surgery,
one gets a different data set that comes out. The final paper that was published recently at the Eastern Vascular suggested strongly that the second stage does consume more resources, when one does transposition versus superficialization. But more interestingly also found that these patients
who had the transposition had a greater high-grade re-stenosis problem at the venovenous or the veno-arterial anastomosis. Another point that they did make was that superficialization appeared to lead to faster maturation, compared to the transposition and thus they favored
superficialization over transposition. If one was to do a very rough meta-analysis and take the range of primary patencies and accumulative patencies from those papers that compare the two techniques that I've just described. Superficialization at about 12 months
for its primary patency will run about 57% range, 50-60 and transposition 53%, with a range of 49-80. So in the range of transposition area, there is a lot of people that may not be a well matched population, which may make meta-analysis in this area somewhat questionable.
But, if you get good results, you get good results. The cumulative patency, however, comes out to be closer in both groups at 78% for superficialization and 80% for transposition. So basilic vein transposition is a successful configuration. One or two stage procedures appear
to carry equally successful outcomes when appropriate selection criteria are used and the one the surgeon is most favored to use and is comfortable with. Primary patency of superficialization despite some papers, if one looks across the entire literature is equivalent to transposition.
Cumulative patency of superficialization is equivalent to transposition. And there is, appears to be no apparent difference in complications, maturation, or access duration. Thank you so much.
- Thank you, Ulrich. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith so kindly, for this invitation. These are my disclosures and my friends. I think everyone knows that the Zenith stent graft has a safe and durable results update 14 years. And I think it's also known that the Zenith stent graft
had such good shrinkage, compared to the other stent grafts. However, when we ask Japanese physicians about the image of Zenith stent graft, we always think of the demo version. This is because we had the original Zenith in for a long time. It was associated with frequent limb occlusion due to
the kinking of Z stent. That's why the Spiral Z stent graft came out with the helical configuration. When you compare the inner lumen of the stent graft, it's smooth, it doesn't have kink. However, when we look at the evidence, we don't see much positive studies in literature.
The only study we found was done by Stephan Haulon. He did the study inviting 50 consecutive triple A patients treated with Zenith LP and Spiral Z stent graft. And he did two cases using a two iliac stent and in six months, all Spiral Z limb were patent. On the other hand, when you look at the iliac arteries
in Asians, you probably have the toughest anatomy to perform EVARs and TEVARs because of the small diameter, calcification, and tortuosity. So this is the critical question that we had. How will a Spiral Z stent graft perform in Japanese EIA landing cases, which are probably the toughest cases?
And this is what we did. We did a multi-institutional prospective observational study for Zenith Spiral Z stent graft, deployed in EIA. We enrolled patients from June 2017 to November 2017. We targeted 50 cases. This was not an industry-sponsored study.
So we asked for friends to participate, and in the end, we had 24 hospitals from all over Japan participate in this trial. And the board collected 65 patients, a total of 74 limbs, and these are the results. This slide shows patient demographics. Mean age of 77,
80 percent were male, and mean triple A diameter was 52. And all these qualities are similar to other's reporting in these kinds of trials. And these are the operative details. The reason for EIA landing was, 60 percent had Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm.
12 percent had Hypogastric Artery Aneurysm. And 24 percent had inadequate CIA, meaning short CIA or CIA with thrombosis. Outside IFU was observed in 24.6 percent of patients. And because we did fermoral cutdowns, mean operative time was long, around three hours.
One thing to note is that we Japanese have high instance of Type IV at the final angio, and in our study we had 43 percent of Type IV endoleaks at the final angio. Other things to notice is that, out of 74 limbs, 11 limbs had bare metal stents placed at the end of the procedure.
All patients finished a six month follow-up. And this is the result. Only one stenosis required PTA, so the six months limb potency was 98.6 percent. Excellent. And this is the six month result again. Again the primary patency was excellent with 98.6 percent. We had two major adverse events.
One was a renal artery stenosis that required PTRS and one was renal stenosis that required PTA. For the Type IV index we also have a final angio. They all disappeared without any clinical effect. Also, the buttock claudication was absorbed in 24 percent of patients at one month, but decreased
to 9.5 percent at six months. There was no aneurysm sac growth and there was no mortality during the study period. So, this is my take home message, ladies and gentlemen. At six months, Zenith Spiral Z stent graft deployed in EIA was associated with excellent primary patency
and low rate of buttock claudication. So we have most of the patients finish a 12 month follow-up and we are expecting excellent results. And we are hoping to present this later this year. - [Host] Thank you.
- Thanks Dr. Weaver. Thank you Dr. Reed for the invitation, once again, to this great meeting. These are my disclosures. So, open surgical repair of descending aortic arch disease still carries some significant morbidity and mortality.
And obviously TEVAR as we have mentioned in many of the presentations has become the treatment of choice for appropriate thoracic lesions, but still has some significant limitations of seal in the aortic arch and more techniques are being developed to address that.
Right now, we also need to cover the left subclavian artery and encroach or cover the left common carotid artery for optimal seal, if that's the area that we're trying to address. So zone 2, which is the one that's,
it is most commonly used as seal for the aortic arch requires accurate device deployment to maximize the seal and really avoid ultimately, coverage of the left common carotid artery and have to address it as an emergency. Seal, in many of these cases is not maximized
due to the concern of occlusion of the left common carotid artery and many of the devices are deployed without obtaining maximum seal in that particular area. Failure of accurate deployment often leads to a type IA endoleak or inadvertent coverage
of the left common carotid artery which can become a significant problem. The most common hybrid procedures in this group of patients include the use of TEVAR, a carotid-subclavian reconstruction and left common carotid artery stenting,
which is hopefully mostly planned, but many of the times, especially when you're starting, it may be completely unplanned. The left common carotid chimney has been increasingly used to obtain a better seal
in this particular group of patients with challenging arches, but there's still significant concerns, including patients having super-vascular complications, stroke, Type A retrograde dissections and a persistent Type IA endoleak
which can be very challenging to be able to correct. There's limited data to discuss this specific topic, but some of the recent publications included a series of 11 to 13 years of treatment with a variety of chimneys.
And these publications suggest that the left common carotid chimneys are the most commonly used chimneys in the aortic arch, being used 76% to 89% of the time in these series. We can also look at these and the technical success
is very good. Mortality's very low. The stroke rate is quite variable depending on the series and chimney patency's very good. But we still have a relatively high persistent
Type IA endoleak on these procedures. So what can we do to try to improve the results that we have? And some of these techniques are clearly applicable for elective or emergency procedures. In the elective setting,
an open left carotid access and subclavian access can be obtained via a supraclavicular approach. And then a subclavian transposition or a carotid-subclavian bypass can be performed in preparation for the endovascular repair. Following that reconstruction,
retrograde access to left common carotid artery can be very helpful with a 7 French sheath and this can be used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes at the same time. The 7 French sheath can easily accommodate most of the available covered and uncovered
balloon expandable stents if the situation arises that it's necessary. Alignment of the TEVAR is critical with maximum seal and accurate placement of the TEVAR at this location is paramount to be able to have a good result.
At that point, the left common carotid artery chimney can be deployed under control of the left common carotid artery. To avoid any embolization, the carotid can be flushed, primary repaired, and the subclavian can be addressed
if there is concern of a persistent retrograde leak with embolization with a plug or other devices. The order can be changed for the procedure to be able to be done emergently as it is in this 46 year old policeman with hypertension and a ruptured thoracic aneurism.
The patient had the left common carotid access first, the device deployed appropriately, and the carotid-subclavian bypass performed in a more elective fashion after the rupture had been addressed. So, in conclusion, carotid chimney's and TEVAR
combination is a frequently used to obtain additional seal on the aortic arch, with pretty good results. Early retrograde left common carotid access allows safe TEVAR deployment with maximum seal,
and the procedure can be safely performed with low morbidity and mortality if we select the patients appropriately. Thank you very much.
- Thank you (mumbles). The purpose of deep venous valve repair is to correct the reflux. And we have different type of reflux. We know we have primary, secondary, the much more frequent and the rear valve agenesia. In primary deep venous incompetence,
valves are usually present but they are malfunctioning and the internal valvuloplasty is undoubtedly the best option. If we have a valve we can repair it and the results are undoubtedly the better of all deep vein surgery reconstruction
but when we are in the congenital absence of valve which is probably the worst situation or we are in post-thrombotic syndrome where cusps are fully destroyed, the situation is totally different. In this situation, we need alternative technique
to provide a reflux correction that may be transposition, new valve or valve transplants. The mono cuspid valve is an option between those and we can obtain it by parietal dissection. We use the fibrotic tissue determined by the
sickening of the PTS event obtaining a kind of flap that we call valve but as you can realize is absolutely something different from a native valve. The morphology may change depending on the wall feature and the wall thickness
but we have to manage the failure of the mono cuspid valve which is mainly due to the readhesion of the flap which is caused by the fact that if we have only a mono cuspid valve, we need a deeper pocket to reach the contralateral wall so bicuspid valve we have
smaller cusps in mono cuspid we have a larger one. And how can we prevent readhesion? In our first moment we can apply a technical element which is to stabilize the valve in the semi-open position in order not to have the collapse of the valve with itself and then we had decide to apply an hemodynamic element.
Whenever possible, the valve is created in front of a vein confluence. In this way we can obtain a kind of competing flow, a better washout and a more mobile flap. This is undoubtedly a situation that is not present in nature but helps in providing non-collapse
and non-thrombotic events in the cusp itself. In fact, if we look at the mathematical modeling in the flow on valve you can see how it does work in a bicuspid but when we are in a mono cuspid, you see that in the bottom of the flap
we have no flow and here there is the risk of thrombosis and here there is the risk of collapse. If we go to a competing flow pattern, the flap is washed out alternatively from one side to the other side and this suggest us the idea to go through a mono cuspid
valve which is not just opens forward during but is endovascular and in fact that's what we are working on. Undoubtedly open surgery at the present is the only available solution but we realized that obviously to have the possibility
to have an endovascular approach may be totally different. As you can understand we move out from the concept to mimic nature. We are not able to provide the same anatomy, the same structure of a valve and we have to put
in the field the possibility to have no thrombosis and much more mobile flap. This is the lesson we learn from many years of surgery. The problem is the mobile flap and the thrombosis inside the flap itself. The final result of a valve reconstruction
disregarding the type of method we apply is to obtain an anti-reflux mechanism. It is not a valve, it is just an anti-reflux mechanism but it can be a great opportunity for patient presenting a deep vein reflux that strongly affected their quality of life.
- 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.
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- 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.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- Thank you very much again. Thank you very much for the kind invitation. The answer to the question is, yes or no. Well, basically when we're talking about pelvic reflux, we're talking really, about, possibly thinking about two separate entities. One symptoms relate to the pelvis
and issues with lower limb varicose veins. Really some time ago, we highlighted in a review, various symptoms that may be associated with the pelvic congestion syndrome. This is often, either misdiagnosed or undiagnosed. The patients we see have had multiple investigations
prior to treatment. I'm not really going to dwell on the anatomy but, just really highlight to you it is incompetence in either the renal pelvic and ovarian veins. What about the patterns of reflux we've heard from both Mark and Nicos what the pattern are
but, basically if you look a little more closely you can see that not only the left ovarian vein is probably effected in a round-about 60%. But, there is incompetence in many of the other veins. What does this actually have implication for with respect to treatment.
Implications are that you probably, if you only treat an isolated vein. There is a suggestion, that the long term outcomes are not actually as good. Now this is some work from Mark Whiteley's group because, we've heard about the diagnosis
but, there is some discussion as to whether just looking at ovarian vein diameter is efficient and certainly the Whiteley group suggests that actually diameter is relatively irrelevant in deciding as to whether there is incompetence in the actual vein itself.
That diameter should not be used as a single indicator. You may all well be aware, that there are reporting standards for the treatment of pelvic venous insufficiency and this has been high-lighted in this paper. What of the resuts, of pelvic embolization and coiling? The main standard is used, is a visual analog scale
when you're looking at pelvic symptoms to decide what the outcome may be. This is a very nice example of an article that was... A review that was done in Niel Khilnani's group and you can see if you look at the pre
and post procedural visual analog scales there is some significant improvement. You can see that this is out at one year in the whole. Now, this is a further table from the paper. Showing you their either, there's a mixture
of glue, coils, scleroses and foam. The comments are that, there are significant relief and some papers suggest its after 100% and others up to 80%. If you look at this very nice review that Mark Meissner did with Kathy Gibson,
you will see that actually no improvement in worse. There's quite a range there for those patients 53% of patients in one study, had no improvement or the symptoms were potentially worse. We know that those patients who have coil embolization will have reoccurrence of symptomatology
and incompetence up to about a quarter of the patients. What about varicose veins? The answer is there is undoubtedly evidence to suggest that there is physiological/anatomical incompetence in some of the pelvic veins in patients
who have recurrent varicose veins. Whether this is actually a direct cause or an association, I think it's something we need to have some further consideration of. As you know, there are many people who now would advicate actually treating
the pelvic veins prior to treating the leg veins. You can maybe discuss that in the question time. If we then look at a comparative trial. Comparing coils and plugs, you can see over all there really isn't no particular difference. If we then look again to highlight this,
which comes again from the Whiteley group. You can see that 20% of patients will have some primary incompetence but, it'll go up to around 30% if they are re-current. There is no randomized control data looking at this. What are the problems with coils?
Actually, a bit like (mumbling) you can find them anywhere. You can find them in the chest and also you can find that there are patients now who are allergic to nickel and the very bottom corner is a patient who's coils I took out by open laparotomy because they were allergic to nickel.
So, ladies and gentlemen I would suggest to you certainly, for continuing with pelvic embolization when doubtedly it needs some more RCT data and some much better registry data to look where we're going. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invite. Here's my disclosures, clearly relevant to this talk. So we know that after EVAR, it's around the 20% aortic complication rate after five years in treating type one and three Endoleaks prevents subsequent
secondary aortic rupture. Surveillance after EVAR is therefore mandatory. But it's possible that device-specific outcomes and surveillance protocols may improve the durability of EVAR over time. You're all familiar with this graph for 15 year results
in terms of re-intervention from the EVAR-1 trials. Whether you look at all cause and all re-interventions or life threatening re-interventions, at any time point, EVAR fares worse than open repair. But we know that the risk of re-intervention is different
in different patients. And if you combine pre-operative risk factors in terms of demographics and morphology, things are happening during the operations such as the use of adjuncts,
or having to treat intro-operative endoleak, and what happens to the aortic sac post-operatively, you can come up with a risk-prediction tool for how patients fare in the longer term. So the LEAR model was developed on the Engage Registry and validated on some post-market registries,
PAS, IDE, and the trials in France. And this gives a predictive risk model. Essentially, this combines patients into a low risk group that would have standard surveillance, and a higher risk group, that would have a surveillance plus
or enhanced surveillanced model. And you get individual patient-specific risk profiles. This is a patient with around a seven centimeter aneurysm at the time of repair that shows sac shrinkage over the first year and a half, post-operatively. And you can see that there's really a very low risk
of re-intervention out to five years. These little arrow bars up here. For a patient that has good pre-operative morphology and whose aneurysm shrinks out to a year, they're going to have a very low risk of re-intervention. This patient, conversely, had a smaller aneurysm,
but it grew from the time of the operation, and out to two and a half years, it's about a centimeter increase in the sac. And they're going to have a much higher risk of re-intervention and probably don't need the same level of surveillance as the first patient.
and probably need a much higher rate of surveillance. So not only can we have individualized predictors of risk for patients, but this is the regulatory aspect to it as well.
Multiple scenario testing can be undertaken. And these are improved not only with the pre-operative data, but as you've seen with one-year data, and this can tie in with IFU development and also for advising policy such as NICE, which you'll have heard a lot about during the conference.
So this is just one example. If you take a patient with a sixty-five millimeter aneurysm, eighteen millimeter iliac, and the suprarenal angle at sixty degrees. If you breach two or more of these factors in red, we have the pre-operative prediction.
Around 20% of cases will be in the high risk group. The high risk patients have about a 50-55% freedom from device for related problems at five years. And the low risk group, so if you don't breach those groups, 75% chance of freedom from intervention.
In the green, if you then add in a stent at one year, you can see that still around 20% of patients remain in the high risk group. But in the low risk group, you now have 85% of patients won't need a re-intervention at five years,
and less of a movement in the high risk group. So this can clearly inform IFU. And here you see the Kaplan-Meier curves, those same groups based pre-operatively, and at one year. In conclusion, LEAR can provide
a device specific estimation of EVAR outcome out to five years. It can be based on pre-operative variables alone by one year. Duplex surveillance helps predict risk. It's clearly of regulatory interest in the outcomes of EVAR.
And an E-portal is being developed for dissemination. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, and thank you Dr. Veith for the opportunity to present. So, acute aortic syndromes are difficult to treat and a challenge for any surgeon. In regionalization of care of acute aortic syndromes is now a topic of significant conversation. The thoughts are that you can move these patients
to an appropriate hospital infrastructure with surgical expertise and a team that's familiar with treating them. Higher volumes, better outcomes. It's a proven concept in trauma care. Logistics of time, distance, transfer mortality,
and cost are issues of concern. This is a study from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample which basically demonstrates the more volume, the lower mortality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. And this is a study from Clem Darling
and his Albany Group demonstrating that with their large practice, that if they could get patients transferred to their central hospital, that they had a higher incidence of EVAR with lower mortality. Basically, transfer equaled more EVARs and a
lower mortality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Matt Mell looked at interfacility transfer mortality in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms to try to see if actually, transfer improved mortality. The take home message was, operative transferred patients
did do better once they reached the institution of destination, however they had a significant mortality during transfer that basically negated that benefit. And transport time, interestingly did not affect mortality. So, regional aortic management, I think,
is something that is quite valuable. As mentioned, access to specialized centers decrease overall mortality and morbidity potentially. In transfer mortality a factor, transport time does not appear to be. So, we set up a rapid transport system
at Keck Medical Center. Basically predicated on 24/7 coverage, and we would transfer any patient within two hours to our institution that called our hotline. This is the number of transfers that we've had over the past three years.
About 250 acute aortic transfers at any given... On a year, about 20 to 30 a month. This is a study that we looked at, that transport process. 183 patients, this is early on in our experience. We did have two that expired en route. There's a listing of the various
pathologies that we treated. These patients were transferred from all over Southern California, including up to Central California, and we had one patient that came from Nevada. The overall mortality is listed here. Ruptured aortic aneurysms had the highest mortality.
We had a very, very good mortality with acute aortic dissections as you can see. We did a univariate and multivariate analysis to look at factors that might have affected transfer mortality and what we found was the SVS score greater than eight
had a very, very significant impact on overall mortality for patients that were transferred. What is a society for vascular surgery comorbidity score? It's basically an equation using cardiac pulmonary renal hypertension and age. The asterisks, cardiac, renal, and age
are important as I will show subsequently. So, Ben Starnes did a very elegant study that was just reported in the Journal of Vascular Surgery where he tried to create a preoperative risk score for prediction of mortality after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
He found four factors and did an ROC curve. Basically, age greater than 76, creatinine greater than two, blood pressure less than 70, or PH less than 7.2. As you can see, as those factors accumulated there was step-wise increased mortality up to 100% with four factors.
So, rapid transport to regional aortic centers does facilitate the care of acute aortic syndromes. Transfer mortality is a factor, however. Transport mode, time, distance are not associated with mortality. Decision making to deny and accept transfer is evolving
but I think renal status, age, physiologic insult are important factors that have been identified to determine whether transfer should be performed or not. Thank you very much.
- I will be talking about new KDOQI guidelines. I know many of you have heard about KDOQI guidelines being revised for the past maybe over a year or maybe two. Yes, it is being done, and it is going slow only because it's being done in a very different way. It's more than an update.
It's going to be more of an overhaul for the entire KDOQI guidelines. We in KDOQI have looked at access as a solitary problem like we talked about grafts, catheters, fistulas for access, but actually it sort of turns out
that access is part of a bigger problem. Fits into a big ESKD lifeline of a patient. Instated distal patients come in many varieties. It can affect any age, and they have a lot of other problems so once you have chronic renal failure, renal replacement mortality fits in
only when it becomes Stage IV or Stage V. And renal replacement mortality is not just access, it is PD access, it's hemo access, it is transplant. So these things, we need to see how they fit in in a given person. So the new KDOQI guidelines concentrates more
on individualizing care. For example, here the young Darien was an 11 year old with a prune belly syndrome. Now he has failed PD. Then there's another person here who is Lydia who is about 36 or 40 year old lady
with a insulin dependent diabetes. Already has bad vascular pedicle. Lost both legs. Needs access. Now both these patient though they need access, it's not the same.
It's different. For example, if you think of Darien, he was in PD but he has failed PD. We would love to get him transplanted. Unfortunately he's got terrible social situation so we can't get him transplanted.
So he needs hemo. Now if he needs hemo, we need to find an access that lasts for a long time because he's got many years ahead of him. On the other hand we have Lydia, who has got significant vascular disease.
With her obesity and existing infectious status, probably PD won't be a good option for her. So she needs hemo, and she's obviously not a transplant candidate. So how are we going to plan for hemo? So these are things which we are to more concentrate
and individualize when we look at patients, and the new guidelines concentrate more on these sort of aspects. Doing right access for right patient, right time, and for right reasons. And we go about planning this keeping the patient first
then a life plan ESKD lifeline for the patient, and what access we are looking at, and what are the needs of the patient? Now this is also different because it has been done more scientifically. We actually have a evidence review team.
We just poured over pretty much 1500 individual articles. Recent articles. And we have looked through about 4000 abstracts and other articles. And this data is correlated through a workgroup. There a lot of new chapters.
Chapter specific surgery like peri-operative, intra-operative, post-operative, cat issues, managing complication issues. And we started off with the coming up with the Scope of Work. The evidence review team took the Scope of Work
and tried to get all the articles and sift through the articles and came up and rated the evidence using a certain rating system which is very scientific. The workgroup then kind of evaluated the whole system, and then came up with what is clinically relevant.
It's one thing for statisticians to say how strong evidence this is, but it's another thing how it is looked upon by the clinicians. So then we kind of put this into a document. Document went through internal and external review process.
This is the process we have tried to do it. Dr. Lok has been the Chair of the group. Myself and Dr. Yevzlin are the Vice-Chairs. We have incredible workgroup which has done most of the work. And here are the workgroup members.
We comprised of nephrologist, transplant surgeons, vascular surgeons, Allied Health personnel, pediatric nephrologist so it's a multi interventional radiologist and interventional nephrologist. This is a multi disciplinary group which has gone through this process.
Timothy Wilt from Minnesota was the head of the Evidence Review Team, who has worked on the evidence building. And now for the editorial sections we have Dr. Huber, Lee, and Dr. Lok taking care of it. So where are we today?
We have pretty much gone through the first part of it. We are at the place where we are ready for the Internal Review and External Review. So many of you probably will get a chance to look through it when it comes for the External Review and would love
to have your comments on this document. Essentially, we are looking at access in the context of end stage renal disease, and that is new. And obviously we have gone through and done a very scientific review, a very scientific methodology to try
to evaluate the evidence and try to come up with guidelines. Thank you.
- Thank you, Larry, thank you, Tony. Nice to be known as a fixture. I have no relevant disclosures, except that I have a trophy. And that's important, but also that Prabir Roy-Chaudhury, who's in this picture, was the genesis of some of the thoughts that I'm going to deliver here about predicting renal failure,
so I do want to credit him with bringing that to the vascular access space. You know, following on Soren's talk about access guidelines, we're dealing with pretty old guidelines, but if you look at the 2006 version, you know, just the height--
The things that a surgeon might read in his office. CKD four, patients there, you want a timely referral, you want them evaluated for placement of permanent access. The term "if necessary" is included in those guidelines, that's sometimes forgotten about.
And, of course, veins should be protected. We already heard a little bit about that, and so out our hospital, with our new dialysis patients, we usually try to butcher both antecubital veins at the same time. And then, before we send them to surgery
after they've been vein-marked, we use that vein to put in their preoperative IV, so that's our vascular access management program at Christiana Care. - [Male Speaker] That's why we mark it for you, Teddy. (laughing)
- So, you know, the other guideline is patients should have a functional permanent access at the initiation of dialysis therapy, and that means we need a crystal ball. How do we know this? A fistula should be placed at least six months
before anticipated start of dialysis, or a graft three to six weeks. Anybody who tells you they actually know that is lying, you can't tell, there's no validated means of predicting this. You hear clinical judgment, you can look at
all sorts of things. You cannot really make that projection. Now there is one interesting study by Tangri, and this is what Premier brought to our attention last year at CIDA, where this Canadian researcher and his team developed a model for predicting
progression of chronic kidney disease, not specifically for access purposes, but for others. They looked at a large number of patients in Canada, followed them through chronic kidney disease to ESRD, and they came up with a model. If you look at a simple model that uses age, sex,
estimated GFR from MDRD equation and albuminuria to predict when that patient might develop end stage renal disease, and there's now nice calculators. This is a wonderful thing, I keep it on my phone, this Qx Calculate, I would recommend you do the same,
and you can put those answers to the questions, in this app, and it'll give you the answer you're looking for. So for instance, here's a case, a 75-year-old woman, CKD stage four, her creatinine's 2.7, not very impressive,
eGFR's 18. Her urine protein is 1200 milligrams per gram, that's important, this is kind of one of the major variables that impacts on this. So she's referred appropriately at that stage to a surgeon for arteriovenous access,
and he finds that she really has no veins that he feels are suitable for a fistula, so an appropriate referral was made. Now at that time, if you'd put her into this equation with those variables, 1200, female, 75-year-old, 18 GFR, at two years, her risk of ESRD is about 30%,
and at five years about 66%, 67%. So, you know, how do you use those numbers in deciding if she needs an access? Well, you might say... A rational person might say perhaps that patient should get a fistula,
or at least be put in line for it. Well, this well-intentioned surgeon providing customer service put in a graft, which then ended up with some steal requiring a DRIL, which then still had steal, required banding, and then a few months, a year later
was thrombosed and abandoned because she didn't need it. And I saw her for the first time in October 2018, at which time her creatinine is up to 3.6, her eGFR's down to 12, her protein is a little higher, 2600, so now she has a two-year risk of 62%, and a five-year risk of 95%,
considerably more than when this ill-advised craft was created. So what do you do with this patient now? I don't have the answer to that, but you can use this information at least to help flavor your thought process,
and what if you could bend the curve? What if you treated this patient appropriately with ACE inhibitors and other methods to get the protein down? Well, you can almost half her two-year risk of renal failure with medical management.
So these considerations I think are important to the team, surgeon, nurses, nephrologists, etc., who are planning that vascular access with the patient. When to do and what to do. And then, you know, it's kind of old-fashioned to look at the trajectory.
We used to look at one over creatinine, we can look at eGFR now, and she's on a trajectory that looks suspicious for progression, so you can factor that into your thought process as well. And then I think this is the other very important concept, I think I've spoken about this here before,
is that there's no absolute need for dialysis unless you do bilateral nephrectomies. Patients can be managed medically for quite a while, and the manifestations of uremia dealt with quite safely and effectively, and you can see that over the years, the number of patients
in this top brown pattern that have been started on dialysis with a GFR of greater than 15 has fallen, or at least, stopped rising because we've recognized that there's no advantage, and there may be disadvantages to starting patients too early.
So if your nephrologist is telling I've got to start this patient now because he or she needs dialysis, unless they had bilateral nephrectomies that may or may not be true. Another case,
64-year-old male, CKD stage four, creatinine about four, eGFR 15, 800 milligrams of proteinuria, referred to a vascular access surgeon for AV access. Interesting note, previous central lines, or AICD, healthy guy otherwise.
So in April 2017 he had a left wrist fistula done, I think that was a very appropriate referral and a very appropriate operation by this surgeon. At that time his two-year risk was 49, 50%, his five-year risk 88%. It's a pretty good idea, I think, to get a wrist fistula
in that patient. Once again, this is not validated for that purpose. I can't point you to a study that says by using this you can make well-informed predictions about when to do vascular access, but I do think it helps to flavor the judgment on this.
Also, I saw him for the first time last month, and his left arm is like this. Amazing, that has never had a catheter or anything, so I did his central venogram, and this is his anatomy. I could find absolutely no evidence of a connection between the left subclavian and the superior vena cava,
I couldn't cross it. Incidentally, this was done with less than 20 CCs of dye of trying to open this occlusion or find a way through, which was unsuccessful. You can see all the edema in his arm. So what do you do with this guy now?
Well, up, go back. Here's his trajectory of CKD four from the time his fistula is done to the time I'm seeing him now, he's been pretty flat. And his proteinuria's actually dropped
with medical management. He's only got 103 milligrams per gram of proteinuria now, and his two-year risk is now 23%, his five-year risk is 56%, so I said back to the surgeon we ligate this damn thing, because we can't really do much to fix it,
and we're going to wait and see when it's closer to time to needing dialysis. I'm not going to subject this guy to a right-arm fistula with that trajectory of renal disease over the past two years. So combining that trajectory with these predictive numbers,
and improved medical care for proteinuria I think is a good strategy. So what do you do, you're weighing factors for timing too early, you've got a burden of fistula failure, interventions you need to use to maintain costs, morbidity, complications,
steal, neuropathy that you could avoid versus too late and disadvantages of initiating hemodialysis without a permanent access. And lastly, I'm going to just finish with some blasphemy. I think the risk of starting dialysis with a catheter is vastly overstated.
If you look at old data and patient selection issues, and catheter maintenance issues, I think... It's not such an unreasonable thing to start a patient with a catheter. We do it all the time and they usually live.
And even CMS gives us a 90-day grace period on our QIP penalties, so... If you establish a surgeon and access plan, I think you're good to go. So who monitors access maturation? I don't know, somebody who knows what they're doing.
If you look at all the people involved, I know some of these individuals who are absolute crackerjack experts, and some are clueless. It has nothing to do with their age, their gender, their training, their field. It's just a matter of whether they understand
what makes a good fistula. You don't have to be a genius, you just can't be clueless. This is not a mature usable fistula, I know that when I see it. Thank you.
- So my charge is to talk about using band for steal. I have no relevant disclosures. We're all familiar with steal. The upper extremity particularly is able to accommodate for the short circuit that a access is with up to a 20 fold increase in flow. The problem is that the distal bed
is not necessarily as able to accommodate for that and that's where steal comes in. 10 to 20% of patients have some degree of steal if you ask them carefully. About 4% have it bad enough to require an intervention. Dialysis associated steal syndrome
is more prevalent in diabetics, connective tissue disease patients, patients with PVD, small vessels particularly, and females seem to be predisposed to this. The distal brachial artery as the inflow source seems to be the highest risk location. You see steal more commonly early with graft placement
and later with fistulas, and finally if you get it on one side you're very likely to get it on the other side. The symptoms that we are looking for are coldness, numbness, pain, at the hand, the digital level particularly, weakness in hand claudication, digital ulceration, and then finally gangrene in advanced cases.
So when you have this kind of a picture it's not too subtle. You know what's going on. However, it is difficult sometimes to differentiate steal from neuropathy and there is some interaction between the two.
We look for a relationship to blood pressure. If people get symptomatic when their blood pressure's low or when they're on the access circuit, that is more with steal. If it's following a dermatomal pattern that may be a median neuropathy
which we find to be pretty common in these patients. Diagnostic tests, digital pressures and pulse volume recordings are probably the best we have to assess this. Unfortunately the digital pressures are not, they're very sensitive but not very specific. There are a lot of patients with low digital pressures
that have no symptoms, and we think that a pressure less than 60 is probably consistent, or a digital brachial index of somewhere between .45 and .6. But again, specificity is poor. We think the digital pulse volume recordings is probably the most useful.
As you can see in this patient there's quite a difference in digital waveforms from one side to the other, and more importantly we like to see augmentation of that waveform with fistula compression not only diagnostically but also that is predictive of the benefit you'll get with treatment.
So what are our treatment options? Well, we have ligation. We have banding. We have the distal revascularization interval ligation, or DRIL, procedure. We have RUDI, revision using distal inflow,
and we have proximalization of arterial inflow as the approaches that have been used. Ligation is a, basically it restores baseline anatomy. It's a very simple procedure, but of course it abandons the access and many of these patients don't have a lot of good alternatives.
So it's not a great choice, but sometimes a necessary choice. This picture shows banding as we perform it, usually narrowing the anastomosis near the artery. It restricts flow so you preserve the fistula but with lower flows.
It's also simple and not very morbid to do. It's got a less predictable effect. This is a dynamic process, and so knowing exactly how tightly to band this and whether that's going to be enough is not always clear. This is not a good choice for low flow fistula,
'cause again, you are restricting flow. For the same reason, it's probably not a great choice for prosthetic fistulas which require more flow. So, the DRIL procedure most people are familiar with. It involves a proximalization of your inflow to five to 10 centimeters above the fistula
and then ligation of the artery just below and this has grown in popularity certainly over the last 10 or 15 years as the go to procedure. Because there is no flow restriction with this you don't sacrifice patency of the access for it. It does add additional distal flow to the extremity.
It's definitely a more morbid procedure. It involves generally harvesting the saphenous vein from patients that may not be the best risk surgical patients, but again, it's a good choice for low flow fistula. RUDI, revision using distal inflow, is basically
a flow restrictive procedure just like banding. You're simply, it's a little bit more complicated 'cause you're usually doing a vein graft from the radial artery to the fistula. But it's less complicated than DRIL. Similar limitations to banding.
Very limited clinical data. There's really just a few series of fewer than a dozen patients each to go by. Finally, a proximalization of arterial inflow, in this case rather than ligating the brachial artery you're ligating the fistula and going to a more proximal
vessel that often will accommodate higher flow. In our hands, we were often talking about going to the infraclavicular axillary artery. So, it's definitely more morbid than a banding would be. This is a better choice though for prosthetic grafts that, where you want to preserve flow.
Again, data on this is very limited as well. The (mumbles) a couple years ago they asked the audience what they like and clearly DRIL has become the most popular choice at 60%, but about 20% of people were still going to banding, and so my charge was to say when is banding
the right way to go. Again, it's effect is less predictable than DRIL. You definitely are going to slow the flows down, but remember with DRIL you are making the limb dependent on the patency of that graft which is always something of concern in somebody
who you have caused an ischemic hand in the first place, and again, the morbidity with the DRIL certainly more so than with the band. We looked at our results a few years back and we identified 31 patients who had steal. Most of these, they all had a physiologic test
confirming the diagnosis. All had some degree of pain or numbness. Only three of these patients had gangrene or ulcers. So, a relatively small cohort of limb, of advanced steal. Most of our patients were autogenous access,
so ciminos and brachycephalic fistula, but there was a little bit of everything mixed in there. The mean age was 66. 80% were diabetic. Patients had their access in for about four and a half months on average at the time of treatment,
although about almost 40% were treated within three weeks of access placement. This is how we do the banding. We basically expose the arterial anastomosis and apply wet clips trying to get a diameter that is less than the brachial artery.
It's got to be smaller than the brachial artery to do anything, and we monitor either pulse volume recordings of the digits or doppler flow at the palm or arch and basically apply these clips along the length and restricting more and more until we get
a satisfactory signal or waveform. Once we've accomplished that, we then are satisfied with the degree of narrowing, we then put some mattress sutures in because these clips will fall off, and fix it in place.
And basically this is the result you get. You go from a fistula that has no flow restriction to one that has restriction as seen there. What were our results? Well, at follow up that was about almost 16 months we found 29 of the 31 patients had improvement,
immediate improvement. The two failures, one was ligated about 12 days later and another one underwent a DRIL a few months later. We had four occlusions in these patients over one to 18 months. Two of these were salvaged with other procedures.
We only had two late recurrences of steal in these patients and one of these was, recurred when he was sent to a radiologist and underwent a balloon angioplasty of the banding. And we had no other morbidity. So this is really a very simple procedure.
So, this is how it compares with DRIL. Most of the pooled data shows that DRIL is effective in 90 plus percent of the patients. Patency also in the 80 to 90% range. The DRIL is better for late, or more often used in late patients,
and banding used more in earlier patients. There's a bigger blood pressure change with DRIL than with banding. So you definitely get more bang for the buck with that. Just quickly going through the literature again. Ellen Dillava's group has published on this.
DRIL definitely is more accepted. These patients have very high mortality. At two years 50% are going to be dead. So you have to keep in mind that when you're deciding what to do. So, I choose banding when there's no gangrene,
when there's moderate not severe pain, and in patients with high morbidity. As promised here's an algorithm that's a little complicated looking, but that's what we go by. Again, thanks very much.
- 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.
- Thank you. Historically, common femoral endarterectomy is a safe procedure. In this quick publication that we did several years ago, showed a 1.5% 30 day mortality rate. Morbidity included 6.3% superficial surgical site infection.
Other major morbidity was pretty low. High-risk patients we identified as those that were functionally dependent, dyspnea, obesity, steroid use, and diabetes. A study from Massachusetts General Hospital their experience showed 100% technical success.
Length of stay was three days. Primary patency of five years at 91% and assisted primary patency at five years 100%. Very little perioperative morbidity and mortality. As you know, open treatment has been the standard of care
over time the goal standard for a common femoral disease, traditionally it's been thought of as a no stent zone. However, there are increased interventions of the common femoral and deep femoral arteries. This is a picture that shows inflection point there.
Why people are concerned about placing stents there. Here's a picture of atherectomy. Irritational atherectomy, the common femoral artery. Here's another image example of a rotational atherectomy, of the common femoral artery.
And here's an image of a stent there, going across the stent there. This is a case I had of potential option for stenting the common femoral artery large (mumbles) of the hematoma from the cardiologist. It was easily fixed
with a 2.5 length BioBond. Which I thought would have very little deformability. (mumbles) was so short in the area there. This is another example of a complete blow out of the common femoral artery. Something that was much better
treated with a stent that I thought over here. What's the data on the stenting of the endovascular of the common femoral arteries interventions? So, there mostly small single centers. What is the retrospective view of 40 cases?
That shows a restenosis rate of 19.5% at 12 months. Revascularization 14.1 % at 12 months. Another one by Dr. Mehta shows restenosis was observed in 20% of the patients and 10% underwent open revision. A case from Dr. Calligaro using cover stents
shows very good primary patency. We sought to use Vascular Quality Initiative to look at endovascular intervention of the common femoral artery. As you can see here, we've identified a thousand patients that have common femoral interventions, with or without,
deep femoral artery interventions. Indications were mostly for claudication. Interventions include three-quarters having angioplasty, 35% having a stent, and 20% almost having atherectomy. Overall technical success was high, a 91%.
Thirty day mortality was exactly the same as in this clip data for open repair 1.6%. Complications were mostly access site hematoma with a low amount distal embolization had previously reported. Single center was up to 4%.
Overall, our freedom for patency or loss or death was 83% at one year. Predicted mostly by tissue loss and case urgency. Re-intervention free survival was 85% at one year, which does notably include stent as independent risk factor for this.
Amputation free survival was 93% at one year, which factors here, but also stent was predictive of amputation. Overall, we concluded that patency is lower than historical common femoral interventions. Mortality was pretty much exactly the same
that has been reported previously. And long term analysis is needed to access durability. There's also a study from France looking at randomizing stenting versus open repair of the common femoral artery. And who needs to get through it quickly?
More or less it showed no difference in outcomes. No different in AVIs. Higher morbidity in the open group most (mumbles) superficial surgical wound infections and (mumbles). The one thing that has hit in the text of the article
a group of mostly (mumbles) was one patient had a major amputation despite having a patent common femoral artery stent. There's no real follow up this, no details of this, I would just caution of both this and VQI paper showing increased risk amputation with stenting.
- Thank you, 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 (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- Good 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.
- Thank you very much, Frank, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no disclosure. Standard carotid endarterectomy patch-plasty and eversion remain the gold standard of treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic patient with significant stenosis. One important lesson we learn in the last 50 years
of trial and tribulation is the majority of perioperative and post-perioperative stroke are related to technical imperfection rather than clamping ischemia. And so the importance of the technical accuracy of doing the endarterectomy. In ideal world the endarterectomy shouldn't be (mumbling).
It should contain embolic material. Shouldn't be too thin. While this is feasible in the majority of the patient, we know that when in clinical practice some patient with long plaque or transmural lesion, or when we're operating a lesion post-radiation,
it could be very challenging. Carotid bypass, very popular in the '80s, has been advocated as an alternative of carotid endarterectomy, and it doesn't matter if you use a vein or a PTFE graft. The result are quite durable. (mumbling) showing this in 198 consecutive cases
that the patency, primary patency rate was 97.9% in 10 years, so is quite a durable procedure. Nowadays we are treating carotid lesion with stinting, and the stinting has been also advocated as a complementary treatment, but not for a bail out, but immediately after a completion study where it
was unsatisfactory. Gore hybrid graft has been introduced in the market five years ago, and it was the natural evolution of the vortec technique that (mumbling) published a few years before, and it's a technique of a non-suture anastomosis.
And this basically a heparin-bounded bypass with the Nitinol section then expand. At King's we are very busy at the center, but we did 40 bypass for bail out procedure. The technique with the Gore hybrid graft is quite stressful where the constrained natural stint is inserted
inside internal carotid artery. It's got the same size of a (mumbling) shunt, and then the plumbing line is pulled, and than anastomosis is done. The proximal anastomosis is performed in the usual fashion with six (mumbling), and the (mumbling) was reimplanted
selectively. This one is what look like in the real life the patient with the personal degradation, the carotid hybrid bypass inserted and the external carotid artery were implanted. Initially we very, very enthusiastic, so we did the first cases with excellent result.
In total since November 19, 2014 we perform 19 procedure. All the patient would follow up with duplex scan and the CT angiogram post operation. During the follow up four cases block. The last two were really the two very high degree stenosis. And the common denominator was that all the patients
stop one of the dual anti-platelet treatment. They were stenosis wise around 40%, but only 13% the significant one. This one is one of the patient that developed significant stenosis after two years, and you can see in the typical position at the end of the stint.
This one is another patient who develop a quite high stenosis at proximal end. Our patency rate is much lower than the one report by Rico. So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the carotid endarterectomy remain still the gold standard,
and (mumbling) carotid is usually an afterthought. Carotid bypass is a durable procedure. It should be in the repertoire of every vascular surgeon undertaking carotid endarterectomy. Gore hybrid was a promising technology because unfortunate it's been just not produced by Gore anymore,
and unfortunately it carried quite high rate of restenosis that probably we should start to treat it in the future. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you so much. I have no disclosures. These guidelines were published a year ago and they are open access. You can download the PDF and you can also download the app and the app was launched two months ago
and four of the ESVS guidelines are in that app. As you see, we had three American co-authors of this document, so we have very high expertise that we managed to gather.
Now the ESVS Mesenteric Guidelines have all conditions in one document because it's not always obvious if it's acute, chronic, acute-on-chron if it's arteri
if there's an underlying aneurysm or a dissection. And we thought it a benefit for the clinician to have all in one single document. It's 51 pages, 64 recommendations, more than 300 references and we use the
ESC grading system. As you will understand, it's impossible to describe this document in four minutes but I will give you some highlights regarding one of the chapters, the Acute arterial mesenteric ischaemia chapter.
We have four recommendations on how to diagnose this condition. We found that D-dimer is highly sensitive so that a normal D-dimer value excludes the condition but it's also unfortunately unspecific. There's a common misconception that lactate is
useful in this situation. Lactate becomes elevated very late when the patient is dying. It's not a good test for diagnosing acute mesenteric ischaemia earlier. And this is a strong recommendation against that.
We also ask everyone uses the CTA angiography these days and that is of course the mainstay of diagnoses as you can see on this image. Regarding treatment, we found that in patients with acute mesenteric arterial ischaemia open or endovascular revascularisation
should preferably be done before bowel surgery. This is of course an important strategic recommendation when we work together with general surgeons. We also concluded that completion imaging is important. And this is maybe one of the reasons why endovascular repair tends to do better than
open repair in these patients. There was no other better way of judging the bowel viability than clinical judgment a no-brainer is that these patients need antibiotics and it's also a strong recommendation to do second look laparotomoy.
We found that endovascular treatment is first therapy if you suspect thrombotic occlusion. They had better survival than the open repair, where as in the embolic situation, we found no difference in outcome.
So you can do both open or endo for embolus, like in this 85 year old man from Uppsala where we did a thrombus, or the embolus aspiration. Regarding follow up, we found that it was beneficial to do imaging follow-up after stenting, and also secondary prevention is important.
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the ESVS Guidelines can be downloaded freely. There are lots of recommendations regarding diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. And they are most useful when the diagnosis is difficult and when indication for treatment is less obvious.
Please read the other chapters, too and please come to Hamburg next year for the ESVS meeting. 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 very much. Well this is a series that was actually published five years ago. And it outlined 45,000 patients after carotid endarterectomy, as well as open and closed thoracic abdominal procedures and infrainguinal bypasses.
And you can see here, that the VTE rate, and this is emblematic of a lot of studies. If you take everything together in a ball, you get an average result. And as you can see, the peripheral bypasses had a low incidence.
Carotids, very low incidence. But open procedures had a higher incidence than endovascular procedures. But here is the nub. Here is what's really important and why you need to do risk assessment.
Look at what happened to these percentages if the patients had any morbidity during hospitalization, as high as 7.8%. And here's the list after they went home. Again, it's not the .5 tenths of a percent or 1%, and this is what it's all about.
It's about the extra risk factors that the patient has. So now, anybody that's starting to do work with the Caprini Score, you've got to go to the patient-friendly form. Because we don't just do it,
if the patient comes in for surgery, and somebody does a preoperative evaluation in the holding area, stop it! It's ridiculous! Have you ever been in the holding area? What are you worried about?
You're worried about having the operation. Are they going to find cancer? Will the surgeon have a bad day? How much pain am I going to be in? How long am I going to be out of work? They're not going to talk to you
about their family history or their obstetrical misadventures. So you have them fill a form out ahead of time with their family, and then when they come in, you just double-check it. And we've studied this, it's in five languages,
and it's got perfect correlation with trained observers doing the same thing. And remember, if you fail to carefully interrogate your patients regarding the history or family history of venous thromboembolism, vascular surgery or not, sooner or later you may
be faced with a fatal PE. And the idea that you're giving anticoagulants during your procedure that's going to protect them is not valid. The relative risk of thrombosis increases with the number of risk factors identified.
A combination of genetic and acquired risk factors in a person without a history of a thrombosis personally, but with a family history, has a 60-fold higher chance than those that have a negative family history. And a positive family history increased
the risk of venous thrombosis more than 2-fold, regardless of the other risk factors. Don't forget the history of thrombosis. You won't need to look this article up. It's 183,000 patients over 25 years and it shows that both in first, second,
and third-degree relatives, as well as cohabitants in the household, there's an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Lowering down, getting lower for each degree of a relative.
But a DVT in a cousin, there may also be a thrombopathic condition in that patient. So you better pay attention to that. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, wonderful program. The database has no information on history
or family history of VTE, use of perioperative VTE prophylaxis, intraoperative anticoagulation, or perioperative use of antiplatelet agents. How are you supposed to make any sense out of DVT-related studies?
Finally, due to the lack of routine screening for VTE, the incidence of VTE may be underestimated in this NSQIP database, which only makes the need for further study more pressing. This is an important consideration because
more recent data indicates that two-thirds of the patients are found to have DVT during screening and after vascular operations, have no signs or symptoms of the problem. And I'd like to remind you, so this is based on the Boston data, which is the best data.
Patients with a low score pneumatic compression during hospitalization. Moderate score, of 7-10 days of anticoagulation. Don't make any difference if they're inpatient or outpatient. And 28 days if their score is over nine.
They lowered their incidence on the surgical services from 2.2% to a tenth of a percent at 30 days. And finally, and I think this is really, really important. Take a look at all these risk assessment scores.
To my knowledge, there's only two scores. It's not the Padua, it's not the IMPROVE that have a history of obstetrical misadventures which can reflect antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, as well as family history
in various degrees of relatives. So with that, thank you very much.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- Thank you Dr. Albaramum, it's a real pleasure to be here and I thank you for being here this early. I have no disclosures. So when everything else fails, we need to convert to open surgery, most of the times this leads to partial endograft removal,
complete removal clearly for infection, and then proximal control and distal control, which is typical in vascular surgery. Here's a 73 year old patient who two years after EVAR had an aneurism growth with what was thought
to be a type II endoleak, had coiling of the infermius mesenteric artery, but the aneurism continued to grow. So he was converted and what we find here is a type III endoleak from sutures in the endograft.
So, this patient had explantations, so it is my preference to have the nordic control with an endovascular technique through the graft where the graft gets punctured and then we put a 16 French Sheath, then we can put a aortic balloon.
And this avoids having to dissect the suprarenal aorta, particularly in devices that have super renal fixation. You can use a fogarty balloon or you can use the pruitt ballon, the advantage of the pruitt balloon is that it's over the wire.
So here's where we removed the device and in spite of the fact that we tried to collapse the super renal stent, you end up with an aortic endarterectomy and a renal endarterectomy which is not a desirable situation.
So, in this instance, it's not what we intend to do is we cut the super renal stent with wire cutters and then removed the struts individually. Here's the completion and preservation of iliac limbs, it's pretty much the norm in all of these cases,
unless they have, they're not well incorporated, it's a lot easier. It's not easy to control these iliac arteries from the inflammatory process that follows the placement of the endograft.
So here's another case where we think we're dealing with a type II endoleak, we do whatever it does for a type II endoleak and you can see here this is a pretty significant endoleak with enlargement of the aneurism.
So this patient gets converted and what's interesting is again, you see a suture hole, and in this case what we did is we just closed the suture hole, 'cause in my mind,
it would be simple to try and realign that graft if the endoleak persisted or recurred, as opposed to trying to remove the entire device. Here's the follow up on that patient, and this patient has remained without an endoleak, and the aneurism we resected
part of the sack, and the aneurism has remained collapsed. So here's another patient who's four years status post EVAR, two years after IMA coiling and what's interesting is when you do delayed,
because the aneurism sacks started to increase, we did delayed use and you see this blush here, and in this cases we know before converting the patient we would reline the graft thinking, that if it's a type III endoleak we can resolve it that way
otherwise then the patient would need conversion. So, how do we avoid the proximal aortic endarterectomy? We'll leave part of the proximal portion of the graft, you can transect the graft. A lot of these grafts can be clamped together with the aorta
and then you do a single anastomosis incorporating the graft and the aorta for the proximal anastomosis. Now here's a patient, 87 years old, had an EVAR,
the aneurism grew from 6 cm to 8.8 cm, he had coil embolization, translumbar injection of glue, we re-lined the endograft and the aneurism kept enlarging. So basically what we find here is a very large type II endoleak,
we actually just clip the vessel and then resected the sack and closed it, did not remove the device. So sometimes you can just preserve the entire device and just take care of the endoleak. Now when we have infection,
then we have to remove the entire device, and one alternative is to use extra-anatomic revascularization. Our preference however is to use cryo-preserved homograft with wide debridement of the infected area. These grafts are relatively easy to remove,
'cause they're not incorporated. On the proximal side you can see that there's a aortic clamp ready to go here, and then we're going to slide it out while we clamp the graft immediately, clamp the aorta immediately after removal.
And here's the reconstruction. Excuse me. For an endograft-duodenal fistula here's a patient that has typical findings, then on endoscopy you can see a little bit of the endograft, and then on an opergy I series
you actually see extravasation from the duodenal. In this case we have the aorta ready to be clamped, you can see the umbilical tape here, and then take down the fistula, and then once the fistula's down
you got to repair the duodenal with an omental patch, and then a cryopreserved reconstruction. Here's a TEVAR conversion, a patient with a contained ruptured mycotic aneurysm, we put an endovascular graft initially, Now in this patient we do the soraconomy
and the other thing we do is, we do circulatory support. I prefer to use ECMO, in this instances we put a very long canula into the right atrium, which you're anesthesiologist can confirm
with transassof forgeoligico. And then we use ECMO for circulatory support. The other thing we're doing now is we're putting antibiotic beads, with specific antibiotic's for the organism that has been cultured.
Here's another case where a very long endograft was removed and in this case, we put the device offline, away from the infected field and then we filled the field with antibiotic beads. So we've done 47 conversions,
12 of them were acute, 35 were chronic, and what's important is the mortality for acute conversion is significant. And at this point the, we avoid acute conversions,
most of those were in the early experience. Thank you.
- Mr Chairman, dear colleagues. I've nothing to disclose. We know that aneurysm or dilation of the common iliac artery is present in almost 20% of cases submitted to endovascular repair and we have a variety of endovascular solution available. The first one is the internal iliac artery
embolization and coverage which is very technically easy but it's a suboptimal choice due to the higher risk of thrombosis and internal iliac problems. So the flared limbs landing in the common iliac artery is technically easy,
however, the results in the literature are conflicting. Iliac branch devices is a more demanding procedure but has to abide to a specific anatomical conditions and is warranted by good results in the literature such as this work from the group in Perugia who showed a technical success of almost 100%
as you can see, and also good results in other registries. So there are unresolved question about this problem which is the best choice in this matter, flared limbs or iliac branch devices. In order to solve this problem, we have looked at our data,
published them in Journal Vascular Interventional Neurology and this is our retrospective observational study involving treatment with either flared limbs or IBD and these are the flared limbs devices we used in this study. Anaconda, Medtronic, Cook and Gore.
And these are the IFU of the two IBD which were used in this study which were Gore-IBE and Cook-ZBS. So we looked at the 602 EVAR with 105 flared limbs which were also fit for IBD. And on the other side, we looked at EVAR-IBD
implanted in the same period excluding those implanted outside the IFU. So we ended up with 57 cases of IBD inside the IFU. These are the characteristics of the two groups of patients. The main important finding was the year age which was a little younger in the IBD group
and the common iliac artery diameter which was greater, again in the IBD group. So this is the distribution of the four types of flared limbs devices and IBD in the two groups. And as you can see, the procedural time and volume of contrast medium was significantly
higher in the IBD group. Complications did not differ significantly however, overall there were four iliac complication and all occurred in the flared limbs group. When we went to late complications, putting together all the iliac complication, they were significantly
greater in the flared limbs group compared with the IBD with zero percent complication rate. Late complications were always addressed by endovascular relining or relining and urokinase in case of infusion, in case of thrombosis. And as you can see here, the late outcome
did not differ significantly in the two groups. However, when we put together all the iliac complication, the iliac complication free survival was significantly worse in the flared limbs group. So in conclusion, flared limbs and IBD have similar perioperative outcomes.
IBD is more technically demanding, needs more contrast medium and time obviously. The complications in flared limbs are all resolvable by endovascular means and IBD has a better outcome in the long term period. So the take-home message of my presentation
is that we prefer IBD in young patients with high life expectancy and in the presence of anatomical risk factors of flared limbs late complications. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you to the moderators, thank you to Dr. Veith for having me. Let's go! So my topic is to kind of introduce the ATTRACT trial, and to talk a little bit about how it affected, at least my practice, when it comes to patients with acute DVT.
I'm on the scientific advisory board for a company that makes IVC filters, and I also advise to BTG, so you guys can ask me about it later if you want. So let's talk about a case. A 50-year-old man presents
from an outside hospital to our center with left lower extremity swelling. And this is what somebody looks like upon presentation. And pulses, motor function, and sensation are actually normal at this point.
And he says to us, "Well, symptoms started "three days ago. "They're about the same since they started," despite being on anticoagulation. And he said, "Listen guys, in the other hospital, "they wouldn't do anything.
"And I want a procedure because I want the clot "out of me." so he's found to have this common femoral vein DVT. And the question is should endovascular clot removal be performed for this patient?
Well the ATTRACT trial set off to try and prevent a complication you obviously all know about, called the post-thrombotic syndrome, which is a spectrum from sort of mild discomfort and a little bit of dyspigmentation and up
to venous ulcerations and quite a lot of morbidity. And in ATTRACT, patients with proximal DVT were randomized to anticoagulation alone or in combination with pharma mechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis.
And the reason I put proximal in quotes is because it wasn't only common sort of femoral vein clots, but also femoral vein clots including the distal femoral vein were included eventually. And so patients with clots were recruited,
and as I said, they were randomized to those two treatments. And what this here shows you is the division into the two groups. Now I know this is a little small, but I'll try and kind of highlight a few things
that are relevant to this talk. So if you just read the abstract of the ATTRACT trial published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, it'll seem to you that the study was a negative study.
The conclusion and the abstract is basically that post-thrombotic syndrome was not prevented by performing these procedures. Definitely post-thrombotic syndrome is still frequent despite treatment. But there was a signal for less severe
post-thrombotic syndrome and for more bleeding. And I was hoping to bring you all, there's an upcoming publication in circulation, hopefully it'll be online, I guess, over the weekend or early next week, talking specifically about patients
with proximal DVT. But you know, I'm speaking now without those slides. So what I can basically show you here, that at 24 months, unfortunately, there was no, well not unfortunately,
but the fact is, it did cross the significance and it was not significant from that standpoint. And what you can see here, is sort of a continuous metric of post-thrombotic syndrome. And here there was a little bit of an advantage
towards reduction of severe post-thrombotic syndrome with the procedure. What it also shows you here in this rectangle, is that were more bleeds, obviously, in the patients who received the more aggressive therapy.
One thing that people don't always talk about is that we treat our patients for two reasons, right? We want to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome but obviously, we want to help them acutely. And so what the study also showed,
was that acute symptoms resolved more quickly in patients who received the more aggressive therapy as opposed to those who did not. Again, at the price of more bleeding. So what happened to this patient? Well you know,
he presented on a Friday, obviously. So we kind of said, "Yeah, we probably are able "to try and do something for you, "but let's wait until Monday." And by Monday, his leg looked like this, with sort of a little bit of bedrest
and continued anticoagulation. So at the end of the day, no procedure was done for this particular patient. What are my take home messages, for whatever that's worth? Well I think intervention for DVT
has several acute indications. Restore arterial flow when phlegmasia is the problem, and reduce acute symptoms. I think intervention for common femoral and more proximal DVT likely does have long-term benefit, and again, just be
on the lookout for that circ paper that's coming out. Intervention for femoral DVT, so more distal DVT, in my opinion, is rarely indicated. And in the absence of phlegmasia, for me, thigh swelling is a good marker for a need
for a procedure, and I owe Dr. Bob Schainfeld that little tidbit. So thank you very much for listening.
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.