- It's my pleasure on behalf of the Sentury Trial investigators to present the two year data on the BTG Novate Sentry filter. These are my disclosures. Well, as we have heard this afternoon, it's no surprise to anyone the topic of IVC filter placement is controversial.
We know that IVC filters can protect patients by preventing PE. We also know that retrievable filters that are not retrieved have been reported to have, be associated with some complications. And we talked about FDA advisory,
obviously that has resulted somewhat in a decrease in filter use in this country. Obviously complication rates we've also heard about increase with implant time and include tilting, migration, fracture, perforation and embolization. And retrieval success reduces with implant time.
What's not controversial, and we have heard also about this, is the frequency of PE in this country and the expense associated with it. Obviously, survival benefits have been shown in appropriate populations, that are selected based on known indications. And existing retrieval technology, unfortunately,
as we've heard from Dr. Askandari, has not met the needs of patients when up to 40 to 50 percent are not coming back for retrieval. That was sort of the impetus behind the design of the Sentry Bioconvertible IVC Filter, which is designed to protect patients at transient risk
from PE and reduce complications of existing technologies. It employs a stable frame with filter arms held together by a bioabsorbable filament and designed to provide PE protection during a transient risk period, reduce IVC filter complications, including tilting, migration, fracture, perforation and embolization.
And this just shows an example in vitro and with a CT scan of the filter in the so-called filtering configuration. The filter then automatically bioconverts after the PE risk period is past. That's guaranteed to be in the
filtering position for at least 60 days. It bioconverts by hydrolysis of the bioabsorbable element, which allows the filter arms to retract to the IVC wall, leaving a patent lumen and reducing the risk for IVC occlusion or thrombosis later on, and obviously, the cost of IFC filter retrieval.
Here you can see filters that are in the bioconverted configuration. This just shows the deployment. It's a simple pin and pull seven French delivery system. These stable arms allow this to be placed almost always without any tilting
and is quite easy and accurate to deploy. This is in an ovine modeled pre-clinical study shows in a bioconverted configuration all of the filter elements become endothelialized and in this angioscopic view, really can't even see any of the filter elements.
This is again sort of predicated on something that I believe we're not all that familiar with and that's when the timing of PE occurs. And you can see here, from the trauma literature, orthopedic literature, other literature, on 500,000 patients and in these groups you can see
that over 90 percent of PEs take place in less than 10 days after an initial event and 99 percent of PEs within 20 days. That led the FDA to write a position decision analysis paper, which recommend filter retrieval between
29 and 54 days after implantation. So, on s, 23 sites, 63 operators. You can see this was a relatively imaging-intense protocol with 24 month CT Venogram and CT Venograms also at one month and six months.
Long term follow up, 94 percent of the eligible subjects were imaged at 24 months. You can see that 67.5 percent of the subjects had current PE and/or DVT at the time of enrollment, and 100 percent had contraindication to anticoagulation for some or all of the protection period.
In terms of the composite primary endpoint, there was a high degree of technical success, 100 percent of the patients received the device. 100 percent freedom from new symptomatic PE to 60 days. Two patients had symptomatic caval thrombosis at 8
by angiojet, one by EKOS. And there was no tilting, migration, embolization, fracture or perforation. At 12 months there were no new symptomatic PEs and there were no device related complications out to 12 months.
And at 24 months, two new symptomatic PEs, days 581 and 632,in patients with fully bioconverted filters. There were no device related out to 24 months. Both of these were adjudicated by a clinical events committee as not being device related.
And again, you can see that the bioconversion rate of 96.5 percent compares favorably to published retrieval rates, and we've talked about that. So, in conclusion, the primary endpoint at six months was met with clinical success of 97.4 percent. No new symptomatic PEs at 12 months.
2.4 new symptomatic PEs at 24 months, but no tilting, migration, perforation, fracture or embolization. And the 96.5 percent bioconversion rate compares favorably to published retrieval rates. Thanks 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)
- Great, thank you Tim and Dan, and thank you Dr. Veith, this is the first time actually we're presenting this. This is work that's been done between my fellow who's really the sophisticated one with this with his PhD, Luka Pocivavsek. Here's my disclosures, Luka doesn't have any.
Really three goals in mind when we looked at this methodology to try to assess the value and efficacy of long-term durability of necks. To identify patients that are high risk for device failure, potentially type one endoleak, device migration, failure of our proximal seal zone.
This is an example that this patient will come up through this entire presentation but someone that I treated with a rupture. Initially successful result, then developed a dilation of the neck and then needed an additional procedure
to treat a type one endoleak. Second goal is maybe to look at appropriate device selection and sizing so we can prevent these complications from happening. So as an example, I'll show you this case, which for many of us is challenging
to select the right size proximal aortic endograft. You have a reverse taper of this neck, the cone, trying to figure out whether a 36 device is best because of the 32 diameter, but you're 23 proximally and maybe this technology will be able to help us identify which devices
will do better in certain anatomy. And finally evaluate the mechanisms of the interface, the adhesion that we see between the device and aortic wall for the current technology and potentially evaluate new device development. So what is this?
What we did is extrapolate from what was known from finite element analysis and this patient, as I mentioned earlier, presented with a rupture. We were able to look at her pre-rupture CT scan and with our technique predict the area of rupture
which is what we saw on CT scan and you can see this high-stress area. So we were able to define the aortic wall that was in the danger zone for rupture, and then took that analysis and started to extrapolate that understanding to looking
at the interface between the device and the aortic neck. So what we see here is post-implant with slightly challenging anatomy. A short neck, a little bit of angulation, and with Luka's expertise, we were able to really start doing
what we call this cohesive zone method and look at doing a really statistical analysis of what happens with the device and I'll show you that a little bit more. So when you look at this equation, it tells you what is the available literature
that we know for device displacement looking at the displacement of the interface of the graft to the aortic wall, and then the contact zone. And we can alter that in the computer model to change the Newton force that exists
and get a lower adhesion and then a stricter tight adhesion between the device and the wall and see the impact that has. So this is just showing you from the CT scan looking at the vector of stress and strain that we're able to look at in this model.
And then specifically what we see when there's separation of the device and the wall, there's areas that are higher strain and stress and you can see the vector differences here versus this area where there's a stiff contact and we're able to create,
it's much less and the risk of separation of device and wall is much lower. So we're able to take certain understandings and look at different geometries, change our pressurization, have the boundary conditions appropriate
and then start to really look at the zone mechanics. So what this looks like is you have two different adhesion models here. One is with weak adhesions of the device to the wall and one is where we can specifically create stronger adhesion and how this would be done down the road
would be potentially something that you could look at with device design, development, and with the weak adhesion you can see how the device basically falls out of the this challenging anatomy and with strong adhesion it does a little bit better.
There is some migration but not to the same extent. So what we're trying to predict is who has loss of seal and can we prevent this? And one of the mechanisms that we've started to look at is whether or not when you add endoanchor technology to the proximal seal zone to prevent that migration
if we can prevent this loss of seal. This is way too complicated but you get it, this is what we're looking at computationally, and this is what we see clinically. This patient who a year and a half later, develops a type one endoleak,
it's systolic pressures that are elevated, it's more extreme, and we think that there's some loss of seal that happens just when patients' pressure goes up too high. So in conclusion, we think that this is a nice extrapolation
of what we know from finite element analysis. Can be applicable to not just understanding if we've successfully treated patients but to potentially even size appropriately and evaluate new devices. Thank you.
- Our group has looked at the outcomes of patients undergoing carotid-subclavian bypass in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair. These are my obligatory disclosures, none of which are relevant to this study. By way of introduction, coverage of the left subclavian artery origin
is required in 10-50% of patients undergoing TEVAR, to achieve an adequate proximal landing zone. The left subclavian artery may contribute to critical vascular beds in addition to the left upper extremity, including the posterior cerebral circulation,
the coronary circulation if a LIMA graft is present, and the spinal cord, via vertebral collaterals. Therefore the potential risks of inadequate left subclavian perfusion include not only arm ischemia, but also posterior circulation stroke,
spinal cord ischemia, and coronary insufficiency. Although these risks are of low frequency, the SVS as early as 2010 published guidelines advocating a policy of liberal left subclavian revascularization during TEVAR
requiring left subclavian origin coverage. Until recently, the only approved way to maintain perfusion of the left subclavian artery during TEVAR, with a zone 2 or more proximal landing zone, was a cervical bypass or transposition procedure. As thoracic side-branch devices become more available,
we thought it might be useful to review our experience with cervical bypass for comparison with these newer endovascular strategies. This study was a retrospective review of our aortic disease database, and identified 112 out of 579 TEVARs
that had undergone carotid subclavian bypass. We used the standard operative technique, through a short, supraclavicular incision, the subclavian arteries exposed by division of the anterior scalene muscle, and a short 8 millimeter PTFE graft is placed
between the common carotid and the subclavian arteries, usually contemporaneous with the TEVAR procedure. The most important finding of this review regarded phrenic nerve dysfunction. To exam this, all pre- and post-TEVAR chest x-rays were reviewed for evidence of diaphragm elevation.
The study population was typical for patients undergoing TEVAR. The most frequent indication for bypass was for spinal cord protection, and nearly 80% of cases were elective. We found that 25 % of patients had some evidence
of phrenic nerve dysfunction, though many resolved over time. Other nerve injury and vascular graft complications occurred with much less frequency. This slide illustrates the grading of diaphragm elevation into mild and severe categories,
and notes that over half of the injuries did resolve over time. Vascular complications were rare, and usually treated with a corrective endovascular procedure. Of three graft occlusions, only one required repeat bypass.
Two pseudoaneurysms were treated endovascularly. Actuarial graft, primary graft patency, was 97% after five years. In summary then, the report examines early and late outcomes for carotid subclavian bypass, in the setting of TEVAR. We found an unexpectedly high rate
of phrenic nerve dysfunction postoperatively, although over half resolved spontaneously. There was a very low incidence of vascular complications, and a high long-term patency rate. We suggest that this study may provide a benchmark for comparison
with emerging branch thoracic endovascular devices. Thank you.
- Thank you (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- Thank you Dr. 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.
- So Beyond Vascular procedures, I guess we've conquered all the vascular procedures, now we're going to conquer the world, so let me take a little bit of time to say that these are my conflicts, while doing that, I think it's important that we encourage people to access the hybrid rooms,
It's much more important that the tar-verse done in the Hybrid Room, rather than moving on to the CAT labs, so we have some idea basically of what's going on. That certainly compresses the Hybrid Room availability, but you can't argue for more resources
if the Hybrid Room is running half-empty for example, the only way you get it is by opening this up and so things like laser lead extractions or tar-verse are predominantly still done basically in our hybrid rooms, and we try to make access for them. I don't need to go through this,
you've now think that Doctor Shirttail made a convincing argument for 3D imaging and 3D acquisition. I think the fundamental next revolution in surgery, Every subspecialty is the availability of 3D imaging in the operating room.
We have lead the way in that in vascular surgery, but you think how this could revolutionize urology, general surgery, neurosurgery, and so I think it's very important that we battle for imaging control. Don't give your administration the idea that
you're going to settle for a C-arm, that's the beginning of the end if you do that, this okay to augment use C-arms to augment your practice, but if you're a finishing fellow, you make sure you go to a place that's going to give you access to full hybrid room,
otherwise, you are the subservient imagers compared to radiologists and cardiologists. We need that access to this high quality room. And the new buzzword you're going to hear about is Multi Modality Imaging Suites, this combination of imaging suites that are
being put together, top left deserves with MR, we think MR is the cardiovascular imaging modality of the future, there's a whole group at NIH working at MR Guided Interventions which we're interested in, and the bottom right is the CT-scan in a hybrid op
in a hybrid room, this is actually from MD Anderson. And I think this is actually the Trauma Room of the future, makes no sense to me to take a patient from an emergency room to a CT scanner to an and-jure suite to an operator it's the most dangerous thing we do
with a trauma patient and I think this is actually a position statement from the Trauma Society we're involved in, talk about how important it is to co-localize this imaging, and I think the trauma room of the future is going to be an and-jure suite
down with a CT scanner built into it, and you need to be flexible. Now, the Empire Strikes Back in terms of cloud-based fusion in that Siemans actually just released a portable C-arm that does cone-beam CT. C-arm's basically a rapidly improving,
and I think a lot of these things are going to be available to you at reduced cost. So let me move on and basically just show a couple of examples. What you learn are techniques, then what you do is look for applications to apply this, and so we've been doing
translumbar embolization using fusion and imaging guidance, and this is a case of one of my partners, he'd done an ascending repair, and the patient came back three weeks later and said he had sudden-onset chest pain and the CT-scan showed that there was a
sutured line dehiscence which is a little alarming. I tried to embolize that endovascular, could not get to that tiny little orifice, and so we decided to watch it, it got worse, and bigger, over the course of a week, so clearly we had to go ahead and basically and fix this,
and we opted to use this, using a new guidance system and going directly parasternal. You can do fusion of blood vessels or bones, you can do it off anything you can see on flu-roid, here we actually fused off the sternal wires and this allows you to see if there's
respiratory motion, you can measure in the workstation the depth really to the target was almost four and a half centimeters straight back from the second sternal wire and that allowed us really using this image guidance system when you set up what's called the bullseye view,
you look straight down the barrel of a needle, and then the laser turns on and the undersurface of the hybrid room shows you where to stick the needle. This is something that we'd refined from doing localization of lung nodules
and I'll show you that next. And so this is the system using the C-star, we use the breast, and the localization needle, and we can actually basically advance that straight into that cavity, and you can see once you get in it,
we confirmed it by injecting into it, you can see the pseudo-aneurism, you can see the immediate stain of hematoma and then we simply embolize that directly. This is probably safer than going endovascular because that little neck protects about
the embolization from actually taking place, and you can see what the complete snan-ja-gram actually looked like, we had a pig tail in the aura so we could co-linearly check what was going on and we used docto-gramming make sure we don't have embolization.
This patient now basically about three months follow-up and this is a nice way to completely dissolve by avoiding really doing this. Let me give you another example, this actually one came from our transplant surgeon he wanted to put in a vas,
he said this patient is really sick, so well, by definition they're usually pretty sick, they say we need to make a small incision and target this and so what we did was we scanned the vas, that's the hardware device you're looking at here. These have to be
oriented with the inlet nozzle looking directly into the orifice of the mitro wall, and so we scanned the heart with, what you see is what you get with these devices, they're not deformed, we take a cell phone and implant it in your chest,
still going to look like a cell phone. And so what we did, image fusion was then used with two completely different data sets, it mimicking the procedure, and we lined this up basically with a mitro valve, we then used that same imaging guidance system
I was showing you, made a little incision really doing onto the apex of the heart, and to the eur-aph for the return cannula, and this is basically what it looked like, and you can actually check the efficacy of this by scanning the patient post operatively
and see whether or not you executed on this basically the same way, and so this was all basically developed basing off Lung Nodule Localization Techniques with that we've kind of fairly extensively published, use with men can base one of our thoracic surgeons
so I'd encourage you to look at other opportunities by which you can help other specialties, 'cause I think this 3D imaging is going to transform what our capabilities actually are. Thank you very much indeed for your attention.
- Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'd really like to thank Dr. Veith, once again, for this opportunity. It's always an honor to be here. I have no disclosures. Heel ulceration is certainly challenging,
particularly when the patients have peripheral vascular disease. These patients suffer from significant morbidity and mortality and its real economic burden to society. The peripheral vascular disease patients
have fivefold and increased risk of ulceration, and diabetics in particular have neuropathy and microvascular disease, which sets them up as well for failure. There are many difficulties, particularly poor patient compliance
with offloading, malnutrition, and limitations of the bony coverage of that location. Here you can see the heel anatomy. The heel, in and of itself, while standing or with ambulation,
has tightly packed adipose compartments that provide shock absorption during gait initiation. There is some limitation to the blood supply since the lateral aspect of the heel is supplied by the perforating branches
of the peroneal artery, and the heel pad is supplied by the posterior tibial artery branches. The heel is intolerant of ischemia, particularly posteriorly. They lack subcutaneous tissue.
It's an end-arterial plexus, and they succumb to pressure, friction, and shear forces. Dorsal aspect of the posterior heel, you can see here, lacks abundant fat compartments. It's poorly vascularized,
and the skin is tightly bound to underlying deep fascia. When we see these patients, we need to asses whether or not the depth extends to bone. Doing the probe to bone test
using X-ray, CT, or MRI can be very helpful. If we see an abcess, it needs to be drained. Debride necrotic tissue. Use of broad spectrum antibiotics until you have an appropriate culture
and can narrow the spectrum is the way to go. Assess the degree of vascular disease with noninvasive testing, and once you know that you need to intervene, you can move forward with angiography. Revascularization is really operator dependent.
You can choose an endovascular or open route. The bottom line is the goal is inline flow to the foot. We prefer direct revascularization to the respective angiosome if possible, rather than indirect. Calcanectomy can be utilized,
and you can actually go by angiosome boundaries to determine your incisions. The surgical incision can include excision of the ulcer, a posterior or posteromedial approach, a hockey stick, or even a plantar based incision. This is an example of a posterior heel ulcer
that I recently managed with ulcer excision, flap development, partial calcanectomy, and use of bi-layered wound matrix, as well as wound VAC. After three weeks, then this patient underwent skin grafting,
and is in the route to heal. The challenge also is offloading these patients, whether you use a total contact cast or a knee roller or some other modality, even a wheelchair. A lot of times it's hard to get them to be compliant.
Optimizing nutrition is also critical, and use of adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy has been shown to be effective in some cases. Bone and tendon coverage can be performed with bi-layered wound matrix. Use of other skin grafting,
bi-layered living cell therapy, or other adjuncts such as allograft amniotic membrane have been utilized and are very effective. There's some other modalities listed here that I won't go into. This is a case of an 81 year old
with osteomyelitis, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes mellitus. You can see that the patient has multi-level occlusive disease, and the patient's toe brachial index is less than .1. Fortunately, I was able to revascularize this patient,
although an indirect revascularization route. His TBI improved to .61. He underwent a partial calcanectomy, application of a wound VAC. We applied bi-layer wound matrix, and then he had a skin graft,
and even when part of the skin graft sloughed, he underwent bi-layer living cell therapy, which helped heal this wound. He did very well. This is a 69 year old with renal failure, high risk patient, diabetes, neuropathy,
peripheral vascular disease. He was optimized medically, yet still failed to heal. He then underwent revascularization. It got infected. He required operative treatment,
partial calcanectomy, and partial closure. Over a number of months, he did finally heal. Resection of the Achilles tendon had also been required. Here you can see he's healed finally. Overall, function and mobility can be maintained,
and these patients can ambulate without much difficulty. In conclusion, managing this, ischemic ulcers are challenging. I've mentioned that there's marginal blood supply, difficulties with offloading, malnutrition, neuropathy, and arterial insufficiency.
I would advocate that partial or total calcanectomy is an option, with or without Achilles tendon resection, in the presence of osteomyelitis, and one needs to consider revascularization early on and consider a distal target, preferentially in the angiosome distribution
of the posterior tibial or peroneal vessels. Healing and walking can be maintained with resection of the Achilles tendon and partial resection of the os calcis. Thank you so much. (audience applauding)
- These are my disclosures. So central venous access is frequently employed throughout the world for a variety of purposes. These catheters range anywhere between seven and 11 French sheaths. And it's recognized, even in the best case scenario, that there are iatrogenic arterial injuries
that can occur, ranging between three to 5%. And even a smaller proportion of patients will present after complications from access with either a pseudoaneurysm, fistula formation, dissection, or distal embolization. In thinking about these, as you see these as consultations
on your service, our thoughts are to think about it in four primary things. Number one is the anatomic location, and I think imaging is very helpful. This is a vas cath in the carotid artery. The second is th
how long the device has been dwelling in the carotid or the subclavian circulation. Assessment for thrombus around the catheter, and then obviously the size of the hole and the size of the catheter.
Several years ago we undertook a retrospective review and looked at this, and we looked at all carotid, subclavian, and innominate iatrogenic injuries, and we excluded all the injuries that were treated, that were manifest early and treated with just manual compression.
It's a small cohort of patients, we had 12 cases. Eight were treated with a variety of endovascular techniques and four were treated with open surgery. So, to illustrate our approach, I thought what I would do is just show you four cases on how we treated some of these types of problems.
The first one is a 75 year-old gentleman who's three days status post a coronary bypass graft with a LIMA graft to his LAD. He had a cordis catheter in his chest on the left side, which was discovered to be in the left subclavian artery as opposed to the vein.
So this nine French sheath, this is the imaging showing where the entry site is, just underneath the clavicle. You can see the vertebral and the IMA are both patent. And this is an angiogram from a catheter with which was placed in the femoral artery at the time that we were going to take care of this
with a four French catheter. For this case, we had duel access, so we had access from the groin with a sheath and a wire in place in case we needed to treat this from below. Then from above, we rewired the cordis catheter,
placed a suture-mediated closure device, sutured it down, left the wire in place, and shot this angiogram, which you can see very clearly has now taken care of the bleeding site. There's some pinching here after the wire was removed,
this abated without any difficulty. Second case is a 26 year-old woman with a diagnosis of vascular EDS. She presented to the operating room for a small bowel obstruction. Anesthesia has tried to attempt to put a central venous
catheter access in there. There unfortunately was an injury to the right subclavian vein. After she recovered from her operation, on cross sectional imaging you can see that she has this large pseudoaneurysm
coming from the subclavian artery on this axial cut and also on the sagittal view. Because she's a vascular EDS patient, we did this open brachial approach. We placed a stent graft across the area of injury to exclude the aneurism.
And you can see that there's still some filling in this region here. And it appeared to be coming from the internal mammary artery. We gave her a few days, it still was patent. Cross-sectional imaging confirmed this,
and so this was eventually treated with thoracoscopic clipping and resolved flow into the aneurism. The next case is a little bit more complicated. This is an 80 year-old woman with polycythemia vera who had a plasmapheresis catheter,
nine French sheath placed on the left subclavian artery which was diagnosed five days post procedure when she presented with a posterior circulation stroke. As you can see on the imaging, her vertebral's open, her mammary's open, she has this catheter in the significant clot
in this region. To manage this, again, we did duel access. So right femoral approach, left brachial approach. We placed the filter element in the vertebral artery. Balloon occlusion of the subclavian, and then a stent graft coverage of the area
and took the plasmapheresis catheter out and then suction embolectomy. And then the last case is a 47 year-old woman who had an attempted right subclavian vein access and it was known that she had a pulsatile mass in the supraclavicular fossa.
Was noted to have a 3cm subclavian artery pseudoaneurysm. Very broad base, short neck, and we elected to treat this with open surgical technique. So I think as you see these consults, the things to factor in to your management decision are: number one, the location.
Number two, the complication of whether it's thrombus, pseudoaneurysm, or fistula. It's very important to identify whether there is pericatheter thrombus. There's a variety of techniques available for treatment, ranging from manual compression,
endovascular techniques, and open repair. I think the primary point here is the prevention with ultrasound guidance is very important when placing these catheters. Thank you. (clapping)
- 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. 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.
- So this is what I've been assigned to do, I think this is a rich topic so I'll just get into it. Here are my disclosures. So I hope to convince you at the end of this talk that what we need for massive PE when we're talking about catheter based therapy is a prospective registry. And what we need for catheter based therapy for
submassive PE is a randomized controlled trial. So we'll start with massive PE and my rational for this. So you know, really as you've heard, the goal of massive PE treatment is to rescue these patients from death. They have a 25 to 65% chance of dying
so our role, whatever type of physician we are, is to rescue that patient. So what are our tools to rescue that patient? You've heard about some of them already, intravenous thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, and catheter directed therapy.
The focus of my talk will be catheter directed therapy but let's remember that the fastest and easiest thing to do for these patients is to give them intravenous thrombolysis. And I think we under utilize this therapy and we need to think about this as a first line therapy for massive PE.
However, there's some patients in whom thrombolytics are contraindicated or in whom they fail and then we have to look at some other options. And that's where catheter directed therapy may play a role. So I want to show you a pretty dramatic case and this was an eye-opening case for me
and sort of what launched our PERT when I was at Cornell. It's a 30 year old man, transcranial resection of a pituitary tumor post-op seizures and of course he had a frontal lobe hemorrhage at that time. Sure enough, four or five days after this discovery
he developed hypertension and hypoxia. And then is he CT of the chest, which I still remember to this day because it was so dramatic. You see this caval thrombosis right, basically a clot in transit
and this enormous clot in the right main pulmonary artery. And of course he was starting to get altered, tachycardiac and a little bit hypotensive. So the question is, what to do with this patient with an intracranial hemorrhage? Obviously, systemic thrombolytics are
contraindicated in him. His systolics were in the 90 millimeter of mercury ranged, getting more altered and tachycardiac. He was referred for a CDT and he was brought to the IR suite. And really, at this point,
you could see the multidisciplinary nature of PE. The ICU attending was actively managing him while I was getting access and trying to do my work. So this was the initial pulmonary angiogram you can see there's absolutely no flow to the right lung even with a directed injection
you see this cast of thrombus there. Tried a little bit of aspiration, did a little bit of maceration, even injected a little TPA, wasn't getting anywhere. I was getting a little bit more panicked as he was getting more panicked
and I remembered this device that I had used in AV fistula work called the Cleaner. Totally off label use here, I should disclose that and I have no interest in the company, no financial interest in the company. And so we deployed this thing, activate it a few times,
it spins at 3,000 rpm's, he coughed a little bit, and that freaked us all out also. But low and behold we actually started seeing some profusion. And you can see it in the aortogram actually in this and that's the whole point of massive PE treatment with CDT,
is try to get forward flow into the left ventricle so that you have a systemic blood pressure. Now, you know, when we talk about catheter based therapies we have all sorts of things at our disposal. And my point to you is that you know really, thank you...
You guys can see that, great. So really, the point of these catheter therapies is that you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE because basically your role is to try to help this patient live. So, if I can get this thing to show up again.
There we go. It's not working very well, sorry. So, from clockwise we have the AngioVac circuit, you have, let's see if this will work again, okay. Nope, it's got a delay. So then you have your infusion catheter,
then you have the Inari FlowTriever, you saw the Cleaner in the previous cast, and you have the Penumbra aspiration device the CAT 8. And some of these will be spoken about in more detail in subsequent talks. But really, you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE
just to do whatever it takes to get profusion to the left side. So, the best analysis that has been done so far was Will Kuo in 2009. He conducted a meta-analysis of about 594 patients and he found this clinical success rate of 86.5%.
This basically meant these patients survived to 30 days. Well, if that we're the case, that's a much lower mortality than we've seen historically we should basically be doing catheter directed therapy for every single massive PE that comes into the hospital. But I think we have to remember with this meta-analysis
that only 94 of these patients came from prospective studies, 500 came from retrospective, single center studies. So even though it was a very well conducted meta-analysis, the substrate for this meta-analysis wasn't great. And I think my point to you is that
we really are going to have a hard time studying this in a prospective fashion. So what is the data, as far as massive PE tell us and not tell us? Techniques are available to remove thrombus, it can be used if systemic lysis is contraindicated,
but it doesn't tell us whether catheter based therapies are better than the other therapies. Whether they should be used in combination with them and which patients should get catheter based therapy, which should get surgery and which techniques are most effective and safe.
Now, I think something we have to remember is that massive PE has a 5% incidence which is probably a good thing, if this was even higher than that we would have even more of an epidemic on our hand. But this is what makes massive PE very difficult to study.
So, if you looked at a back of the envelope calculation an RCT is just not feasible. So in an 800 bed hospital, you have 200 PE's per year, 5% are massive which means you get 10 per year in that hospital, assume 40% enroll which is actually generous,
that means that 4 massive PE's per year per institution. And then what are you going to do? Are you going to randomize them to IV lytics versus surgery versus interventional therapy, a three arm study, what is the effect size, what difference do you expect between these therapies
and how would you power it? It's really an impossible question. So I do want to make the plug for a Massive PE Prospective Registry. I think something like the PERT consortium is very well-suited to run something like this
especially with this registry endeavors. Detailed baseline characteristics including all these patients, detailing the intervention and looking at both short and long-term outcomes. Moving on to submassive PE. As you've heard much more controversial,
a much more difficult question. ICOPER as you already heard from the previous talk, alerted the world to RV dysfunction which this right ventricular hypokinesis conferring a higher mortality at 90 days than no RV dysfunction. And that's where PEITHO came in as you heard.
This showed that the placebo group met the primary endpoint of hemodynamic decompensation more commonly than the Tenecteplase group. Of course, coming at the risk of higher rate of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. So I just want to reiterate what was just said
which is that systemic thrombolysis has a questionable risk benefit profile and most patients with submassive PE, as seen in the guideline documents as well. So that sort of opens a sort of door for catheter directed therapy.
Is this the next therapy to overcome some of the shortcomings of systemic thrombolysis? Well what we have in terms of CDT is these four trials, Ultima, Seattle II, Optalyse, and Perfect. Three of these trails were the ultrasound assisted catheter, the Ekos catheter.
And only one of them is randomized and that's the Ultima trial. I'm going to show you just one slide from each one of them. The Ultima trial is basically the only randomized trial and it showed that if you put catheters in these patients 24 hours later their RV to LV ratio will be lower
than if you just treat them with Heparin. Seattle II is a single arm study and there was an association with the reduction in the RV to LV ratio at 48 hours by CTA. PERFECT, I found this to be the most interesting figure from PERFECT which is that you're going to start it at
systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 51 and you're going to come down to about 37. Optalyse, a brand new study that was just published, four arms each arm has increasing dose associated with it and at 48 hours it didn't matter, all of these groups had a reduction in the RV to LV ratio.
And there was no control group here as well. What is interesting is that the more thrombolytics you used the more thrombus you cleared at 48 hours. What that means clinically is uncertain at this point. There is bleeding with CDT. 11% major bleeding rate in Seattle II,
no intracranial hemorrhages. Optalyse did have five major bleeds, most of the major bleeds happened in the highest dosed arms. So we know that thrombolytics cause bleeding that's still an issue. Now, clot extraction minus fibrinolytic,
this is an interesting question. We do have devices, you're going to hear about the FLARE trial later in this session. EXTRACT-PE is ongoing which we have enrolled about 75 patients into. What the data does and does not tell us
when it comes to CDT for submassive PE it probably reduces the RV to LV ratio at 24 hours, it's associated with a reduction at 48 hours, major bleeding is seen, we do not know what the short and long-term clinical outcomes are
following CDT for submassive PE. Whether it should be routinely used in submassive PE and in spite of the results of Optalyse this is a preliminary trial, we don't know the optimal dose and duration of thrombolytic drug. And even is spite of these early trials
on these non-lytic techniques, we don't know their true role yet. I'd liked to point out that greater than 1,600 patients have been randomized in systemic lytic trails yet only 59 have been randomized in a single, non-U.S. CDT trial.
So this means that you can randomize patients with submassive PE to one treatment or the other. And we want to get away from this PERT CDT roller coaster where you get enthusiasm, you do more cases, then you have a complication, then the number of cases drops.
You want that to be consistent because you're basing it on data. And that's where we're trying to come up with a way of answering that with this PE-TRACT trial. Which is a RCT of CDT versus no-CDT. We're looking at clinical endpoints
rather than radiographic ones greater than 400 patients, 30 to 50 sites across the country. So in summary I hope I've convinced you that we need a Prospective Registry for massive PE and a Randomized Controlled Trail for submassive PE. Thank you.
- Yeah, thank you very much. Once again thank you to Doctor Veith for inviting me to this meeting once again. So I'm reporting you about completely new technique on behalf of my colleagues from, and co-PIs from Canada. This the so-called SoundBite technique. The SoundBite Crossing System is based on
a shockwave technology. You see how this system looks like. We have the console and then we have a SoundBite Active Wire which is a wire for single usage and these shock waves create a micro-jackhammer effect. They are hard on hard tissue and they are soft
on soft tissue as you can see here so we also do the soft tissue test and they are really do not any harm to soft tissue but they are able to go through hard material. We conducted the so called Prospector Peripheral Clinical Trial.
Refer the primary endpoint was a 30-day device success with the ability to facilitate the treatment of target lesion by allowing additional crossing and or treatment devices to cross the CTO and freedom of major adverse events. We had included 52 subjects, 56 CTOs in Canada
and in Europe. The CTO length was from one to 32 centimeters with a mean of 10 centimeters. The trial results. We had a 30-day device success of 92.3%, no major adverse events.
The mean Active Wire activation time was 3.58 minutes. The median CTO crossing time was 10 minutes and in 85.7% of all cases, the Active Wire alone crossed the full CTO length and you can see that more than 60% of the cases were moderate to severely calcified.
So this is just one example from our lab. 77-year-old male, Rutherford three. He had a short popliteal CTO we were not able to cross with the conventional methods. It was either there was really severe bony calcium. We had a crossing time of 12 minutes with the
SoundBite guide wire as you see here it's, once again, readjusting the guide wire and once again trying to push and then finally to get through and after the time I have mentioned we were able to get through the whole lesion and cross the lesion successfully.
You see it takes a little bit of time and you have to be very patient but at the end I hopefully am able to show that it doesn't last too long that we'd be able to get through. And we were able to pass through
and you can also see that the guide wire is not too stiff, that it's able to steer the guide wire and steer the guide wire where you want to need. So what we have learned. There is no need to push hard.
Let the device bore into the lesion. It has really good steerability. It's easy to change the point of attack to cut. The active guide wire has also a shapeable tip so that helps to steer the guide wire through the CTO and can help reentry
into the true lumen if subintimal. We need catheter support for the shaft stiffness. The tip stiffness is as effective for CTO with flush collateral. A five minute maximum activation time for one guide wire and usually one guide wire
is enough in most of the cases and it's really effective to cross calcified CTO lesions. We had a very high device success, no safety issues. It was easy and fast to operate and the coronary trial is presently ongoing using O14 guide wire. Thank you very much.
- 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 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.
- So, I'm going to probably echo many of the themes that Gary just touched upon here. These are my disclosures. So, if we look at the CHEST guidelines on who should get pharmacomechanical techniques, it is very very very sobering, and I apologize if the previous speakers have shown this slide,
but essentially, what's right now being disseminated to the American College of CHEST Physicians is that nobody should get catheter-directed thrombolysis, the concept of pharmacomechanical technique should really only reserved as a last-ditch effort if nothing else works, if you happen to have somebody
with extraordinary expertise in your institution, it could not be more of a damning recommendation for what I'm about to talk to you about for the next eight or nine minutes or so. So, then the question is, what is the rationale? What are we talking about here?
And again, I'm going to say that Gary and I, I think are sort of kindred spirits in recognizing that we really do need to mature this concept of the catheter-based technique for pulmonary embolism. So, I'm going to put out a hypothetical question, what if there was a single session/single device therapy
for acute PE, Gary showed one, that could avoid high dose lytics, avoid an overnight infusion, acutely on the table lower the PA pressure, acutely improve the function of the right ventricle, rapidly remove, you know, by angiography,
thrombus and clot from the pulmonary artery, and it was extremely safe, what if we had that? Would that change practice? And I would respectfully say, yes it would. And then what if this concept has already been realized, and we're actually using this across the world
for STEMI, for stroke, for acute DVT, and so why not acute pulmonary embolism? What is limiting our ability to perform single session, rapid thrombus removal and
patient stabilization on the table? Gary showed this slide, there's this whole litany of different devices, and I would argue none of them is exactly perfect yet, but I'm going to try and sort of walk you through what has been developed in an attempt
to reach the concept of single session therapy. When we talk about pharmacomechanical thrombectomy or thrombo-aspiration, it really is just one line item on the menu of all the different things that we can offer patients that present with acutely symptomatic PE, but it is important to recognize
what the potential benefits of this technology are and, of course, what the limitations are. When we look at this in distinction to stroke or STEMI or certainly DVT, it's important to recognize that during a surgical pulmonary embolectomy case, the clot that's able to be extracted is quite impressive,
and this is a very very very sobering amount of material that is typically removed from the patient's right heart and their pulmonary circulation, so, in order to innovate and iterate a percutaneous technology based on existing concepts,
it really does demand significant disruption to achieve the goals, we have not tackled this yet in terms of our endovascular tool kit. So, what is the role? Well, it's potentially able to debulk in acute PE, in an intermediate risk patient which would
ideally eliminate the need for overnight lysis, as Gary alluded to, but what if it could actually replace surgical embolectomy in high risk patients? I think many of us have had the conversation where we, we sort of don't know that's there a
experienced, comfortable surgeon to do an embolectomy within the building or within immediate access to the patient that we see crashing in front of our eyes. I'm very very lucky here in New York that I've incredible cardiovascular surgeons that are able to perform this procedure very very safely 24/7,
but I know that's not the case across the country. So, one of our surgeons who actually came from the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston developed this concept, which was the sort of first bridge between surgical embolectomy and percutaneous therapy, which is a large bore aspiration catheter,
it's a 22 French cannula that was originally designed to be placed through a cutdown but can now be placed percutaneously, and I think many of us in the room are familiar with this technology, but essentially you advance this under fluoroscopy into the right heart,
place the patient on venous-venous bypass, and a trap, which is outside the patient, is demonstrated in the lower left portion of the screen here, is able to capture any thrombotic material and then restore the circulation via the contralateral femoral vein,
any blood that is aspirated. Very very scant data on this, here's the experience from Michael and Kenny up in Boston where they tried this technology in just a handful of cases, this was followed by John Moriarty's experience from UCLA, where he actually argued a little bit of caution
using this technology, largely related to its inability to safely and reliably deliver it to the pulmonary circulation. To that end, AngieDynamics is funding a prospective registry really looking at safety and efficacy at delivering this device to the pulmonary circulation
and its ability to treat acute pulmonary embolism as well as any right heart clot, but that data's not commercially available yet. This is just one case that we did recently of a clot in transit, which I would argue could not be treated with any other technology
and the patient was able to be discharged the same day, I personally think this is a wonderful application of this technology and is our default strategy right now for a very large clot in transit. The second entrance to the space is the Inari FlowTriever device, which is a 20 French cannula,
it does not require a perfusion team in vein-vein bypass, the concept is simple, a 20 French guide catheter is advanced into the pulmonary circulation and these trilobed disks, which function like a stentriever for stroke are deployed in the pulmonary circulation, retracted to allow the clot to be delivered to the guide cath,
and then using manual aspiration, the clot is retrieved from the patient. Just a few case reports in small series describing this, this one in JACC two years ago, showing quite robust ability to extract a clot, this company which is a relatively small company funded a
single-arm prospective trial enrolling 168 patients, and not only did they complete enrollment last year, but they actually received FDA approval, now there is no peer-reviewed literature on this, it has undergone public presentation, but we, we really don't know exactly which patients were treated,
and so we really can't dissect this, I think there is a learning curve to this technology, and it's not, certainly, ready for broad dissemination yet, we just don't know which patients are ideal for it currently. Another technology, the Penumbra CAT8 system,
a market reduction in the size, an 8 French catheter based technology, this is exact same technology that's used for thrombo-aspiration for acute ischemic stroke, currently just in a slightly different size, and then a number of cases demonstrating its efficacy at
alleviating the acute nonperfusion of an entire lobe, as Gary was referring to previously, and this is one of our cases from our own lab, where you see there's no perfusion of the right, middle and lower lobe, I'm not sure if I can get these movies to play here, oh here it goes,
and so using sort of a handmade separator, we were able to restore perfusion again to the right, middle and lower lobe here, so just one example where, I think there is a potential benefit of thrombo-aspiration in a completely occluded segment.
There has been a wealth of literature about this technology, mostly demonstrating safety and efficacy, the most recent one on the bottom right in CVIR demonstrates the ability to acutely reduce the PA pressures on the table with the use of this technology, and to that end,
Akhi Sista, our faculty here this morning, is the national principal investigator of a US multicenter prospective study looking at exactly that, to try and prove that this technology is safe and effective in the treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism, so more to come on that.
Lastly, the AngioJet System, probably the most reported and studied technology, this is a 6 French technology by default, a wealth of literature here showing safety and efficacy, however, due to adverse event reporting, this technology currently has black box label warnings
in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism, so clearly this technology should not be used by the novice, and there are significant safety concerns largely related to bradyarrhythmias and hypotension, that being said, again, it is a quite experienced technology for this. So where do we currently stand?
I think we clearly see there are several attributes for thrombo-aspiration including just suction aspiration, a mechanical stent-triever technology, and the ability to not just insanguinate the patient but actually restore circulation and not make the patient anemic, here,
you can see where these technologies are going in terms of very very large bore and very small bore, I placed the question marked right in the center which is where I think this technology needs to converge in order to lead to the disruption for the broad adoption of a single session technology.
So, numerous devices exist, all the devices have been used clinically and have demonstrated the ability to be delivered in aspirary pulmonary embolus, at present, unfortunately there is no consensus regarding which device should be used for which patients and in which clinical presentations,
we need many prospective studies to demonstrate the safety and clinical benefit for our patients, we desperately do need a single session therapy, again, I completely agree with Gary on this, but there is a lot of work yet to do. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you very much and I would like to thank Dr. Veit for the kind invitation, this is really great meeting. Those are my disclosures. Percutaneous EVAR has been first reported in the late 1990's. However, for many reasons it has not been embraced
by the vascular community, despite the fact that it has been shown that the procedure can be done under local anesthesia and it decreases OR time, time to ambulation, wound complication and length of stay. There are three landmark papers which actually change this trend and make PEVAR more popular.
All of these three papers concluded that failure or observed failure of PEVAR are observed and addressed in the OR which is a key issue. And there was no late failures. Another paper which is really very prominent
is a prospective randomize study that's reported by Endologix and published in 2014. Which revealed that PEVAR closure of the arteriotomy is not inferior to open cut down. Basically, this paper also made it possible for the FDA to approve the device, the ProGlide device,
for closure of large bore arteriotomies, up to 26 in the arterial system and 29 in the venous system. We introduced percutaneous access first policy in our institution 2012. And recently we analyzed our results of 272 elective EVAR performed during the 2012 to 2016.
And we attempted PEVAR in 206 cases. And were successful in 92% of cases. But the question was what happened with the patient that failed PEVAR? And what we found that was significantly higher thrombosis, vessel thrombosis,
as well as blood loss, more than 500 cc in the failed PEVAR group. Similarly, there was longer operative time and post-operative length of stay was significantly longer. However, in this relatively small group of patients who we scheduled for cut-down due to different reasons,
we found that actually there was no difference between the PEVAR and the cut-down, failed PEVAR and cut-down in the terms of blood loss, thrombosis of the vessel, operative time and post-operative length of stay. So what are the predictors of ProGlide failure?
Small vessel calcification, particularly anterior wall calcification, prior cut-down and scarring of the groin, high femoral bifurcation and use of large bore sheaths, as well as morbid obesity. So how can we avoid failures?
I think that the key issue is access. So we recommend that all access now or we demand from our fellow that when we're going to do the operation with them, cut-down during fluoroscopy on the ultra-sound guidance, using micropuncture kits and access angiogram is actually mandatory.
But what happened when there is a lack of hemostasis once we've deployed two PEVARs? Number one, we try not to use more than three ProGlide on each side. Once the three ProGlide failed we use the angioseal. There's a new technique that we can have body wire
and deployed angioseal and still have an access. We also developed a technique that we pack the access site routinely with gelfoam and thrombin. And also we use so-called pull and clamp technique, shown here. Basically what it is, we pull the string of the ProGlide
and clamp it on the skin level. This is actually a very very very good technique. So in conclusion, PEVAR first approach strategy successful in more than 90% of cases, reduced operative time and postoperative length of stay, the failure occurred more commonly when the PEVAR
was completed outside of IFU, and there was no differences in outcome between failed PEVAR and planned femoral cut-down. Thank you.
- [Presenter] Thanks again, Laurel, for this kind invitation. We're going to discuss about how I do the treatment for varicose veins for the foot. And we're going to show you our experience for that. I have no disclosure. I came from Natal, Brazil.
There's our wonderful beach that we have there, but we don't have time to go there, unfortunately. This is our hospital, and these are the people that worked with us. To do this treatment we have to pay attention of the history and the physical examination.
It's very important to decide what you can do to these patients, because we have to associate some tools to do this kind of treatment. So phleboscopy, transillumination is very important to define the feeder veins,
so it's very important in this case to show us where is the veins that we feed these spider veins to treat that. And of course, the ultrasound associated with all the physical examinations of course and then the black scan. You can see in this case, a patient does not have any
varicose veins on the thigh, of the leg. They have only varicose veins by the foot. If you can see, the reflux of there, comes from the junction to the foot. If you don't have the good ultrasound
or duplex scan it can have a mistake and treat wrong way these patients. So, what are the tools we have to do to treat these patients? A lot of tools, you can see the liquid sclerotherapy with a low concentration of 75%.
Foam polidocanol for these two concentrations. Of course, transdermal laser, hooks that we can apply in the surgery and polidocanol laser. How about this procedure? This paper from the Netherlands, show us patient satisfaction after ambulatory phlebectomy
of varicose veins, what they conclude about that. The most important factors that influence the patient satisfaction is: discoloration, persistent pain, and the perception of varices after surgery. This last one is very important for us,
because the patient comes to us to be cleaning off veins of the foot, if we miss that everything we did, the patient will complain about after their surgery. We have two kinds of treatment, ambulatory treatment being the option
and the hospital we can do the procedures. We have separate patients with CO grade, CEAP classifications and C2 classifications. When we have a C1 grade classification we use transdermal laser and liquid sclerotherapy. You can see one case is a cosmetic
and one is a severe one. A C2 case we have ambulatory treatment, we have transdermal laser and we associate all this with foam sclerotherapy. But the concentrations are 0.5% and 0.25%, you can see its low concentrations.
At the hospital we have can do almost everything nearly in the same day. Transdermal laser, liquid sclerotherapy, foam sclerotherapy. Yes, we can associate liquid sclerotherapy, sometimes the people say that you cannot do that, but we do that.
In case like this, we also say transdermal laser in spider veins, phlebectomy and you can see in this case we have a use for sclerotherapy and is this is the result of 60 days. This other case that we use phlebectomy and we have to be careful because you
can take nerves, the patient will complain about after surgery. And these are the results. Polidocanol with laser tool, yes, but it's not our routine to use that. In conclusion:
Physical exam and a precise diagnosis of the feet varicose veins is essential to do a good surgery. With all these tools, that we have, the treatment of varicose veins of the foot is safe and effective. This is my fugu in Natal, Brazil.
- Well, thank you Frank and Enrico for the privilege of the podium and it's the diehards here right now. (laughs) So my only disclosure, this is based on start up biotech company that we have formed and novel technology really it's just a year old
but I'm going to take you very briefly through history very quickly. Hippocrates in 420 B.C. described stroke for the first time as apoplexy, someone be struck down by violence. And if you look at the history of stroke,
and trying to advance here. Let me see if there's a keyboard. - [Woman] Wait, wait, wait, wait. - [Man] No, there's no keyboard. - [Woman] It has to be opposite you. - [Man] Left, left now.
- Yeah, thank you. Are we good? (laughs) So it's not until the 80s that really risk factors for stroke therapy were identified, particularly hypertension, blood pressure control,
and so on and so forth. And as we go, could you advance for me please? Thank you, it's not until the 90s that we know about the randomized carotid trials, and advance next slide please, really '96 the era of tPA that was
revolutionary for acute stroke therapy. In the early 2000s, stroke centers, like the one that we have in the South East Louisiana and New Orleans really help to coordinate specialists treating stroke. Next slide please.
In 2015, the very famous HERMES trial, the compilation of five trials for mechanical thrombectomy of intracranial middle and anterior cerebral described the patients that could benefit and we will go on into details, but the great benefit, the number needed to treat
was really five to get an effect. Next slide. This year, "wake up" strokes, the extension of the timeline was extended to 24 hours, increase in potentially the number of patients that could be treated with this technology.
Next please. And the question is really how can one preserve the penumbra further to treat the many many patients that are still not offered mechanical thrombectomy and even the ones that are, to get a much better outcome because not everyone
returns to a normal function. Next, so the future I think is going to be delivery of a potent neuroprotection strategy to the penumbra through the stroke to be able to preserve function and recover the penumbra from ongoing death.
Next slide. So that's really the history of stroke. Advance to the next please. Here what you can see, this is a patient of mine that came in with an acute carotid occlusion that we did an emergency carotid endarterectomy
with an neuro interventionalist after passage of aspiration catheter, you can see opening of the middle cerebral M1 and M2 branches. The difference now compared to five, eight, 10 years ago is that now we have catheters in the middle cerebral artery,
the anterior cerebral artery. After tPA and thrombectomy for the super-selective, delivery of a potent neuroprotective agent and by being able to deliver it super-selectively, bioavailability issues can be resolved, systemic side effects could be minimized.
Of course, it's important to remember that penumbra is really tissue at risk, that's progression towards infarction. And everybody is really different as to when this occurs. And it's truly all based on collaterals.
So "Time is brain" that we hear over and over again, at this meeting there were a lot of talks about "Time is brain" is really incorrect. It's really "Collaterals are brain" and the penumbra is really completely based on what God gives us when we're born, which is really
how good are the collaterals. So the question is how can the penumbra be preserved after further mechanical thrombectomy? And I think that the solution is going to be with potent neuroprotection delivery to the penumbra. These are two papers that we published in late 2017
in Nature, in science journals Scientific Reports and Science Advances by our group demonstrating a novel class of molecules that are potent neuroprotective molecules, and we will go into details, but we can discuss it if there's interest, but that's just one candidate.
Because after all, when we imaged the penumbra in acute stroke centers, again, it's all about collaterals and I'll give you an example. The top panel is a patient that comes in with a good collaterals, this is a M1 branch occlusion. In these three phases which are taken at
five second intervals, this patient is probably going to be offered therapy. The patients that come in with intermediate or poor collaterals may or may not receive therapy, or this patient may be a no-go. And you could think that if neuroprotection delivery
to the penumbra is able to be done, that these patients may be offered therapy which they currently are not. And even this patient that's offered therapy, might then leave with a moderate disability, may have a much better functional
independence upon discharge. When one queries active clinical trials, there's nothing on intra arterial delivery of a potent neuroprotection following thrombectomy. These are two trials, an IV infusion, peripheral infusion, and one on just verapamil to prevent vasospasm.
So there's a large large need for delivery of a potent neuroprotection following thrombectomy. In conclusion, we're in the door now where we can do mechanical thrombectomy for intracranial thrombus, obviously concomitant to what we do in the carotid bifurcation is rare,
but those patients do present. There's still a large number of patients that are still not actively treated, some estimate 50 to 60% with typical mechanical thrombectomy. And one can speculate how ideally delivery of a potent neuroprotection to this area could
help treat 50, 60% of patients that are being denied currently, and even those that are being treated could have a much better recovery. I'd like to thank you, Frank for the meeting, and to Jackie for the great organization.
- 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 everybody. Here are my disclosures. So, upper extremity access is an important adjunct for some of the complex endovascular work that we do. It's necessary for chimney approaches, it's necessary for fenestrated at times. Intermittently for TEVAR, and for
what I like to call FEVARCh which is when you combine fenestrated repair with a chimney apporach for thoracoabdominals here in the U.S. Where we're more limited with the devices that we have available in our institutions for most of us. This shows you for a TEVAR with a patient
with an aortic occlusion through a right infracrevicular approach, we're able to place a conduit and then a 22-french dryseal sheath in order to place a TEVAR in a patient with a penetrating ulcer that had ruptured, and had an occluded aorta.
In addition, you can use this for complex techniques in the ascending aorta. Here you see a patient who had a prior heart transplant, developed a pseudoaneurysm in his suture line. We come in through a left axillary approach with our stiff wire.
We have a diagnostic catheter through the femoral. We're able to place a couple cuffs in an off-label fashion to treat this with a technically good result. For FEVARCh, as I mentioned, it's a good combination for a fenestrated repair.
Here you have a type IV thoraco fenestrated in place with a chimney in the left renal, we get additional seal zone up above the celiac this way. Here you see the vessels cannulated. And then with a nice type IV repaired in endovascular fashion, using a combination of techniques.
But the questions always arise. Which side? Which vessel? What's the stroke risk? How can we try to be as conscientious as possible to minimize those risks? Excuse me. So, anecdotally the right side has been less safe,
or concerned that it causes more troubles, but we feel like it's easier to work from the right side. Sorry. When you look at the image intensifier as it's coming in from the patient's left, we can all be together on the patient's right. We don't have to work underneath the image intensifier,
and felt like right was a better approach. So, can we minimize stroke risk for either side, but can we minimize stroke risk in general? So, what we typically do is tuck both arms, makes lateral imaging a lot easier to do rather than having an arm out.
Our anesthesiologist, although we try not to help them too much, but it actually makes it easier for them to have both arms available. When we look at which vessel is the best to use to try to do these techniques, we felt that the subclavian artery is a big challenge,
just the way it is above the clavicle, to be able to get multiple devices through there. We usually feel that the brachial artery's too small. Especially if you're going to place more than one sheath. So we like to call, at our institution, the Goldilocks phenomenon for those of you
who know that story, and the axillary artery is just right. And that's the one that we use. When we use only one or two sheaths we just do a direct puncture. Usually through a previously placed pledgeted stitch. It's a fairly easy exposure just through the pec major.
Split that muscle then divide the pec minor, and can get there relatively easily. This is what that looks like. You can see after a sheath's been removed, a pledgeted suture has been tied down and we get good hemostasis this way.
If we're going to use more than two sheaths, we prefer an axillary conduit, and here you see that approach. We use the self-sealing graft. Whenever I have more than two sheaths in, I always label the sheaths because
I can't remember what's in what vessel. So, you can see yes, I made there, I have another one labeled right renal, just so I can remember which sheath is in which vessel. We always navigate the arch first now. So we get all of our sheaths across the arch
before we selective catheterize the visceral vessels. We think this partly helps minimize that risk. Obviously, any arch manipulation is a concern, but if we can get everything done at once and then we can focus on the visceral segment. We feel like that's a better approach and seems
to be better for what we've done in our experience. So here's our results over the past five-ish years or so. Almost 400 aortic interventions total, with 72 of them requiring some sort of upper extremity access for different procedures. One for placement of zone zero device, which I showed you,
sac embolization, and two for imaging. We have these number of patients, and then all these chimney grafts that have been placed in different vessels. Here's the patients with different number of branches. Our access you can see here, with the majority
being done through right axillary approach. The technical success was high, mortality rate was reasonable in this group of patients. With the strokes being listed there. One rupture, which is treated with a covered stent. The strokes, two were ischemic,
one hemorrhagic, and one mixed. When you compare the group to our initial group, more women, longer hospital stay, more of the patients had prior aortic interventions, and the mortality rate was higher. So in conclusion, we think that
this is technically feasible to do. That right side is just as safe as left side, and that potentially the right side is better for type III arches. Thank you very much.
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. Thank you.
- Thank you Professor Veith. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present on behalf of my chief the results of the IRONGUARD 2 study. A study on the use of the C-Guard mesh covered stent in carotid artery stenting. The IRONGUARD 1 study performed in Italy,
enrolled 200 patients to the technical success of 100%. No major cardiovascular event. Those good results were maintained at one year followup, because we had no major neurologic adverse event, no stent thrombosis, and no external carotid occlusion. This is why we decided to continue to collect data
on this experience on the use of C-Guard stent in a new registry called the IRONGUARD 2. And up to August 2018, we recruited 342 patients in 15 Italian centers. Demographic of patients were a common demographic of at-risk carotid patients.
And 50 out of 342 patients were symptomatic, with 36 carotid with TIA and 14 with minor stroke. Stenosis percentage mean was 84%, and the high-risk carotid plaque composition was observed in 28% of patients, and respectively, the majority of patients presented
this homogenous composition. All aortic arch morphologies were enrolled into the study, as you can see here. And one third of enrolled patients presented significant supra-aortic vessel tortuosity. So this was no commerce registry.
Almost in all cases a transfemoral approach was chosen, while also brachial and transcervical approach were reported. And the Embolic Protection Device was used in 99.7% of patients, with a proximal occlusion device in 50 patients.
Pre-dilatation was used in 89 patients, and looking at results at 24 hours we reported five TIAs and one minor stroke, with a combined incidence rate of 1.75%. We had no myocardial infection, and no death. But we had two external carotid occlusion.
At one month, we had data available on 255 patients, with two additional neurological events, one more TIA and one more minor stroke, but we had no stent thrombosis. At one month, the cumulative results rate were a minor stroke rate of 0.58%,
and the TIA rate of 1.72%, with a cumulative neurological event rate of 2.33%. At one year, results were available on 57 patients, with one new major event, it was a myocardial infarction. And unfortunately, we had two deaths, one from suicide. To conclude, this is an ongoing trial with ongoing analysis,
and so we are still recruiting patients. I want to thank on behalf of my chief all the collaborators of this registry. I want to invite you to join us next May in Rome, thank you.
- Afternoon. It's a privilege to be presenting this today. I have no disclosures. If you look at this, this is a picture of the last 10 IVC filters approved by the FDA. You'll notice that they all have some mechanism of removal most commonly hooks.
You may ask yourself, why is that? And the reason for this is basically one or two studies. Basically the PREPIC study which was originally published in 1998 with two-year data, followed by a publication in Circulation with eight-year data.
Now the PREPIC itself, the study itself was the first prospective, randomized trial comparing anticoagulation to IVC filters. It was performed from 1991 to 1995 in France. 400 patients with DVT that were considered at risk for PE were enrolled.
And they were randomized at first either unfractionated versus fractionated heparins, and then IVC filter versus no IVC filter. And the filters used are demonstrated here, the Greenfield, the Cardinal, LGM, and Bird's Nest. And all patients were anticoagulated with warfarin
at the time of discharge whenever possible. Primary outcome was pulmonary embolism. The secondary outcomes were DVT, death, major filter complications, and major bleeding. And again, the data was published at two and eight years. So the two-year results, the PREPIC study,
they presented first some data on unfractionated versus fractionated heparin, but then this table. And this table shows basically that there was no difference in symptomatic PE between groups. But there was a difference in recurrent DVT
with patients having a filter in place having a higher incidence of DVT than those that did not. And the thought was that this presence of the filter increased the risk of DVT. Now the data at eight years, published in Circulation, did show a difference between symptomatic pulmonary embolism
with patients having a filter having a lower incidence of recurrent PE. However, the symptomatic DVT remained elevated in patients that had filters in place. And this was statistically significant. Of note, there was a fairly significant number of patients
that had cable thrombosis in the group that had filters that may have contributed to this number. So if you want to be critical about the study, there are a few things that are a little bit unperfect I guess you could say. It's now thought as a study of filter randomization
in patients with DVT, but it was actually also a study looking at unfractionated and low molecular weight heparins. And this lends itself to be a fairly weak study designed to make conclusions on IVC filters, the performance of IVC filters, and it's underpowered really to make a definitive conclusion.
The other problem with this study is that there's a wide variety of filters, I mean a Bird's Nest and the Greenfield, they're very different filters. And that lack of standardization I think is problematic. These filters both can have different rates
of IVC thrombosis, which can affect the data. So the statistical analysis was less than perfect. They should have corrected for multiple comparisons which they did not. And it also showed that PE can occur remotely, and if you don't have a filter in place,
it's probably not protective, obviously. So a PREPIC study was recently published, the PREPIC 2 in 2015. And this asks the question, do patients with acute PE at high risk of recurrence benefit from IVC filter in addition to anticoagulation?
So it was a multicenter trial in France. They had about 400 patients that were randomized, half into filters, half into no filters. Their risk factors are listed, and they're quite broad. And all filters were removed at three months. And they had follow up at three and six months.
And this is the data. The data at three months shows that there was no difference in recurrent PE between the patients with filters and the patient without filters. And at six months this remained the same. And there was no difference in DVT
between groups at six months. So fact or fiction? Well I think the PREPIC studies are mostly fact with maybe a little bit of fiction thrown in. The data from PREPIC suggests that patients with IVC filters have an increased risk of DVT long term,
but a decreased risk of PE long term. PREPIC 2 suggests that IVC filters may not decrease the risk of PE in high-risk patients, and did not show an association between filters and recurrent DVT at six and three months. 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 Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- Dear Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you Doctor Veith. It's a privilege to be here. So, the story is going to be about Negative Pressure Wound Non-Excisional Treatment from Prosthetic Graft Infection, and to show you that the good results are durable. Nothing to disclose.
Case demonstration: sixty-two year old male with fem-fem crossover PTFE bypass graft, Key infection in the right groin. What we did: open the groin to make the debridement and we see the silergy treat, because the graft is infected with the microbiology specimen
and when identified, the Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis. We assess the anastomosis in the graft was good so we decided to put foam, black foam for irrigation, for local installation of antiseptics. This our intention-to treat protocol
at the University hospital, Zurich. Multi-staged Negative Pressure for the Wound Therapy, that's meets vascular graft infection, when we open the wound and we assess the graft, and the vessel anastomosis, if they are at risk or not. If they are not at risk, then we preserve the graft.
If they are at risk and the parts there at risk, we remove these parts and make a local reconstruction. And this is known as Szilagyi and Samson classification, are mainly validated from the peripheral surgery. And it is implemented in 2016 guidelines of American Heart Association.
But what about intracavitary abdominal and thoracic infection? Then other case, sixty-one year old male with intracavitary abdominal infection after EVAR, as you can see, the enhancement behind the aortic wall. What we are doing in that situation,
We're going directly to the procedure that's just making some punctures, CT guided. When we get the specimen microbiological, then start with treatment according to the microbiology findings, and then we downgrade the infection.
You can see the more air in the aneurism, but less infection periaortic, then we schedule the procedure, opening the aneurysm sac, making the complete removal of the thrombus, removing of the infected part of the aneurysm, as Doctor Maelyna said, we try to preserve the graft.
That exactly what we are doing with the white foam and then putting the black foam making the Biofilm breakdown with local installation of antiseptics. In some of these cases we hope it is going to work, and, as you see, after one month
we did not have a good response. The tissue was uneager, so we decided to make the removal of the graft, but, of course, after downgrading of this infection. So, we looked at our data, because from 2012 all the patients with
Prostetic Graft infection we include in the prospective observational cohort, known VASGRA, when we are working into disciplinary with infectious disease specialist, microbiologists, radiologist and surgical pathologist. The study included two group of patients,
One, retrospective, 93 patient from 1999 to 2012, when we started the VASGRA study. And 88 patient from April 2012 to Seventeen within this register. Definitions. Baseline, end of the surgical treatment and outcome end,
the end of microbiological therapy. In total, 181 patient extracavitary, 35, most of them in the groin. Intracavitary abdominal, 102. Intracavitary thoracic, 44. If we are looking in these two groups,
straight with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy and, no, without Negative Pressure Wound Therapy, there is no difference between the groups in the male gender, obesity, comorbidity index, use of endovascular graft in the type Samson classification,
according to classification. The only difference was the ratio of hospitalization. And the most important slide, when we show that we have the trend to faster cure with vascular graft infection in patients with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
If we want to see exactly in the data we make uni variant, multi variant analysis, as in the initial was the intracavitary abdominal. Initial baseline. We compared all these to these data. Intracavitary abdominal with no Pressure Wound Therapy
and total graft excision. And what we found, that Endovascular indexoperation is not in favor for faster time of cure, but extracavitary Negative Pressure Wound Therapy shows excellent results in sense of preserving and not treating the graft infection.
Having these results faster to cure, we looked for the all cause mortality and the vascular graft infection mortality up to two years, and we did not have found any difference. What is the strength of this study, in total we have two years follow of 87 patients.
So, to conclude, dear Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Explant after downgrading giving better results. Instillation for biofilm breakdown, low mortality, good quality of life and, of course, Endovascular vascular graft infection lower time to heal. Thank you very much for your attention.
- So, my topic today is: Antegrade In Situ Fenestration for Fenestrated EVAR: How To Do It. Here are my disclosures. So, Jean Panneton has shown already the validity of retrograde laser fenestration. That is a feasible technique,
an effective option for acute thoracic pathology, with an excellent midterm patency, which it is very easy to do retrograde laser fenestration compared to an anterograde technique. We have done a lot of bench tests to perform all like this (mumbles).
So, the in situ laser fenestration technique is an off-label procedure. It is a bailout solution, and dedicated to emergent cases, patient unfit to open repair, or unfit to CMD device.
And we use this technique for left subclavian arch, and the anterograde technique for visceral arteries, and in a few cases of TEVAR. This is a technique. I use a Heli-FX 16 French. And I use
a 0.9 laser probe. We don't need to use another laser probe for this technique to avoid any larger hole. This is the steps for the technique. I do a primary stenting of the arteries using your effusion.
And then I do the endovascular exclusion. I position the steerable sheath at the level of the targeted artery and then do laser fenestration. This is a pre-stenting. And then the graft deployment
at the level of the seating zone. This was a type 1A endoleak after EVAR. The next step is to do the laser fenestration. You can see the tip of the laser probe. (Mumbles)
You could see the tip of the laser probe coming in the lumen of the SMA. And, we'll then, after this laser fenestration, quite easy, we'll then do
an enlargement of the ULL, using first a small cutting balloon and then do a progressive dilation using a bigger balloon, four millimeter, and then a six millimeter balloon.
The next step is to do, like, what we do for fenestrated cases, we do the bridging covered stent. Yeah, at the level of the SMA, and then the flairing, to have a good sealer
of the proximal part of the bridging stent. After the SMA, we then do the renal fenestration. And we used to stop with the celiac trunk. Our main indications are juxta para renal aneurysm, or type 1A Endoleak when there is a straight aorta. And in a few cases, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.
This is an example of a type 1A endoleak, as I have presented. This is our first trial with 16 patients, treated on between three years. And we have now 29 patients with laser fenestration EVAR,
66 fenestrations, 5% of aortic aneurysm treated in our center. The median ischemic time is 12 minutes for the SMA, one hour for the renal arteries, and around two hours for the celiac trunk. The fenestration success rate is 95%.
Here are the outcomes. There was no mortality, even for very old patients. 16% of transitory dialysis. No spinal cord ischemia, one case of pneumonia, and the short follow-up of 22 months with 24 re-operations
in seven patients. Here are my conclusion. The laser fenestration EVAR must not be used for elective cases. In our strategy, the best options for urgent thoracoabdominal is to use
an off-the-shelf graft, like the T-branch. If a custom-made device graft is not available, the laser fenestration will be our reference treatment, and you don't need any brachial or axillary approach for this technique. Thank you very much.
- Good afternoon, Dr. Veith, organizer. Thank you very much for the kind invitation. I have nothing to disclose. In the United States, the most common cause of mortality after one year of age is trauma. So, thankfully the pediatric vascular trauma
is only a very small minority, and it happens in less that 1% of all the pediatric traumas. But, when it happens it contributes significantly to the mortality. In most developed countries, the iatrogenic
arterial injuries are the most common type of vascular injuries that you have in non-iatrogenic arterial injuries, however are more common in war zone area. And it's very complex injuries that these children suffer from.
In a recent study that we published using the national trauma data bank, the mortality rate was about 7.9% of the children who suffer from vascular injuries. And the most common mechanism of injury were firearm and motor vehicle accidents. In the US, the most common type of injury is the blunt type
of injury. As far as the risk factors for mortality, you can see some of them that are significantly affecting mortality, but one of them is the mechanism of injury, blunt versus penetrating and the penetrating is the risk factor for
mortality. As far as the anatomical and physiological consideration for treatment, they are very similar to adults. Their injury can cause disruption all the way to a spasm, or obstruction of the vessel and for vasiospasm and minimal disruption, conservative therapy is usually adequate.
Sometimes you can use papevrin or nitroglycerin. Of significant concern in children is traumatic AV fissure that needs to be repaired as soon as possible. For hard signs, when you diagnose these things, of course when there is a bleeding, there is no question that you need to go repair.
When there are no hard signs, especially in the blunt type of injuries, we depend both on physical exams and diagnostic tools. AVI in children is actually not very useful, so instead of that investigators are just using what is called an Injured Extremity Index, which you measure one leg
versus the other, and if there is also less than 0.88 or less than 0.90, depending on the age of the children, is considered abnormal. Pulse Oximetry, the Duplex Ultrasound, CTA are all very helpful. Angiography is actually quite risky in these children,
and should be avoided. Surgical exploration, of course, when it's needed can give very good results. As far as the management, well they are very similar to adults, in the sense that you need to expose the artery, control the bleeding, an then restore circulation to the
end organ. And some of the adjuncts that are using in adult trauma can be useful, such as use of temporary shunts, that you can use a pediatric feeding tube, heparin, if there are no contraindications, liberal use of fasciotomy and in the vascular technique that my partner, Dr. Singh will be
talking about. Perhaps the most common cause of PVI in young children in developed countries are iatrogenic injuries and most of the time they are minimal injuries. But in ECMO cannulation, 20-50% are injuries due to
ECMO have been reported in both femoral or carotid injuries. So, in the centers are they are doing it because of the concern about limb ischemia, as well as cognitive issues. They routinely repair the ECMO cannulation site.
For non-iatrogenic types, if is very common in the children that are above six years of age. Again, you follow the same principal as adult, except that these arteries are severely spastic and interposition graft must accommodate both axial and radial growths of these arteries, as well as the limb that it's been
repaired in. Primary repair sometimes requires interrupted sutures and Dr. Bismuth is going to be talking about some of that. Contralateral greater saphenous vein is a reasonable option, but this patient needs to be followed very, very closely.
The most common type of injury is upper extremity and Dr. McCurdy is going to be talking about this. Blunt arterial injury to the brachial artery is very common. It can cause ischemic contracture and sometimes amputation.
In the children that they have no pulse, is if there are signs of neurosensory deficit and extremity is cold, exploration is indicated, but if the extremity is pulseless, pink hand expectant treatment is reasonable. As far as the injuries, the most common, the deadliest injuries are related to the truncal injuries and the
mechanism severity of this injury dictates the treatment. Blunt aortic injuries are actually quite uncommon and endovascular options are limited. This is an example of one that was done by Dr Veith and you can see the arrow when the stent was placed and then moved.
So these children, the long-term results of endovascular option is unknown. So in summary, you basically follow many tenets of adult vascular trauma. Special consideration for repair has to do with the fact that you need to accommodate longitudinal
and radial growth and also endovascular options are limited. Ultimately, you need a collaborative effort of many specialists in taking care of these children. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Content and materials on Medlantis are provided for educational purposes only, and are intended for use by medical professionals, not to be used self-diagnosis or self-treatment. It is not intended as, nor should it be, a substitute for independent professional medical care. Medical practitioners must make their own independent assessment before suggesting a diagnosis or recommending or instituting a course of treatment. The content and materials on Medlantis should not in any way be seen as a replacement for consultation with colleagues or other sources, or as a substitute for conventional training and study.