- You already heard about different devices which can finish the treatment of acute DVT in the lab and I would like to add one of the devices which is quite widespread in Europe. And share the first study on this device. This is called the Aspirex device. So what is the objective?
Post traumatic syndrome after proximal DVT, I think that's clear. 25% of the patient are at risk for developing post traumatic syndrome. I think that is clear and some of these patient even expect severe post traumatic syndrome.
We already saw this ATTRACT trial outcome and we learned that especially patient with Iliofemoral DVT might benefit from treatment, invasive treatment of Iliofemoral DVT but of course, we need to know that is catheter-directed thrombolysis causes issues
and therefore our way should be to go away from thrombolytic therapy to a pure mechanical thrombectomy approach. This is a typical case example of a patient, 20 year old female patient who came to the emergency room with that leg on the left side in the morning,
back pain in the evening and this is clear that it is a descending Iliofemoral DVT in that patient caused by May-Thurner syndrome. So, with modern devices like this Aspirex, mechanical thrombectomy device, the 10 French device is able to aspirate up to 130 millimeter,
ml per minute of clots. You see that this can be effectively treated and then stinted within the May-Thurner syndrome within one session approach. So, but, what is clear of course that we need to get data
for these modern Mechanical Thrombectomy devices and therefore, we conducted clinical follow-up study to evaluate safety and efficiency of that Aspirex Mechanical Thrombectomy device. This device is based on the Archimedic principle which you can see here it comes with six up
to 10 French systems and with that you are able, as I already showed to sac 130ml of thrombus per minute. So these are the study details I want to show you. We treated 50 psychs, 56 patients with acute, subacute and acute on chronic which means up to 3 months of symptoms patients with Iliofermal DVT.
We performed IVIS on all these patients. We found May-Thurner syndrome in at least half of these patients as a reason for the Iliofermal DVT. You see the patient demographics. Some of the patients had even malignancy condition. A lot of patients were on oral contraceptives.
Here are the clinical symptoms within our cohort. Most of the patients came with swelling and rest pain. The rVCSS at the beginning was 4.5 within this cohort. Most of the traumatic lesions were on the left side involving even the profunda and the common femoral vein in this cohort.
You see here the excess which we used for treating these Iliofermal DVT, we used in the main part of the cohort, the left popliteal vein access or left femoral vein access. 84% were treated with 10 French system, the Aspirex device. As I mentioned we used IVIS
to analyze underlying pathologies. We found in most of the patients underlying pathologies and this explains why we implanted stents in 100% of the patients. You see the treatment duration which was in mean 94 minutes within this treatment cohort.
These are the patency analysis within one year. You see patency at 12 months, 87% percent in these patients, which we could follow up after 12 months. Here you see the Post-thrombotic syndrome analysis after 12 months so only low PTS
and some kind of moderate PTS were seen in these patients. There were no severe Post-thrombotic syndrome. Most of the patients just had a little bit of swelling after that procedure. Of course, it's important to mention safety and those end points.
There were just some small punctures associated, site being complicationS. Of course re-hospitalization is a severe adverse event which you can see here. But there were of course no bleeding events in this cohort. And to follow up
on this much more multicentric perspective trial, we just started a multicenter trial on this and we'll follow up patients up to five years within this just initiated multicenter registry. And I think we can show some preliminary data next year. Thank you very much.
- So my charge is to talk about using band for steal. I have no relevant disclosures. We're all familiar with steal. The upper extremity particularly is able to accommodate for the short circuit that a access is with up to a 20 fold increase in flow. The problem is that the distal bed
is not necessarily as able to accommodate for that and that's where steal comes in. 10 to 20% of patients have some degree of steal if you ask them carefully. About 4% have it bad enough to require an intervention. Dialysis associated steal syndrome
is more prevalent in diabetics, connective tissue disease patients, patients with PVD, small vessels particularly, and females seem to be predisposed to this. The distal brachial artery as the inflow source seems to be the highest risk location. You see steal more commonly early with graft placement
and later with fistulas, and finally if you get it on one side you're very likely to get it on the other side. The symptoms that we are looking for are coldness, numbness, pain, at the hand, the digital level particularly, weakness in hand claudication, digital ulceration, and then finally gangrene in advanced cases.
So when you have this kind of a picture it's not too subtle. You know what's going on. However, it is difficult sometimes to differentiate steal from neuropathy and there is some interaction between the two.
We look for a relationship to blood pressure. If people get symptomatic when their blood pressure's low or when they're on the access circuit, that is more with steal. If it's following a dermatomal pattern that may be a median neuropathy
which we find to be pretty common in these patients. Diagnostic tests, digital pressures and pulse volume recordings are probably the best we have to assess this. Unfortunately the digital pressures are not, they're very sensitive but not very specific. There are a lot of patients with low digital pressures
that have no symptoms, and we think that a pressure less than 60 is probably consistent, or a digital brachial index of somewhere between .45 and .6. But again, specificity is poor. We think the digital pulse volume recordings is probably the most useful.
As you can see in this patient there's quite a difference in digital waveforms from one side to the other, and more importantly we like to see augmentation of that waveform with fistula compression not only diagnostically but also that is predictive of the benefit you'll get with treatment.
So what are our treatment options? Well, we have ligation. We have banding. We have the distal revascularization interval ligation, or DRIL, procedure. We have RUDI, revision using distal inflow,
and we have proximalization of arterial inflow as the approaches that have been used. Ligation is a, basically it restores baseline anatomy. It's a very simple procedure, but of course it abandons the access and many of these patients don't have a lot of good alternatives.
So it's not a great choice, but sometimes a necessary choice. This picture shows banding as we perform it, usually narrowing the anastomosis near the artery. It restricts flow so you preserve the fistula but with lower flows.
It's also simple and not very morbid to do. It's got a less predictable effect. This is a dynamic process, and so knowing exactly how tightly to band this and whether that's going to be enough is not always clear. This is not a good choice for low flow fistula,
'cause again, you are restricting flow. For the same reason, it's probably not a great choice for prosthetic fistulas which require more flow. So, the DRIL procedure most people are familiar with. It involves a proximalization of your inflow to five to 10 centimeters above the fistula
and then ligation of the artery just below and this has grown in popularity certainly over the last 10 or 15 years as the go to procedure. Because there is no flow restriction with this you don't sacrifice patency of the access for it. It does add additional distal flow to the extremity.
It's definitely a more morbid procedure. It involves generally harvesting the saphenous vein from patients that may not be the best risk surgical patients, but again, it's a good choice for low flow fistula. RUDI, revision using distal inflow, is basically
a flow restrictive procedure just like banding. You're simply, it's a little bit more complicated 'cause you're usually doing a vein graft from the radial artery to the fistula. But it's less complicated than DRIL. Similar limitations to banding.
Very limited clinical data. There's really just a few series of fewer than a dozen patients each to go by. Finally, a proximalization of arterial inflow, in this case rather than ligating the brachial artery you're ligating the fistula and going to a more proximal
vessel that often will accommodate higher flow. In our hands, we were often talking about going to the infraclavicular axillary artery. So, it's definitely more morbid than a banding would be. This is a better choice though for prosthetic grafts that, where you want to preserve flow.
Again, data on this is very limited as well. The (mumbles) a couple years ago they asked the audience what they like and clearly DRIL has become the most popular choice at 60%, but about 20% of people were still going to banding, and so my charge was to say when is banding
the right way to go. Again, it's effect is less predictable than DRIL. You definitely are going to slow the flows down, but remember with DRIL you are making the limb dependent on the patency of that graft which is always something of concern in somebody
who you have caused an ischemic hand in the first place, and again, the morbidity with the DRIL certainly more so than with the band. We looked at our results a few years back and we identified 31 patients who had steal. Most of these, they all had a physiologic test
confirming the diagnosis. All had some degree of pain or numbness. Only three of these patients had gangrene or ulcers. So, a relatively small cohort of limb, of advanced steal. Most of our patients were autogenous access,
so ciminos and brachycephalic fistula, but there was a little bit of everything mixed in there. The mean age was 66. 80% were diabetic. Patients had their access in for about four and a half months on average at the time of treatment,
although about almost 40% were treated within three weeks of access placement. This is how we do the banding. We basically expose the arterial anastomosis and apply wet clips trying to get a diameter that is less than the brachial artery.
It's got to be smaller than the brachial artery to do anything, and we monitor either pulse volume recordings of the digits or doppler flow at the palm or arch and basically apply these clips along the length and restricting more and more until we get
a satisfactory signal or waveform. Once we've accomplished that, we then are satisfied with the degree of narrowing, we then put some mattress sutures in because these clips will fall off, and fix it in place.
And basically this is the result you get. You go from a fistula that has no flow restriction to one that has restriction as seen there. What were our results? Well, at follow up that was about almost 16 months we found 29 of the 31 patients had improvement,
immediate improvement. The two failures, one was ligated about 12 days later and another one underwent a DRIL a few months later. We had four occlusions in these patients over one to 18 months. Two of these were salvaged with other procedures.
We only had two late recurrences of steal in these patients and one of these was, recurred when he was sent to a radiologist and underwent a balloon angioplasty of the banding. And we had no other morbidity. So this is really a very simple procedure.
So, this is how it compares with DRIL. Most of the pooled data shows that DRIL is effective in 90 plus percent of the patients. Patency also in the 80 to 90% range. The DRIL is better for late, or more often used in late patients,
and banding used more in earlier patients. There's a bigger blood pressure change with DRIL than with banding. So you definitely get more bang for the buck with that. Just quickly going through the literature again. Ellen Dillava's group has published on this.
DRIL definitely is more accepted. These patients have very high mortality. At two years 50% are going to be dead. So you have to keep in mind that when you're deciding what to do. So, I choose banding when there's no gangrene,
when there's moderate not severe pain, and in patients with high morbidity. As promised here's an algorithm that's a little complicated looking, but that's what we go by. Again, thanks very much.
- [Speaker] Thank you. My disclosures. So upper extremity dvt occurs in 4-10% of all causes of venous thrombosis. And while a minority, dvt in the upper extremity can often be caused by thoracic outlet syndrome, effort thrombosis, occasionally
idiopathic venous thrombosis. The majority is more likely related to central venous catheters, pacemakers, cancer, etc. This is some of the presentation of someone with Paget Schroeder or venous thoracic outlet syndrome, we're all well aware of this.
Some features of this can be sudden onset of pain, discoloration and some of this subcutaneous collateral veins that we note. Initial treatment of this is traditionally with venous thrombolysis. Although the results are good, this thrombolysis can
be associated with bleeding complications, potential for renal insufficiency, prolonged dwell times, and increased cost. I think it's important that this is not just a talk about a technique but a technique in the context of an operation this is soon to come.
Whether you choose to take out the rib at the same setting or you choose to delay the operation by a week or two, by and large the complications associated with that venous thrombolysis are going to come back and haunt you in the next operations. I think that's the context of this talk.
One of the risks I just mentioned about some of these techniques is, that's sort of curious to me, is the acute kidney injury after AngioJet venous thrombolysis. You see here, this paper, of a hundred patients, 50 AngioJet, 50 catheter directed thrombolysis, shows a statistical significantly
increased risk of acute kidney failure in the AngioJet group. Eight fold odds ratio. The Indigo system enables operators to remove the thrombus in a single setting, while potentially reducing or eliminating the need for thrombolysis.
This has already been discussed by some of the prior speakers, you see the different iterations first introduced in 2014. The CAT8 is the largest device and you can see some of the features of this proprietary technology with the separator and the directional sheaths that
allow us to aspirate nicely. This continuous suction you see here, can be very nicely controlled with an on-off switch that minimizes blood loss. It's single operator design, very easy to set up, hands free aspiration, a very simple set up.
You also heard just recently about the volume that can be aspirated in 20 seconds you see, especially with the larger profile devices, quite impressive amount of thrombus can be removed. Again, with the careful control for blood loss. The directionality of the sheath is also important,
and you can see some of the different directionality sheaths. Here's a couple case examples of a Paget-Schroder patient comes in with an acute sudden onset of arm pain and swelling discoloration, and you can see the penumbra device being used to clean out that vein.
This is another example, a 25-year old male with acute right arm swelling, sort of a body lifter type, and you can see here, this is the separator that's being moved forward and backwards, in and out to help break out the thrombus. This is the CAT8 device.
The pre-intervention picture seen here, we're crossing the lesion with a wire and and you can see the post-intervention on the right. You, of course, have the venous compression from the first rib, thoracic outlet, but the vein is widely open and now we can go ahead and see
the specimen that's retrieved as you've seen other videos in the prior presentations. This, of course, is what we're left with at the time of surgery. I only bring this up to remind us that there is a second stage to this treatment,
which is the rib resection. A combined experience that I just want to put together, very small numbers of course but, 16 patients with thoracic outlet who presented and were treated with the Penumbra system. You can see here, some of the demographic data.
I'll just point out the symptoms, of course, pain, swelling in these patients, imaging mostly venous duplex, occasionally CT or MR venogram. They all of course get venography at the time of procedure. The extent of the thrombus in all of them was complete occlusion and you can see some
of the extent in the subclavian axillary veins. Site of access can be the brachial or the basilic vein. The operative details as well, shown here, and I'll just point out the estimated blood loss, it can be very reasonable, especially with some experience you can sort of control that
on-off valve and minimize blood loss with this technique. Adjunctive therapies are shown here and of course, maybe because we're a little bit stuck on our ways, we did have a fair number of adjunctive lytic therapy. There were only three patients who had overnight lysis. A lot of venoplasty done at the time of the procedure.
All veins remained patent until the day of the rib resection but I will point out that one of these patients did develop a significant complication with hemothorax. This is one of those patients who had overnight lysis. And I point that out to stress that perhaps
this is what we're trying to move away from. So, in conclusion, mechanicothrombectomy using Indigo device shows promising initial results. Minimal blood loss, one complication of the hemothroax with the overnight lytics. No renal insufficiency or distal embolization.
The practice pattern, I think, need to adjust away from routing lytics to additionally minimize complications prior to surgery. Thank you.
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. Thank you.
- I think we have time. If there are any questions, please come up to the microphone and any of the panels have questions for each other. I have a number of questions I could ask but I just see if anyone wants to start out. Claudio?
- I have a question Doctor Mark. He show us very nice utilization of this device for occluded limbs. My question is, do you protect in any way the other side? If not, don't you have, you're not concerned
or you're not afraid of pushing clots from one side to the other one when you're manipulating the device? And the second one, do you do this percutaneously? And if that's the case, do you have any concern about having destabilization?
Because once you start to manipulate the clot that is occupying the entire graft, and there is reestablishment of flow in an antegrade flush, and you may have some of that clot dislodge and embolize distant. - Yeah, as I mentioned,
nobody wants to be the guru of limb occlusions. However, we have seen them and we always go retrograde ipsilateral, not seen emboli once from those seven cases and in fact, the 73 we presented at the midwest there was only two instances of embolization
when we utilized this device. And both times we were able to extract those just by going further down with the cat six and both of them was below the knee popliteal. In particular, the acute ones, it's soft and it's no different than watching it in vivo
or in vitro model, as you know better than I, comes out quite easily. - Let's take our question from the audience. - [Scott] Hi, Scott Tapart from Stuart, Florida. So I'd like to poll the panel there about are you doing every single
acute limb ischemia percutaneously? The pictures are elegant, the techniques are elegant, but the last speaker touched on the profoundly ichemic Rutherford 2B patient, where you're most likely going to have to do a fasciotomy. Are you going to the OR
or are you doing this percutaneously and then watching and waiting and seeing about fasciotomy? Or has this changed your fasciotomy approach? - So since we have a number of people, that's a great question. Why don't we start at the end
and let's just go kind of rapid fire, maybe one or two sentences, how do you choose your patients and what do you do with those 2Bs and we'll try to get through everybody. - Sure, so, to reiterate the last slide of the presentation,
essentially anybody with a significant motor or neutral deficit is somebody I tend to do in an open fashion. And if I'm the least bit concerned about doing a fasciotomy or there's evidence of compartment syndrome I do that patient open.
- We try to start endovascular, and if we can clean and reestablish antegrade flow, that would take care of the problem. And of course, I'm a radiologist, so I always consult with my colleagues in surgery and they decide if a fasciotomy needs to be done or not.
And it's that at the end. - Okay, I have to be honest, we start with the selective indication but now we move maybe to 90% of our patients doing percutaneously. We will adjust patients with probably an embolization,
a huge embolization, into the common femoral artery for open surgery. Of course, in our mind, also in the registry, we have some cases of fasciotomy after percutaneous approach so it's not a limitation. - The advantage of acute arterial protocol,
as they all go to the end of asher suite and they all run along our protocol but you can run the option. You get them to treatment quicker because they don't dilly-dally around in the holding room. But then according to how the patient's doing
you can mop up as much clot as you can with the percutaneous technique and then do the fasciotomy when you're done or press head and drip more if you need to. So I think to have an algorithm where you can treat the full spectrum
is what's best for the patient. - I think it depends on the time as well because I did two weeks ago a patient who needed a fasciotomy directly so I performed that first and then it rules out any traumalitic therapy
or whatever that you want to do. And actually, if I do antivascular techniques I usually give a shot or RTPA or something and then go further with it. But anomerization of this patient's arteries as well so prefer actually if it's really a case
that needs fasciotomy just to perform surgical thrombectomy. - Yeah, percutaneous eight French up and over and almost always, you're going to be done with your thrombectomy within about 30 to 45 minutes. I don't think you're adding that much time
and for us, by the time we get anesthesia in him assuming anesthesia's anesthesia no matter what part of the world you're in, so you can get to the hybrid room quicker and then if it's going to fail then you're going to call in the OR or call an anesthesiologist.
- I wouldn't have much else to add. I do think there is some patient selection, if you have an entire SFA, 30 centimeter clot, that's going to take you hours to do so for these thromboembolic things that are 10 centimeters or shorter
lodged in the popliteal TP trunk, this method works really well. I think for the longer patients, you might think about something else. - But just a comment on the general anesthesia. If a patient is in real or really pain,
he can't lie down for 30 minutes, even. I mean, they are rolling in pain and I would do the fasciotomy first because general anesthesia is needed because there is so much pain or, yes, so yeah.
- So, let me say, does that answer it, Scott? So let's, since we have a number of panelists and we're running out of time, how about if we ask each person going down the room, you heard a whole bunch of different speakers here with a lot of experience
and if you haven't used this, there is a learning curve. The learning curve is pretty shallow. Really, a lot of it has to do with controlling your blood loss. But if we ask each person for just one tip
and we'll see if we can get through everybody. If you telling people who hadn't done a lot of this, one tip or one trick, let's see if we can get seven or eight tips and tricks out. So, I'll go last. Let's start back down at that end
and we'll end up at this end. - Sure. Use the largest catheter that the vessel will comply to. - Amen, brother. - I agree with that.
And the way I do it, in order to avoid too much blood loss, I like to engage with a syringe. So I come with my catheter, I hook a syringe in the bag, 20cc or sometimes even larger, and when I have the fish at the end of my line, then I connect to the pump and I continue.
That way if I'm aspirating, I'm not going to aspirate a large volume so I want to engage the clot. And then I bring the clot out. That's my trick. - Okay.
Very nice comment. Of course, I agree with the previous colleagues but I will say that first the trick is really the largest catheter is better, then my idea that I developed during my learning curve is the use of separate to cut away.
I probably use now in 95% of cases because it just makes everything quicker and faster and better. - I use the perclose device for large-bore catheters often and that allows me to pull the plug out, especially if it's fibrous plugs,
safe from the heart without shearing it off on the end of the catheter. I've got one question for Claudio, on that case of the carotid subclabian with the acute carotid occlusion, do you think the nitroglycerin would have helped?
- For the doctor? - For the surgeon. - Absolutely. - And then, change the diapers. - Well, I would advise if you do a surgical embolectomy do it also on the hybrid room
and try to do it also over the wire. Especially be careful if you do it below the knee. I would suggest do it open below the knee, even. - I would say don't afraid to use an eight French for ALI and that closure devices are your friends here. But you can use an eight all the way down to the pop
and then for us, the tibials, we'll use a six. - Yeah, I would agree with that. So I guess my tip would be, I agree with everything everyone said, although I don't use the separator very often in the arterial side, I do in the veins.
But one tip is, if you're not going to use a separator, if you're going to start without it, let's say you want to give it a try, I don't work through a 2E borst because the angle, the eddy currents that form around that 2E borst
trap clots and you constantly have to clean that 2E out so if you're going to start with a focal embolis in the artery my recommendation is take the 2E off, hook up to the vacuum directly, and you'll get less clot stuck in the 2E. If you want to go to the separator
then you can always add that on at the back end. - So I have a question for Fennel. I used a penumbra like a few weeks ago and it ended up really bad because the surrounding catheter from the penumbra, everything got, you know, clotted
and then I didn't have any outflow did I choose the wrong size or what is it that happened, did you see it ever? - We have not had that problem. We're usually working on heparinized patients and have not seen that happen.
- She was heparinized. No? Okay. - Okay. Any other comments? Otherwise, we'll end one minute early
on a nice, long day.
- Thank you very much for the very kind invitation, and I promise I'll do my best to stick to time. The answer is probably to this audience I don't really need to say very much about the ATTRACT trial, but I think it is quite important to note that the ATTRACT trials have now been out for some time, and it is constantly being
talked about in its various dimensions. So I'm going to just spend a few seconds really talking about the ATTRACT trial. A large number of patients screened. One in 41 patients were actually recruited into it and it was a trial that ran for a long time.
Wasn't really with respect to the primary endpoint any particularly good evidence, but for those people who had moderate or severe post-thrombotic syndrome, it probably was of benefit. And if you looked at the Villalta score
and the VCSS scores there was some evidence to support it. So overall, probably some positive take-home messages, but not as affirmative as people would have thought. Now the reason that I've dwelled a little bit on that is that actually, what do we mean when we talk about the post-thrombotic syndrome?
Because I would say in the upper limb, because I have never personally seen an ulcer in the upper limb. Has anybody seen an ulcer in the upper limb due to venous disease? No.
So in a way we are talking about a slightly different entity. We are talking about a limb that has undoubtedly much more finer movements. And there was depression by some people with the results of the ATTRACT trial.
But when you look at the five year results from the CaVenT trial, there was some evidence to suggest that actually, as you get further out, there may be some benefit. If you look at this summation analysis, and I completely accept this is related to the leg,
again, there may be some benefit from the CDT. Now, this is a case of mine. Now I wonder if any of you can tell me how many stages may have been involved from going from the right, to having a ballonplasty in the vein. Pick a number, anywhere between five and ten.
The answer is you have numerous checks of the thrombolysis, you may have a venoplasty, you might have a first rib excision. You may then have occlusion and then realize this before you go on and do the first rib. So all I'm suggesting to you that this is not
a cheap treatment to offer patients treatment to the upper limb. Then we looked forward to some help from the guidelines. Well we look at the American guidelines and give or take, I think the answer is we probably shouldn't be doing it and that we should be only offering anticoagulation.
So do the Brits help? Well actually if you look at the Brits, it sort of says well, you can think a bit about doing decompression, but really if I was standing up in a court of law, I really wouldn't want much support from this guideline
that I had done the right thing. And then the International Society of Thrombolysis and Hemostasis really says well, you can do a little bit of this that thoracic outlet syndrome may be a risk factor. But give or take, surgeries still are a little bit dubious.
So, really there's one good review out there, and this is the review of Vasquez that basically looked at 146 articles, and they found some data on just under 1300 patients. And they postulated and chose some evidence to suggest that there was some evidence
that first rib excision and thrombolysis reduce PTS, and that anticoagulation alone was not enough for the majority of the patients. Very difficult to work out how you selected which patients you should or should not intervene on. Now, I'm sure everybody is rather sick and tired
of me talking about money, and I accept it doesn't really apply here. But money is actually quite important. Five interventions to prevent something that may not happen and at worst may be just a few collateral veins across the chest.
So ladies and gentlemen, I would want you to think very hard, is it actually cost-effective to be offering all patients presenting with an early auxiliary vein thrombosis thrombolysis, and then subsequently first rib excision? These are some of the truths, I think the answer is
it does seem to work. You do need to recognize and make the diagnosis. Usually delayed thrombolysis doesn't work, but there are lots of questions that are unanswered. And how would you defend what you have done in a court of law?
Somebody has a stroke, you then do the first rib, they get a large hemothorax, and they then die because there had been too much TPA on board. Yes, give it some thought. So ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid I haven't actually answered the question,
but I think you need to give it careful consideration, what are the indications and merits? Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invite. Here's my disclosures, clearly relevant to this talk. So we know that after EVAR, it's around the 20% aortic complication rate after five years in treating type one and three Endoleaks prevents subsequent
secondary aortic rupture. Surveillance after EVAR is therefore mandatory. But it's possible that device-specific outcomes and surveillance protocols may improve the durability of EVAR over time. You're all familiar with this graph for 15 year results
in terms of re-intervention from the EVAR-1 trials. Whether you look at all cause and all re-interventions or life threatening re-interventions, at any time point, EVAR fares worse than open repair. But we know that the risk of re-intervention is different
in different patients. And if you combine pre-operative risk factors in terms of demographics and morphology, things are happening during the operations such as the use of adjuncts,
or having to treat intro-operative endoleak, and what happens to the aortic sac post-operatively, you can come up with a risk-prediction tool for how patients fare in the longer term. So the LEAR model was developed on the Engage Registry and validated on some post-market registries,
PAS, IDE, and the trials in France. And this gives a predictive risk model. Essentially, this combines patients into a low risk group that would have standard surveillance, and a higher risk group, that would have a surveillance plus
or enhanced surveillanced model. And you get individual patient-specific risk profiles. This is a patient with around a seven centimeter aneurysm at the time of repair that shows sac shrinkage over the first year and a half, post-operatively. And you can see that there's really a very low risk
of re-intervention out to five years. These little arrow bars up here. For a patient that has good pre-operative morphology and whose aneurysm shrinks out to a year, they're going to have a very low risk of re-intervention. This patient, conversely, had a smaller aneurysm,
but it grew from the time of the operation, and out to two and a half years, it's about a centimeter increase in the sac. And they're going to have a much higher risk of re-intervention and probably don't need the same level of surveillance as the first patient.
and probably need a much higher rate of surveillance. So not only can we have individualized predictors of risk for patients, but this is the regulatory aspect to it as well.
Multiple scenario testing can be undertaken. And these are improved not only with the pre-operative data, but as you've seen with one-year data, and this can tie in with IFU development and also for advising policy such as NICE, which you'll have heard a lot about during the conference.
So this is just one example. If you take a patient with a sixty-five millimeter aneurysm, eighteen millimeter iliac, and the suprarenal angle at sixty degrees. If you breach two or more of these factors in red, we have the pre-operative prediction.
Around 20% of cases will be in the high risk group. The high risk patients have about a 50-55% freedom from device for related problems at five years. And the low risk group, so if you don't breach those groups, 75% chance of freedom from intervention.
In the green, if you then add in a stent at one year, you can see that still around 20% of patients remain in the high risk group. But in the low risk group, you now have 85% of patients won't need a re-intervention at five years,
and less of a movement in the high risk group. So this can clearly inform IFU. And here you see the Kaplan-Meier curves, those same groups based pre-operatively, and at one year. In conclusion, LEAR can provide
a device specific estimation of EVAR outcome out to five years. It can be based on pre-operative variables alone by one year. Duplex surveillance helps predict risk. It's clearly of regulatory interest in the outcomes of EVAR.
And an E-portal is being developed for dissemination. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much. So this is more or less a teaser. The outcome data will not be presented until next month. It's undergoing final analysis. So, the Vici Stent was the stent in the VIRTUS Trial. Self-expanding, Nitinol stent,
12, 14, and 16 in diameter, in three different lengths, and that's what was in the trial. It is a closed-cell stent, despite the fact that it's closed-cell, the flexibility is not as compromised. The deployment can be done from the distal end
or the proximal end for those who have any interest, if you're coming from the jugular or not in the direction of flow, or for whatever reason you want to deploy it from this end versus that end, those are possible in terms of the system. The trial design is not that different than the other three
now the differences, there are minor differences between the four trials that three completed, one soon to be complete, the definitions of the endpoints in terms of patency and major adverse events were very similar. The trial design as we talked about, the only thing
that is different in this study were the imaging requirements. Every patient got a venogram, an IVUS, and duplex at the insertion and it was required at the completion in one year also, the endpoint was venographic, and those who actually did get venograms,
they had the IVUS as well, so this is the only prospective study that will have that correlation of three different imagings before, after, and at follow-up. Classification, everybody's aware, PTS severity, everybody's aware, the endpoints, again as we talked about, are very similar to the others.
The primary patency in 12 months was define this freedom from occlusion by thrombosis or re-intervention. And the safety endpoints, again, very similar to everybody else. The baseline patient characteristics, this is the pivotal, as per design, there were 170 in the pivotal
and 30 in the feasibility study. The final outcome will be all mixed in, obviously. And this is the distribution of the patients. The important thing here is the severity of patients in this study. By design, all acute thrombotic patients, acute DVT patients
were excluded, so anybody who had history of DVT within three months were excluded in this patient. Therefore the patients were all either post-thrombotic, meaning true chronic rather than putting the acute patients in the post-thrombotic segment. And only 25% were Neville's.
That becomes important, so if you look at the four studies instead of an overview of the four, there were differences in those in terms on inclusion/exclusion criteria, although definitions were similar, and the main difference was the inclusion of the chronics, mostly chronics, in the VIRTUS study, the others allowed acute inclusion also.
Now in terms of definition of primary patency and comparison to the historical controls, there were minor differences in these trials in terms of what that historical control meant. However, the differences were only a few percentages. I just want to remind everyone to something we've always known
that the chronic post-thrombotics or chronic occlusions really do the worst, as opposed to Neville's and the acute thrombotics and this study, 25% were here, 75% were down here, these patients were not allowed. So when the results are known, and out, and analyzed it's important not to put them in terms of percentage
for the entire cohort, all trials need to report all of these three categories separately. So in conclusion venous anatomy and disease requires obviously dedicated stent. The VIRTUS feasibility included 30 with 170 patients in the pivotal cohort, the 12 months data will be available
in about a month, thank you.
- 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.
- Thank you very much, Frank, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no disclosure. Standard carotid endarterectomy patch-plasty and eversion remain the gold standard of treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic patient with significant stenosis. One important lesson we learn in the last 50 years
of trial and tribulation is the majority of perioperative and post-perioperative stroke are related to technical imperfection rather than clamping ischemia. And so the importance of the technical accuracy of doing the endarterectomy. In ideal world the endarterectomy shouldn't be (mumbling).
It should contain embolic material. Shouldn't be too thin. While this is feasible in the majority of the patient, we know that when in clinical practice some patient with long plaque or transmural lesion, or when we're operating a lesion post-radiation,
it could be very challenging. Carotid bypass, very popular in the '80s, has been advocated as an alternative of carotid endarterectomy, and it doesn't matter if you use a vein or a PTFE graft. The result are quite durable. (mumbling) showing this in 198 consecutive cases
that the patency, primary patency rate was 97.9% in 10 years, so is quite a durable procedure. Nowadays we are treating carotid lesion with stinting, and the stinting has been also advocated as a complementary treatment, but not for a bail out, but immediately after a completion study where it
was unsatisfactory. Gore hybrid graft has been introduced in the market five years ago, and it was the natural evolution of the vortec technique that (mumbling) published a few years before, and it's a technique of a non-suture anastomosis.
And this basically a heparin-bounded bypass with the Nitinol section then expand. At King's we are very busy at the center, but we did 40 bypass for bail out procedure. The technique with the Gore hybrid graft is quite stressful where the constrained natural stint is inserted
inside internal carotid artery. It's got the same size of a (mumbling) shunt, and then the plumbing line is pulled, and than anastomosis is done. The proximal anastomosis is performed in the usual fashion with six (mumbling), and the (mumbling) was reimplanted
selectively. This one is what look like in the real life the patient with the personal degradation, the carotid hybrid bypass inserted and the external carotid artery were implanted. Initially we very, very enthusiastic, so we did the first cases with excellent result.
In total since November 19, 2014 we perform 19 procedure. All the patient would follow up with duplex scan and the CT angiogram post operation. During the follow up four cases block. The last two were really the two very high degree stenosis. And the common denominator was that all the patients
stop one of the dual anti-platelet treatment. They were stenosis wise around 40%, but only 13% the significant one. This one is one of the patient that developed significant stenosis after two years, and you can see in the typical position at the end of the stint.
This one is another patient who develop a quite high stenosis at proximal end. Our patency rate is much lower than the one report by Rico. So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the carotid endarterectomy remain still the gold standard,
and (mumbling) carotid is usually an afterthought. Carotid bypass is a durable procedure. It should be in the repertoire of every vascular surgeon undertaking carotid endarterectomy. Gore hybrid was a promising technology because unfortunate it's been just not produced by Gore anymore,
and unfortunately it carried quite high rate of restenosis that probably we should start to treat it in the future. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you for introduction. Thanks to Frank Veith for the kind invitation to present here our really primarily single-center experience on this new technique. This is my disclosure. So what you really want
in the thromboembolic acute events is a quick flow restoration, avoid lytic therapies, and reduce the risk of bleeding. And this can be achieved by surgery. However, causal directed local thrombolysis
is much less invasive and also give us a panoramic view and topographic view that is very useful in these cases. But it takes time and is statistically implied
and increases risk of bleeding. So theoretically percutaneous thrombectomy can accomplish all these tasks including a shorter hospital stay. So among the percutaneous thrombectomy devices the Indigo System is based on a really simple
aspiration mechanism and it has shown high success in ischemic stroke. This is one of my first cases with the Indigo System using a 5 MAX needle intervention
adapted to this condition. And it's very easy to understand how is fast and effective this approach to treat intraprocedural distal embolization avoiding potential dramatic clinical consequences, especially in cases like this,
the only one foot vessel. This is also confirmed by this technical note published in 2015 from an Italian group. More recently, other papers came up. This, for example, tell us that
there has been 85% below-the-knee primary endpoint achievement and 54% in above-the-knee lesions. The TIMI score after VAT significantly higher for BTK lesions and for ATK lesions
a necessity of a concomitant endovascular therapy. And James Benenati has already told us the results of the PRISM trials. Looking into our case data very quickly and very superficially we can summarize that we had 78% full revascularization.
In 42% of cases, we did not perform any lytic therapy or very short lytic therapy within three hours. And in 36% a long lytic therapy was necessary, however within 24 hours. We had also 22% failure
with three surgery necessary and one amputation. I must say that among this group of patients, twenty patients, there were also patients like this with extended thrombosis from the groin to the ankle
and through an antegrade approach, that I strongly recommend whenever possible, we were able to lower the aspiration of the clots also in the vessel, in the tibial vessels, leaving only this region, thrombosis
needed for additional three hour infusion of TPA achieving at the end a beautiful result and the patient was discharged a day after. However not every case had similar brilliant result. This patient went to surgery and he went eventually to amputation.
Why this? And why VAT perform better in BTK than in ATK? Just hypotheses. For ATK we can have unknown underlying chronic pathology. And the mismatch between the vessel and the catheter can be a problem.
In BTK, the thrombus is usually soft and short because it is an acute iatrogenic event. Most importantly is the thrombotic load. If it is light, no short, no lytic or short lytic therapy is necessary. Say if heavy, a longer lytic therapy and a failure,
regardless of the location of the thrombosis, must be expected. So moving to the other topic, venous occlusive thrombosis. This is a paper from a German group. The most exciting, a high success rate
without any adjunctive therapy and nine vessels half of them prosthetic branch. The only caution is about the excessive blood loss as a main potential complication to be checked during and after the procedure. This is a case at my cath lab.
An acute aortic renal thrombosis after a open repair. We were able to find the proximate thrombosis in this flush occlusion to aspirate close to fix the distal stenosis
and the distal stenosis here and to obtain two-thirds of the kidney parenchyma on both sides. And this is another patient presenting with acute mesenteric ischemia from vein thrombosis.
This device can be used also transsympatically. We were able to aspirate thrombi but after initial improvement, the patient condition worsened overnight. And the CT scan showed us a re-thrombosis of the vein. Probably we need to learn more
in the management of these patients especially under the pharmacology point of view. And this is a rapid overview on our out-of-lower-limb case series. We had good results in reimplanted renal artery, renal artery, and the pulmonary artery as well.
But poor results in brachial artery, fistula, and superior mesenteric vein. So in conclusion, this technology is an option for quick thromboembolic treatment. It's very effective for BTK intraprocedural embolic events.
The main advantage is a speeding up the blood flow and reestablishing without prolonged thrombolysis or reducing the dosage of the thrombolysis. Completely cleaning up extensive thromobosed vessels is impossible without local lytic therapies. This must be said very clearly.
Indigo technology is promising and effective for treatment of acute renovisceral artery occlusion and sub massive pulmonary embolism. Thank you for your attention. I apologize for not being able to stay for the discussion
because I have a flight in a few hours. Thank you very much.
- 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 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 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Thanks Bill and I thank Dr. Veith and the organizers of the session for the invitation to speak on histology of in-stent stenosis. These are my disclosures. Question, why bother with biopsy? It's kind of a hassle. What I want to do is present at first
before I show some of our classification of this in data, is start with this case where the biopsy becomes relevant in managing the patient. This is a 41 year old woman who was referred to us after symptom recurrence two months following left iliac vein stenting for post-thrombotic syndrome.
We performed a venogram and you can see this overlapping nitinol stents extending from the..., close to the Iliocaval Confluence down into Common Femoral and perhaps Deep Femoral vein. You can see on the venogram, that it is large displacement of the contrast column
from the edge of the stent on both sides. So we would call this sort of diffuse severe in-stent stenosis. We biopsy this material, you can see it's quite cellular. And in the classification, Doctor Gordon, our pathologist, applies to all these.
Consisted of fresh thrombus, about 15% of the sample, organizing thrombus about zero percent, old thrombus, which is basically a cellular fibrin, zero percent and diffuse intimal thickening - 85%. And you can see there is some evidence of a vascularisation here, as well as some hemosiderin deposit,
which, sort of, implies a red blood cell thrombus, histology or ancestry of this tissue. So, because the biopsy was grossly and histolo..., primarily grossly, we didn't have the histology to time, we judged that thrombolysis had little to offer this patient The stents were angioplastied
and re-lined with Wallstents this time. So, this is the AP view, showing two layers of stents. You can see the original nitinol stent on the outside, and a Wallstent extending from here. Followed venogram, venogram at the end of the procedure, shows that this displacement, and this is the maximal
amount we could inflate the Wallstent, following placement through this in-stent stenosis. And this is, you know, would be nice to have a biological or drug solution for this kind of in-stent stenosis. We brought her back about four months later, usually I bring them back at six months,
but because of the in-stent stenosis and suspecting something going on, we brought her back four months later, and here you can see that the gap between the nitinol stent and the outside the wall stent here. Now, in the contrast column, you can see that again, the contrast column is displaced
from the edge of the Wallstent, so we have recurrent in-stent stenosis here. The gross appearance of this clot was red, red-black, which suggests recent thrombus despite anticoagulation and the platelet. And, sure enough, the biopsy of fresh thrombus was 20%,
organizing thrombus-75%. Again, the old thrombus, zero percent, and, this time, diffuse intimal thickening of five percent. This closeup of some of that showing the cells, sort of invading this thrombus and starting organization. So, medical compliance and outflow in this patient into IVC
seemed acceptable, so we proceeded to doing ascending venogram to see what the outflow is like and to see, if she was an atomic candidate for recanalization. You can see these post-thrombotic changes in the popliteal vein, occlusion of the femoral vein.
You can see great stuffiness approaching these overlapping stents, but then you can see that the superficial system has been sequestered from the deep system, and now the superficial system is draining across midline. So, we planned to bring her back for recanalization.
So biopsy one with diffuse intimal thickening was used to forego thrombolysis and proceed with PTA and lining. Biopsy two was used to justify the ascending venogram. We find biopsy as a useful tool, making practical decisions. And Doctor Gordon at our place has been classifying these
biopsies in therms of: Fresh Thrombus, Organizing Thrombus, Old Thrombus and Diffuse Intimal thickening. These are panels on the side showing the samples of each of these classifications and timelines. Here is a timeline of ...
Organizing Thrombus here. To see it's pretty uniform series of followup period For Diffuse Intimal thickening, beginning shortly after the procedure, You won't see very much at all, increases with time. So, Fresh Thrombus appears to be
most prevalent in early days. Organizing Thrombus can be seen at early time points sample, as well as throughout the in-stent stenosis. Old Thrombus, which is a sort of a mystery to me why one pathway would be Old Thrombus and the other Diffuse Intimal thickening.
We have to work that out, I hope. Calcification is generally a very late feature in this process. Thank you very much.
- 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 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.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- Thank you. 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.
- 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 I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- So I'm just going to talk a little bit about what's new in our practice with regard to first rib resection. In particular, we've instituted the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera at times to better visualize the structures. I will give you a little bit of a update
about our results and then I'll address very briefly some controversies. Dr. Gelbart and Chan from Hong Kong and UCLA have proposed and popularized the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for a better visualization of the structures
and I'll show you some of those pictures. From 2007 on, we've done 125 of these procedures. We always do venography first including intervascular intervention to open up the vein, and then a transaxillary first rib resection, and only do post-operative venography if the vein reclots.
So this is a 19 year old woman who's case I'm going to use to illustrate our approach. She developed acute onset left arm swelling, duplex and venogram demonstrated a collusion of the subclavian axillary veins. Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy
and then balloon angioplasty were performed with persistent narrowing at the thoracic outlet. So a day later, she was taken to the operating room, a small incision made in the axilla, we air interiorly to avoid injury to the long thoracic nerve.
As soon as you dissect down to the chest wall, you can identify and protect the vein very easily. I start with electrocautery on the peripheral margin of the rib, and use that to start both digital and Matson elevator dissection of the periosteum pleura
off the first rib, and then get around the anterior scalene muscle under direct visualization with a right angle and you can see that the vein and the artery are identified and easily protected. Here's the 30 degree laparoscopic image
of getting around the anterior scalene muscle and performing the electrocautery and you can see the pulsatile vein up here anterior and superficial to the anterior scalene muscle. Here is a right angle around the first rib to make sure there are no structures
including the pleura still attached to it. I always divide, or try to divide, the posterior aspect of the rib first because I feel like then I can manipulate the ribs superiorly and inferiorly, and get the rib shears more anterior for the anterior cut
because that's most important for decompressing the vein. Again, here's the 30 degree laparoscopic view of the rib shears performing first the posterior cut, there and then the anterior cut here. The portion of rib is removed, and you can see both the artery and the vein
are identified and you can confirm that their decompressed. We insufflate with water or saline, and then perform valsalva to make sure that they're hasn't been any pneumothorax, and then after putting a drain in,
I actually also turn the patient supine before extirpating them to make sure that there isn't a pneumothorax on chest x-ray. You can see the Jackson-Pratt drain in the left axilla. One month later, duplex shows a patent vein. So we've had pretty good success with this approach.
23 patients have requires post operative reintervention, but no operative venous reconstruction or bypass has been performed, and 123 out of 125 axillosubclavian veins have been patent by duplex at last follow-up. A brief comment on controversies,
first of all, the surgical approach we continue to believe that a transaxillary approach is cosmetically preferable and just as effective as a paraclavicular or anterior approach, and we have started being more cautious
about postoperative anticoagulation. So we've had three patients in that series that had to go back to the operating room for washout of hematoma, one patient who actually needed a VATS to treat a hemathorax,
and so in recent times we've been more cautious. In fact 39 patients have been discharged only with oral antiplatelet therapy without any plan for definitive therapeutic anticoagulation and those patients have all done very well. Obviously that's contraindicated in some cases
of a preoperative PE, or hematology insistence, or documented hypercoagulability and we've also kind of included that, the incidence of postop thrombosis of the vein requiring reintervention, but a lot of patients we think can be discharged
on just antiplatelets. So again, our approach to this is a transaxillary first rib resection after a venogram and a vascular intervention. We think this cosmetically advantageous. Surgical venous reconstruction has not been required
in any case, and we've incorporated the use of a 30 degree laparoscopic camera for better intraoperative visualization, thanks.
- Thank you very much both. It was a great pleasure to see you. I continue to be grateful for the guidance you have given me over the years. Thank you to the organizers for advising me to speak. These are my disclosures. So really there are two questions posed by this topic.
One is, is the patent popliteal vein necessary? I would assume from this is it necessary for patency and symptom relief to be achieved in treating patients with both acute DVT and potentially chronic. And has the evolution formic mechanical therapy
led to over stenting. Which means we have to ask the question what is an appropriate rate for stenting. I am not sure we know the answer to that. So being able to answer over stenting requires us to know how many patients
actually need the stent in the first place in acute DVT treatments. The problem is essentially this. Is that when we form lithic therapies and this is a classic case of treatment formed with formic and mechanical device
but without a follow up using lithic in the patient for whom lithic was not feasible. You end up opening up a vessel but you can see from the image on the left hand side that there is a degree still of luminol contrast deficit suggesting some cult left behind
in the external iliac vein. Well there is obviously a May-Thurner legion at the top. The question of over stenting is one of do we just stent the May-Thruner and extend it down into the external iliac vein to trap that thrombus
or would a period of time of lithic have resulted in this clot resolving and not needed a stent at the end of it. To get to the question of how many people should be stented. The only way we can really do this
is try and exstipulate from the literature to some extent. This is the short and long term outcome from the Kevin study. Where there is ultrasound follow up of patients underwent standard treatment only.
And a additional group in the patients had catheter-directed thrombolysis. We can see there that the patients did six months in catheter-directed thrombolysis group is around 60%. And the patency seen with the non treated group
is around 40%. If we kind of use these numbers as a guide we probably expect therefore that the stent rate would be somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. To account for treating the outflow structure that presumably patients see at six months.
But this is clearly not a very rebost method of being absolutely clear on who needs stents. Additional method is we don't really have and answer for who should be stented at the end of a procedure. So if you look at the massive variability
in the other studies. We see that attract stent rate is approximately 28% for the study. Which is obviously a operative discretion and has been criticized for that reason. But there is no comment on the Popliteal vein
or Popliteal vein patency. Cavent did an stent rate of 15% again with no real comment on whether the Popliteal vein was open and it wasn't a prerequisite for treatment in the study. This contrast with the Ansberg Aspirex Registry.
Which is a registry of a purely mechanical device to aspirex clot and the stent rate is 100%. Baekgaard Copenhagen used a catered-directed thrombolysis with a mandated open popliteal vein for purpose to be in the study. He has a stent rate of 60%.
My own personal experience of 160 odd patients is that were stenting around 80% of patients with outflow legion at the end of treatment. And were not really bothered by whether the popliteal vein is clear or not. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question
whether it makes a difference in the long run. So its very difficult even looking at the data we have because there is no standard definition of what a outflow stenosis is. There is no objective measure for an outflow stenosis. So stenting becomes and operative discretion decision.
But you would have to say that if your taking purely mechanical devices and the stent rates are going up to 100% that the inclination would be that there is potential for formic mechanical therapy to lead to overstenting and increase use
for stents for sure. In our experience then we had 81 patients who had CDT alone verse 70 patients who had AngioJet Thrombectomy. The basic characteristics of the group are pretty much identical.
With similar ages and no difference between whether the thrombus with left side or right side of body or so on. And these are the patency curves for the different groups with equivalent primary, primary assisted and secondary patency over two yeas.
We had no difference in stent rates with the median stenting of 80% in both groups with two stents used in average for each of those patients. However in our practice AngioJet is rarely used alone. So we had 70 patients for whom AngioJet was used. 24 of those where AngioJet was used up front
as the first line of treatment followed by some CDT. We have tended find that if we wanted full clock clearance. We have always had omit to some extent. And single stage therapy is quite difficult to achieve unless you spent a lot of time in it.
Patency in the popliteal vein is clearly affected by some extent. These are our follow up results if we don't have a patent popliteal vein at the end. It does drop off in stent patency. So the conclusions then I think.
Is that patent popliteal vein is necessary for long term results. But you can still treat patients that have acute popliteal vein for larsons that is not a contraindication. Pure mechanical therapies may well lead to higher stent rate.
But is this a bad thing or a good thing? We don't really know this at this stage as to what the long term outcomes will be. Thank you very much.
- Jim, thanks so much, and thanks to Doctor Veith for the opportunity to get involved. Here's my disclosure. So, certainly you don't want to be an expert on limb thromboses, however, it happens. And so, when you see these patients, no longer are we looking at fem-fem,
or even lytics, catheter-directed lytics. So how do we get from screen left to screen right in a single session therapy? Well, as we know, when these patients present, there's several different management options. You can do open thrombectomy with or without
a fem-fem, pharmacomechanical thrombectomy. There's catheter delytic and ultrasound accelerated thrombolytics, and then now, today, we have vacuum-assisted thrombectomy, as we've heard throughout this session, or continuous aspiration thrombectomy,
however you want to mention it. Regardless, when you end up with lytics, this is exactly what you're dealin' with. You're playing with fire, and if we do it long enough, you're going to see this complication. So we've really adopted a clot extraction
instead of a clot dissolution policy at our institution. I think Jim just showed you this technique that is afforded to us by the Indigo thrombectomy system, as you can see here in a Vivo model, this catheter actually does work extremely well.
It'll remove this soft thrombus, as you can see here. My first experience with this was actually for an occluded popliteal stent, as you can see here. We had a occlusion of the standard nitinol stent. This aspiration power was incredibly surprising to me. As you can see, it collapsed the standard nitinol stent.
So at that point, several years ago, we realized how good this device was, and how we want to minimize lytics for our folks. So we started in 2014 and recently this year at the Midwest Vascular forum in Saint Louis, we presented our data.
At that time, we had 73 patients over the years with acute limb ischemia. And here you can see the breakdown. For this presentation I'm going to focus on this cohort here, which is seven. But as you can see, like my panelists here,
we use it for occlusions, for not only occlusions but emboli as well, and also we had one case of an upper extremity embolism that we were able to successfully treat with this device. At that time, again, looking at all 73 patients,
you can see here that it's a very efficacious device. There were a couple folks who needed transfusion and perhaps the blood loss was a little higher than 300. However, as you can see here, the folks who had a blood loss, all five had open adjunctive interventions as well, and the ones who needed transfusion
all had catheter directed lytics as adjunctive therapy. As far as our efficacy endpoints, what we looked at was antegrade flow. As you can see here, oftentimes with your vacuum system thrombectomy, you're able to get antegrade flow. However, intermittently there's also other
adjunctive therapies that we had to use frequently as well. Going back to what, you know, my topic for today, how do you go from screen left to screen right, where here you can see one of our patients who came in. We did a retrograde ipsilateral stick,
crossed the lesion with the wire, then we delivered our eight french Indigo catheter and were able to get, in a single session, as you can see here, antegrade flow. So here's another, all this in one single session therapy. Here's another patient of ours.
As you can see to the left, one of our Gore Excluder limbs had occluded, and again, with single session therapy we were able to provide patency to that occluded right limb. Another case here, you can see one of our other Medtronic grafts.
And what you'll see here as you're looking to the right, here we are with our eight french Indigo catheter, is the separator, which is like a pipe cleaner. And we were able to clear out this clot and provide patency to this
all in a single session therapy. And again, here you can see from left to right how we were able to thrombectomize that limb. So over the years, the last three years, we do about 80 to 90 EVARs a year. During that time period, we have seven patients
come in with limb occlusions. And as you can see here, four of them were chronic, three claudicants and one res-pain, and three of them were acute limb Rutherford one, two A or two B. As you can see here, 42% of the time for these
occluded limbs, we were able to do it with no lytics, not even a pulse spray, nothing, not one drop of lytics. As you can see here, some of them we did have to do it in a single session. What we do is use a McNamara catheter.
We would squirt out, you know, anywhere from, as you can see, 14 to 18 milligrams of lytics, go get a cup of coffee, go make rounds, come back 20 minutes later, then utilize your device. And again, you can see, in a single session therapy we were able to afford patency.
And then finally, you can see here the blood loss was minimal. So this is a safe device. So in conclusion, I think that single session therapy is safe. It can facilitate achieving antegrade flow
in the management of stent graft limb occlusions. And single session therapy is the future of not only stent graft limb occlusions but all acute limb ischemia. Thanks so much.
- 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.
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.