- Thank you very much again, I greatly appreciate the honor to be able to be here and be able to present these data. These are my they're my conclusions, thank you very much. So, what I think is really very important for all of us
is to remember this Chinese Proverb, never kill a friend, never treat a stranger. And what that means is that you have to learn a lot about that patient before you just go ahead and operate on them.
Then they're not strangers anymore. And if God forbid the CT scanner is broken, you're going to have to do a history and physical. We know that chart review I hate to look at reviews of the Caprini scores going back with retrospective chart reviews,
because they're terribly flawed. We have one of the only risk assessments that looks at the history of obstetrical complications and if you look at chart review, nobody asks the questions. Six tenths of a percent,
13 percent face to face. Same thing with family history of thrombosis. Five point two percent, 17 percent live. Personal history of DVT even doubled in live versus chart review. These questions aren't asked
and of course in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project and the American College of Surgeons. These things aren't even in there. And they have five million patients. And they talk about DVT studies, and they don't know about what's going on.
We have 39 factors in the Caprini score and that's judged to be too many. You can't have too good a history and physical. The better your history and physical, the better you can take care of the patient. So if devised in a patient friendly form,
it's in five languages. The patients fill it out ahead of time. And then, this was compared to professionals filling it out. There's excellent correlation except for a couple of problems.
And that is that the patient fills the form out, then when they come in, we reemphasize history of family history, B.M.I., obstetrical history, and then see if they have pitting edema or varicose veins.
And so that takes less than five minutes. The last thing in the world you want to do, and I would say anybody that has preoperative surgical nurses in the holding area that Caprini scores, that's flawed. Stop it.
That's no place to be doing that. Because people are worried about their surgery, are they going to get through it, are they going to find cancer, how long are they going to be out of work. You can't ask them about this at that time.
So, these are the scores that we use. Part of this is also reinforced by stuff that's been done. God bless that we would need a moment of silence for the University of Michigan. All the fabulous work that they've done there
in this regard. And we also, this is how we score these patients. Got a lot of operator error here today. Age, as you can see, and contraceptives or hormonal therapy and so forth. This, everybody needs to get this study and to read it.
This is 183000 individuals in the Scandinavian system followed for 25 years. And what they showed is, that there's an increased incidence. If you take a look at a person that's never had a clot, if they have a first degree relative with a clot,
they have an increased risk of thrombosis, slightly less for second degree relatives, slightly less for third degree relatives, and believe it or not, even slightly more compared to controls for people that are living together but of course with the person's lifestyles and so forth
so it's not totally understandable. The point of this is, the point of this is, pay attention to family history of thrombosis. Because that might uncover a whole thrombopathic family that you don't realize. And that'll be the difference in these low risk
procedures between life and death. I've seen a number of patients die with simple procedures because nobody asked about the family history. So, what we recommend is Caprini scores of one to four. You can use compression stockings when they're
if they're in the hospital if it's for ablation. You can use compression stockings according to your protocol, whatever you do. If the patient's at moderate risk, five to eight, low molecular weight heparin for seven to ten days and compression stockings.
And if they're high risk, over nine, then we also like to do a duplex scan before stopping the low molecular weight heparin. And so in conclusion, risk assessment using the score, utilize patient-friendly form,
avoid chart review, face to face critical. And remember that some of these simple procedures, these patient's are very high risk if they're thrombopathic. Provide prophylaxis for at least one week in those at risk for a score of over five.
And then extended prophylaxis for history of VTE, family history of VTE and thrombophilia. Now, I put 14 to 28 days because you have to take these situations individually. Somebody's had four family members in their past history that have had thrombosis.
That's a thrombopathic family. I would go for 30 days. If it's only one incident and one patient, then maybe two weeks. 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.
- 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.
Thanks very much, Tom. I'll be talking about thermal ablation on anticoagula is it safe and effective? I have no disclosures. As we know, extensive review of both RF and laser
ablation procedures have demonstrated excellent treatment effectiveness and durability in each modality, but there is less data regarding treatment effectiveness and durability for those procedures in patients who are also on systemic anticoagulation. As we know, there's multiple studies have been done
over the past 10 years, with which we're all most familiar showing a percent of the durable ablation, both modalities from 87% to 95% at two to five years. There's less data on those on the anticoagulation undergoing thermal ablation.
The largest study with any long-term follow up was by Sharifi in 2011, and that was 88 patients and follow-up at one year. Both RF and the EVLA had 100% durable ablation with minimal bleeding complications. The other studies were all smaller groups
or for very much shorter follow-up. In 2017, a very large study came out, looking at the EVLA and RF using 375 subjects undergoing with anticoagulation. But it was only a 30-day follow-up, but it did show a 30% durable ablation
at that short time interval. Our objective was to evaluate efficacy, durability, and safety of RF and EVLA, the GSV and the SSV to treat symptomatic reflux in patients on therapeutic anticoagulation, and this group is with warfarin.
The data was collected from NYU, single-center. Patients who had undergone RF or laser ablation between 2011 and 2013. Ninety-two vessels of patients on warfarin at the time of endothermal ablation were selected for study. That's the largest to date with some long-term follow-up.
And this group was compared to a matched group of 124 control patients. Devices used were the ClosureFast catheter and the NeverTouch kits by Angiodynamics. Technical details, standard IFU for the catheters. Tumescent anesthetic.
And fiber tips were kept about 2.5 centimeters from the SFJ or the SPJ. Vein occlusion was defined as the absence of blood flow by duplex scan along the length of the treated vein. You're all familiar with the devices, so the methods included follow-up, duplex ultrasound
at one week post-procedure, and then six months, and then also at a year. And then annually. Outcomes were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots and log rank tests. The results of the anticoagulation patients, 92,
control, 124, the mean follow-up was 470 days. And you can see that the demographics were rather similar between the two groups. There was some more coronary disease and hypertension in the anticoagulated groups, and that's really not much of a surprise
and some more male patients. Vessels treated, primarily GSV. A smaller amount of SSV in both the anticoagulated and the control groups. Indications for anticoagulation.
About half of the patients were in atrial fibrillation. Another 30% had a remote DVT in the contralateral limb. About 8% had mechanical valves, and 11% were for other reasons. And the results. The persistent vein ablation at 12 months,
the anticoagulation patients was 97%, and the controls was 99%. Persistent vein ablation by treated vessel, on anticoagulation. Didn't matter if it was GSV or SSV. Both had persistent ablation,
and by treatment modality, also did not matter whether it was laser or RF. Both equivalent. If there was antiplatelet therapy in addition to the anticoagulation, again if you added aspirin or Clopidogrel,
also no change. And that was at 12 months. We looked then at persistent vein ablation out at 18 months. It was still at 95% for the controls, and 91% for the anticoagulated patients. Still not statistically significantly different.
At 24 months, 89% in both groups. Although the numbers were smaller at 36 months, there was actually still no statistically significant difference. Interestingly, the anticoagulated group actually had a better persistent closure rate
than the control group. That may just be because the patients that come back at 36 months who didn't have anticoagulation may have been skewed. The ones we actually saw were ones that had a problem. It gets harder to have patients
come back at three months who haven't had an uneventful venous ablation procedure. Complication, no significant hematomas. Three patients had DVTs within 30 days. One anticoagulation patient had a popliteal DVT, and one control patient.
And one control patient had a calf vein DVT. Two EHITs. One GSV treated with laser on anticoagulation noted at six days, and one not on anticoagulation at seven days. Endovenous RF and EVLA can be safely performed
in patients undergoing long-term warfarin therapy. Our experience has demonstrated a similar short- and mid-term durability for RF ablation and laser, and platelet therapy does not appear to impact the closer rates,
which is consistent with the prior studies. And the frequency of vein recanalization following venous ablation procedures while on ACs is not worse compared to controls, and to the expected incidence as described in the literature.
This is the largest study to date with follow-up beyond 30 days with thermal ablation procedures on anticoagulation patients. We continue to look at these patients for even longer term durability. Thanks very much for your attention.
- Now I want to talk about, as Chrissy mentioned AVM Classification System and it's treatment implication to achieve cure. How do I put forward? Okay, no disclosures. So there are already AVM Classification Systems. One is the well-known Houdart classification
for CNS lesions, and the other one is quite similar to the description to the Houdart lesion, the Cho Do classification of peripheral AVM's. But what do we expect from a good classification system? We expect that it gives us also a guide how to treat with a high rate of cure,
also for complex lesions. So the Yakes Classification System was introduced in 2014, and it's basically a further refinement of the previous classification systems, but it adds other features. As for example, a new description of
a new entity, Type IV AVM's with a new angioarchitecture, it defines the nidus, and especially a value is that it shows you the treatment strategy that should be applied according to angioarchitecture to treat the lesion. It's based on the use of ethanol and coils,
and it's also based on the long experience of his describer, Wayne Yakes. So the Yakes Classification System is also applicable to the very complex lesions, and we start with the Type I AVM, which is the most simple, direct
arterial to venous connection without nidus. So Type I is the simplest lesion and it's very common in the lung or in the kidney. Here we have a Type I AVM come from the aortic bifurcation draining into the paralumbar venous plexus,
and to get access, selective cauterization of the AVM is needed to define the transition point from the arterial side to the venous side, and to treat. So what is the approach to treat this? It's basically a mechanical approach, occluding
the lesion and the transition point, using mechanical devices, which can be coils or also other devices. For example, plugs or balloons. In small lesions, it can also be occluded using ethanol, but to mainly in larger lesions,
mechanical devices are needed for cure. Type II is the common and typical AVM which describes nidus, which comes from
multiple in-flow arteries and is drained by multiple veins. So this structure, as you can see here, can be, very, very dense, with multiple tangled fistulaes. And the way to break this AVM down is mainly that you get more selective views, so you want to get selective views
on the separate compartments to treat. So what are the treatment options? As you can see here, this is a very selective view of one compartment, and this can be treated using ethanol, which can be applied
by a superselective transcatheter arterial approach, where you try to get as far as possible to the nidus. Or if tangled vessels are not allowing transcatheter access, direct puncture of the feeding arteries immediately proximal to the nidus can be done to apply ethanol. What is the difference between Type IIa and IIb?
IIb has the same in-flow pattern as Type a, but it has a different out-flow pattern, with a large vein aneurysm. It's crucial to distinguish that the nidus precedes this venous aneurysm. So here you can see a nice example for Type IIb AVM.
This is a preview of the pelvis, we can here now see, in a lateral view, that the nidus fills the vein aneurysm and precedes this venous aneurysm. So how can this lesion be accessed? Of course, direct puncture is a safe way
to detect the lesion from the venous side. So blocking the outflow with coils, and possibly also ethanol after the flow is reduced to reflux into the fistulaes. It's a safe approach from the venous side for these large vein aneurysm lesions,
but also superselective transcatheter arterial approach to the nidus is able to achieve cure by placing ethanol into the nidus, but has to be directly in front of the nidus to spare nutrient arteries.
Type IIIa has also multiple in-flow arteries, but the nidus is inside the vein aneurysm wall. So the nidus doesn't precede the lesion, but it's in the vein wall. So where should this AVM be treated?
And you can see a very nice example here. This is a Type IIIa with a single out-flow vein, of the aneurysm vein, and this is a direct puncture of the vein, and you can see quite well that this vein aneurysm has just one single out-flow. So by blocking this out-flow vein,
the nidus is blocked too. Also ethanol can be applied after the flow was reduced again to reflux into the fistulas inside the vein aneurysm wall. And here you can see that by packing a dense packing with coils, the lesion is cured.
So direct puncture again from the venous side in this venous aneurysm venous predominant lesion. Type IIIb, the difference here is again, the out-flow pattern. So we have multiple in-flow arteries, the fistulaes are again in the vein aneurysm.
Which makes it even more difficult to treat this lesion, is that it has multiple out-flow veins and the nidus can also precede into these or move into these out-flow veins. So the dense packing of the aneurysm might have to be extended into the out-flow veins.
So what you can see here is an example. Again you need a more selective view, but you can already see the vein aneurysm, which can be targeted by direct puncture. And again here, the system applies. Placing coils and dense packing of the vein aneurysm,
and possibly also of the out-flow veins, can cure the lesion. This is the angiogram showing cure of this complex AVM IIIb. Type IV is a very new entity which was not described
in any other classification system as of yet. So what is so special about this Type IV AVM is it has multiple arteries and arterioles that form innumerable AV fistulaes, but these fistulaes infiltrate the tissue. And I'm going to specify this entity in a separate talk,
so I'm not going too much into details here. But treatment strategy of course, is also direct puncture here, and in case possible to achieve transarterial access very close to the nidus transarterial approach is also possible. But there are specific considerations, for example
50/50 mixture of alcohol, I'm going to specify this in a later talk. And here you can see some examples of this micro-fistulae in Type IV AVM infiltrative type. This is a new entity described. So the conclusion is that the Yakes Classification System
is based on the angioarchitecture of AVM's and on hemodynamic features. So it offers you a clear definition here the nidus is located, and where to deliver alcohol in a safe way to cure even complex AVM's.
Thank you very much.
- Thank you so much. We have no disclosures. So I think everybody would agree that the transposed basilic vein fistula is one of the most important fistulas that we currently operate with. There are many technical considerations
related to the fistula. One is whether to do one or two stage. Your local criteria may define how you do this, but, and some may do it arbitrarily. But some people would suggest that anything less than 4 mm would be a two stage,
and any one greater than 4 mm may be a one stage. The option of harvesting can be open or endovascular. The option of gaining a suitable access site can be transposition or superficialization. And the final arterial anastomosis, if you're not superficializing can either be
a new arterial anastomosis or a venovenous anastomosis. For the purposes of this talk, transposition is the dissection, transection and re tunneling of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the arm, either as a primary or staged procedure. Superficialization is the dissection and elevation
of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the upper arm, which may be done primarily, but most commonly is done as a staged procedure. The natural history of basilic veins with regard to nontransposed veins is very successful. And this more recent article would suggest
as you can see from the upper bands in both grafts that either transposed or non-transposed is superior to grafts in current environment. When one looks at two-stage basilic veins, they appear to be more durable and cost-effective than one-stage procedures with significantly higher
patency rates and lower rates of failure along comparable risk stratified groups from an article from the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Meta-ana, there are several meta-analysis and this one shows that between one and two stages there is really no difference in the failure and the patency rates.
The second one would suggest there is no overall difference in maturation rate, or in postoperative complication rates. With the patency rates primary assisted or secondary comparable in the majority of the papers published. And the very last one, again based on the data from the first two, also suggests there is evidence
that two stage basilic vein fistulas have higher maturation rates compared to the single stage. But I think that's probably true if one really realizes that the first stage may eliminate a lot of the poor biology that may have interfered with the one stage. But what we're really talking about is superficialization
versus transposition, which is the most favorite method. Or is there a favorite method? The early data has always suggested that transposition was superior, both in primary and in secondary patency, compared to superficialization. However, the data is contrary, as one can see,
in this paper, which showed the reverse, which is that superficialization is much superior to transposition, and in the primary patency range quite significantly. This paper reverses that theme again. So for each year that you go to the Journal of Vascular Surgery,
one gets a different data set that comes out. The final paper that was published recently at the Eastern Vascular suggested strongly that the second stage does consume more resources, when one does transposition versus superficialization. But more interestingly also found that these patients
who had the transposition had a greater high-grade re-stenosis problem at the venovenous or the veno-arterial anastomosis. Another point that they did make was that superficialization appeared to lead to faster maturation, compared to the transposition and thus they favored
superficialization over transposition. If one was to do a very rough meta-analysis and take the range of primary patencies and accumulative patencies from those papers that compare the two techniques that I've just described. Superficialization at about 12 months
for its primary patency will run about 57% range, 50-60 and transposition 53%, with a range of 49-80. So in the range of transposition area, there is a lot of people that may not be a well matched population, which may make meta-analysis in this area somewhat questionable.
But, if you get good results, you get good results. The cumulative patency, however, comes out to be closer in both groups at 78% for superficialization and 80% for transposition. So basilic vein transposition is a successful configuration. One or two stage procedures appear
to carry equally successful outcomes when appropriate selection criteria are used and the one the surgeon is most favored to use and is comfortable with. Primary patency of superficialization despite some papers, if one looks across the entire literature is equivalent to transposition.
Cumulative patency of superficialization is equivalent to transposition. And there is, appears to be no apparent difference in complications, maturation, or access duration. Thank you so much.
- Good morning. I'd like to thank everybody who's in attendance for the 7 A.M. session. So let's talk about a case. 63 year old male, standard risk factors for aneurismal disease. November 2008, he had a 52 mm aneurism,
underwent Gore Excluder, endovascular pair. Follow up over the next five, relatively unremarkable. Sac regression 47 mm no leak. June 2017, he was lost for follow up, but came back to see us. Duplex imaging CTA was done to show the sac had increased
from 47 to 62 in a type 2 endoleak was present. In August of that year, he underwent right common iliac cuff placement for what appeared to be a type 1b endoleak. September, CT scan showed the sac was stable at 66 and no leak was present. In March, six months after that, scan once again
showed the sac was there but a little bit larger, and a type two endoleak was once again present. He underwent intervention. This side access on the left embolization of the internal iliac, and a left iliac limb extension. Shortly thereafter,
contacted his PCP at three weeks of weakness, fatigue, some lethargy. September, he had some gluteal inguinal pain, chills, weakness, and fatigue. And then October, came back to see us. Similar symptoms, white count of 12, and a CT scan
was done and here where you can appreciate is, clearly there's air within the sac and a large anterior cell with fluid collections, blood cultures are negative at that time. He shortly thereafter went a 2 stage procedure, Extra-anatomic bypass, explant of the EVAR,
there purulent fluid within the sac, not surprising. Gram positive rods, and the culture came out Cutibacterium Acnes. So what is it we know about this case? Well, EVAR clearly is preferred treatment for aneurism repair, indications for use h
however, mid-term reports still show a significant need for secondary interventions for leaks, migrations, and rupture. Giles looked at a Medicare beneficiaries and clearly noted, or at least evaluated the effect of re-interventions
and readmissions after EVAR and open and noted that survival was negatively impacted by readmissions and re-interventions, and I think this was one of those situations that we're dealing with today. EVAR infections and secondary interventions.
Fortunately infections relatively infrequent. Isolated case reports have been pooled into multi-institutional cohorts. We know about a third of these infections are related to aortoenteric fistula, Bacteremia and direct seeding are more often not the underlying source.
And what we can roughly appreciate is that at somewhere between 14 and 38% of these may be related to secondary catheter based interventions. There's some data out there, Matt Smeed's published 2016, 180 EVARs, multi-center study, the timing of the infection presumably or symptomatic onset
was 22 months and 14% or greater had secondary endointerventions with a relatively high mortality. Similarly, the study coming out of Italy, 26 cases, meantime of diagnosis of the infection is 20 months, and that 34.6% of these cases underwent secondary endovascular intervention.
Once again, a relatively high mortality at 38.4%. Study out of France, 11 institutions, 33 infective endographs, time of onset of symptoms 414 days, 30% of these individuals had undergone secondary interventions. In our own clinical experience of Pittsburgh,
we looked at our explants. There were 13 down for infection, and of those nine had multiple secondary interventions which was 69%, a little bit of an outlier compared to the other studies. Once again, a relatively high mortality at one year. There's now a plethora of information in the literature
stating that secondary interventions may be a source for Bacteremia in seeding of your endovascular graft. And I think beyond just a secondary interventions, we know there's a wide range of risk factors. Perioperative contamination, break down in your sterile technique,
working in the radiology suite as opposed to the operating room. Wound complications to the access site. Hematogenous seeding, whether it's from UTIs, catheter related, or secondary interventions are possible.
Graft erosion, and then impaired immunity as well. So what I can tell you today, I think there is an association without question from secondary interventions and aortic endograft infection. Certainly the case I presented appears to show causation but there's not enough evidence to fully correlate the two.
So in summary, endograft infections are rare fortunately. However, the incidence does appear to be subtly rising. Secondary interventions following EVAR appear to be a risk factor for graft infection. Graft infections are associated without question
a high morbidity and mortality. I think it's of the utmost importance to maintain sterile technique, administer prophylactic antibiotics for all secondary endovascular catheter based interventions. Thank you.
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. Thank you.
- Thank you Professor Veith. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present on behalf of my chief the results of the IRONGUARD 2 study. A study on the use of the C-Guard mesh covered stent in carotid artery stenting. The IRONGUARD 1 study performed in Italy,
enrolled 200 patients to the technical success of 100%. No major cardiovascular event. Those good results were maintained at one year followup, because we had no major neurologic adverse event, no stent thrombosis, and no external carotid occlusion. This is why we decided to continue to collect data
on this experience on the use of C-Guard stent in a new registry called the IRONGUARD 2. And up to August 2018, we recruited 342 patients in 15 Italian centers. Demographic of patients were a common demographic of at-risk carotid patients.
And 50 out of 342 patients were symptomatic, with 36 carotid with TIA and 14 with minor stroke. Stenosis percentage mean was 84%, and the high-risk carotid plaque composition was observed in 28% of patients, and respectively, the majority of patients presented
this homogenous composition. All aortic arch morphologies were enrolled into the study, as you can see here. And one third of enrolled patients presented significant supra-aortic vessel tortuosity. So this was no commerce registry.
Almost in all cases a transfemoral approach was chosen, while also brachial and transcervical approach were reported. And the Embolic Protection Device was used in 99.7% of patients, with a proximal occlusion device in 50 patients.
Pre-dilatation was used in 89 patients, and looking at results at 24 hours we reported five TIAs and one minor stroke, with a combined incidence rate of 1.75%. We had no myocardial infection, and no death. But we had two external carotid occlusion.
At one month, we had data available on 255 patients, with two additional neurological events, one more TIA and one more minor stroke, but we had no stent thrombosis. At one month, the cumulative results rate were a minor stroke rate of 0.58%,
and the TIA rate of 1.72%, with a cumulative neurological event rate of 2.33%. At one year, results were available on 57 patients, with one new major event, it was a myocardial infarction. And unfortunately, we had two deaths, one from suicide. To conclude, this is an ongoing trial with ongoing analysis,
and so we are still recruiting patients. I want to thank on behalf of my chief all the collaborators of this registry. I want to invite you to join us next May in Rome, thank you.
- 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.
- Like to thank Dr. Veith and the committee for asking me to speak. I have no conflicts related to this presentation. Labial and vulvar varicosities occur in up to 10% of pregnant women, with the worst symptoms being manifested in the second half of the pregnancy.
Symptoms include genital pressure and fullness, pruritus, and a sensation of prolapse. These generally worsen with standing. Management is usually conservative. Between compression hose, cooling packs, and exercise, most women can make it through to the end of the pregnancy.
When should we do more than just reassure these women? An ultrasound should be performed when there's an early presentation, meaning in the first trimester, as this can be an unmasking of a venous malformation. If there are unilateral varicosities,
an ultrasound should be performed to make sure that these aren't due to iliac vein thrombosis. If there's superficial thrombosis or phlebitis, you may need to rule out deep venous extension with an ultrasound. When should we intervene?
You may need to intervene to release trapped blood in phlebitis, or to give low molecular weight heparin for comfort. When should a local phlebectomy or sclerotherapy be performed? Should sclerotherapy be performed during pregnancy?
We know very little. Occasionally, this is performed in a patient who is unknowingly pregnant, and there have been no clear complications from this in the literature. The effectiveness of sclero may also
be diminished in pregnancy, due to hormones and increased venous volume. Both polidocanol and sodium tetradecyl sulfate say that there is no support for use during pregnancies, and they advise against it. So what should you do?
This following case is a 24 year old G2P1, who was referred to me at 24 weeks for disabling vaginal and pelvic discomfort. She couldn't go to work, she couldn't take care of her toddler, she had some left leg complaints, but it was mostly genital discomfort and fullness,
and her OB said that he was going to do a pre-term C-section because he was worried about the risk of hemorrhage with the delivery. So this is her laying supine pre-op, and this is her left leg with varicosities visible in the anterior and posterior aspects.
Her ultrasound showed open iliac veins and large refluxing varicosities in the left vulvar area. She had no venous malformation or clot, and she had reflux in the saphenofemoral junction and down the GSV. I performed a phlebectomy on her,
and started with an ultrasound mapping of her superficial veins and perforators in the labial region. I made small incision with dissection and tie ligation of all the varicosities and perforators, and this was done under local anesthesia
with minimal sedation in the operating room. This resulted in vastly improved comfort, and her anxiety, and her OB's anxiety were both decreased, and she went on to a successful delivery. So this diagram shows the usual location of the labial perforators.
Here she is pre-op, and then here she is a week post-op. Well, what about postpartum varicosities? These can be associated with pelvic congestion, and the complaints can often be split into local, meaning surface complaints, versus pelvic complaints.
And this leads into a debate between a top down treatment approach, where you go in and do a venogram and internal coiling, versus a bottom up approach, where you start with local therapy, such as phlebectomy or sclero.
Pelvic symptoms include aching and pressure in the pelvis. These are usually worse with menstruation, and dyspareunia is most pronounced after intercourse, approximately an hour to several hours later. Surface complaints include vulvar itching, tenderness, recurrent thrombophlebitis, or bleeding.
Dyspareunia is present during or at initiation of sexual intercourse. I refer to this as the Gibson Algorithm, as Kathy Gibson and I have talked about this problem a lot, and this is how we both feel that these problems should be addressed.
If you have an asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patient who's referred for varicosities that are seen incidentally, such as during a laparoscopy, those I don't treat. If you have a symptomatic patient who has pelvic symptoms, then these people get a venogram with coils and sclerotherapy as appropriate.
If they are not pregnant, and have no pelvic symptoms, these patients get sclero. If they are pregnant, and have no pelvic symptoms, they get a phlebectomy. In conclusion, vulvar varicosities are a common problem, and usually conservative management is adequate.
With extreme symptoms, phlebectomy has been successful. Pregnancy-related varicosities typically resolve post-delivery, and these can then be treated with local sclerotherapy if they persist. Central imaging and treatment is successful for primarily pelvic complaints or persistent symptoms.
- 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 Dr. Asher. What an honor it is to be up here with Dr. Veith and Dr. Asher towards the end. You guys are leading by example being at the end of the meetings. So, thank you for allowing me to be up and talking about something
that not a lot of vascular surgeons have experience with, including me. I have no disclosures. On your left, I have listed some of the types of diseases that we most commonly see in the vertebral artery, and there are quite a lot.
And on the right, the standard types of treatment that we pursue in vascular surgery or as a vascular specialist. And often, in the vertebral artery, if we are going to pursue treatment, it's the endovascular route.
But I'll talk a little bit about open surgery. The clinical presentation is often vague. And the things I wanted to point out here in this long list are things like alternating paresthesias, dysphagia, or perioral numbness may be something in the history to look for
that you may not be thinking about when you're thinking about vertebral basilar disease. The anatomy looks straightforward in this picture, with the four segments, as you can see. It gets a little more complicated with just the arterial system,
but then when you start looking at all these structures, that you have to get out of of the way to get to the vertebral artery, it actually can be a difficult operation, particularly even in the V1 segment. The V1 typically is atherosclerotic disease.
V2 is often compression, via osteophyte or musculo-tendon structures. And V3 and V4, at the top, are typically from a dissection injury from sort of stretch or trauma injury. The pathophysiology isn't that well understood.
You have varying anatomy. It's very difficult to access this artery. Symptoms can be difficult to read, and treatment outcomes are not as reliable. But I'm going to take you through a very quick path through history here in the description
of the V1 segment exposure by Dr. Rentschler from 1958. And I love these pictures. Here is a transverse incision over the sternocleidomastoid, just above the clavicular head on the right side. And once you get the sternoclavicular head divided, you can see the longus colli muscle there.
Anteromedial is the carotid. Of course, you surround that with a Penrose drain. And then once you do that, you can separate your longus colli, and deep to that, the vertebral artery just easily slips right up, so you can do your transposition.
It's not quite that easy. I've done one of these operations, and it was difficult finding t e. And, again, here is on the opposite side, you can see the transposition in this cartoon.
Dr. Berguer is the world's expert, and a lot of this open surgical work comes out of the University of Michigan. Here is a study looking at 369 consecutive extracranial vertebral artery reconstructions. You can see the demographics of clinical presentation.
And note that about 34% of patients are presenting with hemispheric symptoms, with 60% in the vertebral basilar distribution. 300 of these reconstructions were for atherosclerosis. And the outcomes were pretty good. Before 1991, there wasn't really a protocol in place
in assessing and doing these procedures. And you can see the stroke and death rates of 4.1 and 3.2% respectively. And then the outcomes after 1991 are considerably better with a five year patency rate of 80%. So, in summary, vertebral artery disease is,
I think if you review this, is somewhat under diagnosed. Revascularization is a viable option. Most often, it's endovascular. But if you have endo-hostility, then an open, particularly for the V1 segment, may be a better option.
And this requires people with good operative experience. 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.
- I have nothing to disclose but what I will tell you is that the only way for me to learn the mechanics of treating low-flow malformations has been to learn from Wayne, follow what he's doing, and basically what I've done is I've filmed every single step he's taking,
dissect that, and then present you the way that he's doing it. The best way to do that is not listen to Wayne, but to film him, and just to check that afterwards. And he goes regularly to Cairo, this is the place of Dr. Rodovan sitting here
in front of us, and with Dr. Alaa Roshdy. I've learned a lot there from Wayne. This is Wayne's techniques, so normally if you look at puncture, the low flow malformations here then you get return or you aspirate so this is what happens, they inject contrast then they find volume
and inject whatever agent you prefer to inject. It happens to be alcohol but that is not essential. More often than not, there is no return. What to do then? There is a technique that Wayne has developed. Stab-Inject-Withdraw, just under high modification inject,
identify that you're not outside the vessel, get the vessel, start to fill slowly, and identify that and inject the alcohol. Of course you can do that under exposure just to see the effect of the alcohol thrombosing, et cetera.
Another example of no return is to subcutaneously certainly show that there is a low pressure system, and again, Stab-Inject-Withdrawal, and there is a cyst. Is it extravasation or is the malformation aspirate? And if it collapses, that's the malformation.
And then continue to fill in with contrast, define how big the malformation is, and then accordingly inject the amount of abrasive agent that you're using. Lymphatic malformation is very difficult to treat because the vessel's so small, would say microscopic,
and again, Stab-Inject-Withdraw, identify that it's not extravasating but it is the vessel, and start slowly, slowly to fill and any time in doubt that should there, just do a run, identify, and that is the vessel, or the network of the vessels and
start to fill that with the agent you're using. But there are certain zones that just don't inject anything, and these are the arteries. How often do arteries occur? When you puncture them. I just directly looked at all these 155 patients I've seen Wayne treat there a matter of,
I would say, 100 patients in three days. 30 patients per day, that's about six percent. And you see the artery by pulsating flow depending on the pressure that you apply. And we see again the artery pulsating and we have no doubt about that.
However, it could be difficult to see. Depending on how much you push in the contrast and you see these being ornery so there's a No-Go-Zone, no injection of any agent and again, a tiny bit of lottery there in the foot could be disastrous.
You inject any agent, any, you will have ended up with necrosis of course if you don't inject inhibitors, but not yet. The humorous may not end up with necrosis when all the mysticism with puncture will be gone. So we have extravasation, when you say extravasation
like starting injecting, still good, looking good, but you see how the extravasation even blows up and at the end it bursts, again under pressure they should apply, so pressure is really important to control and then you stop and don't inject any more.
Extravasation, you see how its' leaking in the back there, but you correct the position of the needle, identify all the vessels, the tiny little vessels, just have to be used to identify the pattern and then you start to inject the agent again.
Control is very essential. Here is the emphatic malformation labia and though there is this tiny little bity extravasation you continue because there is you know, run-off, it is filling the system and you can safely inject the alcohol.
Intraarticular could be malformation there and this is definitely safe pla however, if it is in the free space in the the joint, that's again, it's No-Go-Zone. How you see that is just be used to
the pattern recognition and you find that this is free. It's around the condyle there so there is no injection. Compression is again good to note to control by compression where the agents go. This is a normal vein, certainly at risk of getting with alcohol, whatever agent
you're using deep in the system, avoid that by compression. Compression can be applied manually and then that gives you a chance to fill the malformation itself and not strike connection too deep in the system. Intraosseous venous malformation,
low-flow malformations can occur anywhere, here in the spine and the axis is transpedicular patient prone because it's soft. The malformation has softened up the bone. You can just use a 21-gauge needle and identify the malformation and follow
by the agent you're using. Peculiar type of venous malformation called capillary venous malformation. Basically it's a low-flow malformation without any shunt here in the sciatic notch of the patient and geography shows that there is no shunt
there is just big veins and intense pacification. And identify the veins by indirect puncture again, see the pattern of that and inject alcohol and following geography we can see that there has decreased the density but it is a lot more left to be done.
In conclusion, direct puncture is the technique in this low-flow malformation but Stab-Inject-Withdraw is the really helpful technique for successful treatment of microvascular, microcystic lesion. No-Go-Zones for certain when you see arteries
and anytime in doubt you just have to do a run to identify if they're arteries or not. Intraarticular free space and extravasation and normal veins, similarly, No-Go-Zone. Capillary venous, intraosseous malformations can be treated successfully. Thank you.
(audience applause) - [Facilitator] Thank you, Crossey. Excellent talk, very practical and pragmatic. Any comments or questions? Dr. Yakes. - [Dr. Yakes] We have been to many meetings and people have talked about doing
other ultrasound guides, accessing the malformations. You'll never see those arteries by ultrasound. - [Facilitator] That's absolutely correct. I concur. I concur and I think some of the disasters we've seen where suddenly something falls off
have been in these situations because they don't understand or in expansile foam-based therapies, I've seen that. I've seen plenty of these, so it's always present, potentially.
- Now we all have seen one thing. We have to treat AVM's according to their classification angio anatomy. If you have something like, direct arterial venous communications, like pulmonary HHT patients, like the rare patients with inborn arterial venous fistulas,
you will never use ethanol. That's my opinion. That's an opinion. But I think most of us will agree on that. Will you? - [Audience] Yes.
- I think many of us will agree. So would you just do it for a HHT pulmonary patient, you would inject ethanol? - [Audience] No. - So, okay. And the direct arterial venous communications inborn,
they are very rare and they can be beautifully treated with plugs and whatever. These are one part on the AVM patients. Second part is predominantly venous outflow. However you say it's 2B, 3A or whatever. It's a dominant venous outflow
and you can cure them and I say cure, even in my paper there is imaging of follow up, but it's not in the abstract bar. (smiling) So you just, - (laughing)
- So you just occlude the venous outflow, as close to the nidus as you can. So I don't need ethanol for that. I don't need to take the risk for my patient. And so that leaves the type 4 small vessel AVM's. They are, even in my opinion,
not treatable with a polymerizing agent. There is a real place for ethanol. And then you you go to these difficult, more net-like, type 3 or whatever, AVM's, then my opinion is, I do it as long as possible,
with a safe agent. Like pushing in tons of onyx. And if there is something left over, or if there comes something in follow up, because we all need follow up for these patients, then you can finish it with ethanol.
That's my statement. Thank you.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- Thank you 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 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 so much. I have no disclosures. These guidelines were published a year ago and they are open access. You can download the PDF and you can also download the app and the app was launched two months ago
and four of the ESVS guidelines are in that app. As you see, we had three American co-authors of this document, so we have very high expertise that we managed to gather.
Now the ESVS Mesenteric Guidelines have all conditions in one document because it's not always obvious if it's acute, chronic, acute-on-chron if it's arteri
if there's an underlying aneurysm or a dissection. And we thought it a benefit for the clinician to have all in one single document. It's 51 pages, 64 recommendations, more than 300 references and we use the
ESC grading system. As you will understand, it's impossible to describe this document in four minutes but I will give you some highlights regarding one of the chapters, the Acute arterial mesenteric ischaemia chapter.
We have four recommendations on how to diagnose this condition. We found that D-dimer is highly sensitive so that a normal D-dimer value excludes the condition but it's also unfortunately unspecific. There's a common misconception that lactate is
useful in this situation. Lactate becomes elevated very late when the patient is dying. It's not a good test for diagnosing acute mesenteric ischaemia earlier. And this is a strong recommendation against that.
We also ask everyone uses the CTA angiography these days and that is of course the mainstay of diagnoses as you can see on this image. Regarding treatment, we found that in patients with acute mesenteric arterial ischaemia open or endovascular revascularisation
should preferably be done before bowel surgery. This is of course an important strategic recommendation when we work together with general surgeons. We also concluded that completion imaging is important. And this is maybe one of the reasons why endovascular repair tends to do better than
open repair in these patients. There was no other better way of judging the bowel viability than clinical judgment a no-brainer is that these patients need antibiotics and it's also a strong recommendation to do second look laparotomoy.
We found that endovascular treatment is first therapy if you suspect thrombotic occlusion. They had better survival than the open repair, where as in the embolic situation, we found no difference in outcome.
So you can do both open or endo for embolus, like in this 85 year old man from Uppsala where we did a thrombus, or the embolus aspiration. Regarding follow up, we found that it was beneficial to do imaging follow-up after stenting, and also secondary prevention is important.
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the ESVS Guidelines can be downloaded freely. There are lots of recommendations regarding diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. And they are most useful when the diagnosis is difficult and when indication for treatment is less obvious.
Please read the other chapters, too and please come to Hamburg next year for the ESVS meeting. Thank You
- 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.
- Hello, thank you again for the invitation. I have the disclosure here is kind of funny because I'm going to talk about CLaCS but I don't profit on that. Those are the most frustrating result on sclerotherapy and obviously death. These are very frustrating result. Sorry.
And this is not like funny but it's unfortunately the worst part is that all those cases are not published and that's less change from frustrating to devastating, the death cases. Let's talk about the less common, sorry,
the most common problems, skin ulcer. Like skin ulcer. Skin ulcer may be also terrible. Those are slides from my father's collection from the 60s probably. And I suggest you to read this paper.
It took me 20 years to get published with the help of Ted King of this hypothesis from the 70s and he studied on rabbit ears and I cannot have time to explain all that but he simulated the skin ulcer and showed that the causes the reflux to the arterial venous system
and how to avoid it, CLaCS is a great solution and by using the extra 75% due to its high viscosity, you avoid 100% of reflux to the arterial system. Matting is another problem.
Those are theories of my father as well. He said divided in two types of angiogenic where you inject on the telangiectasia and you destroy veins that you wanted to close or you didn't want to touch. And then you have reflux a new reflux and
a lot of telangiectasia. There would be occlusive, where you destroy too much, you destroy the drainage of those telangiectasias. And then how to avoid? Is to be less aggressive or to be more focal. That means treat only the feeder vein
and the telangiectasia and avoid injecting a lot of volume and because those sclerotic agents will reach another vein that you don't want to touch. Pigmentation is another problem. And to control pigmentation of course
you have to have less thrombus and once again ClaCS would be very nice idea because the transdermal lazer causes vein wall edema and contraction and then you inject the Dextrose 75%. And then you have less internal diameter
in the vein, that means you have less outflow, the Dextrose will stay there it's a synergy, and you have less clot, less pigmentation. Also Dextrose is a medium power sclerosing agent that doesn't cause too much pigmentation as the other agents.
Well once again my father, and my father is at the hospital right now, and he probably will not survive, but here is a tribute for him. And he developed this surgical treatment of the telangiectasia by removing
the feeder veins. And, sorry. Here a study with phlebography showing a double perforant insufficient vein, and these telangiectasia wouldn't respond. And that's a complex telangiectasia, not a simple telangiectasia.
Like here another example, the phlebectomy showing the result of the treatment of telangiectasia. Well, diagnosis is very important if you are a skipper of a boat, if you have a special device to diagnose you certainly will have a better result.
And here are very tricky, looks simple to treat but as you compress you see there is a reflux, and this reflux is going have five feeder veins and one is going to the reflux in saphenous vein and patient the patient is CEAP1. Well, I also.
Sorry. Next slide. If you are a painter and you want to paint this wall, it's not easy you need to find a feeder vein and that's why I've developed this classification where you have three, two questions
and you look for varicosities and telangiectasias and here you have, lets go fast, the ultrasound showing reflux and the augmented reality showing if there is feeder vein or not. And here a good example of a patient that was,
the examination would lead to a CEAP 1, but as we exam, we noticed that she's score nine, where she had a long reflux asymptomatic that was treated with endovenous lazer phlebectomy and CLaCS, and that's how we got the result. Then treatment failure is also can be avoided
by a good classification and then CLaCS. If you want to learn more about that, we have a congress, it's going to be the ninth in IMAP in Saul Paulo next year, and I kindly invite you to participate. Thank you.
- Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank the organizers once again for the opportunity to present at this meeting. And I have no disclosures. As we know the modern option for treating Truncal Varices includes Thermal Ablation. Major Venous Tributaries are treated
with phlebectomies, ligation, and foam sclerotherapy using sodium tetradecyl sulfate and polidocanol. The mechanism of action of these agents includes lysis of endothelium, and it takes a very short time to work. And most people use the Tessari technique,
which induces these agents and uses fibrosis of the veins and obliteration of the lumen. And this is how it's done. One of the risks of sclerotherapy may include deep vein thrombosis.
And as we've just heard, the perforator veins are variable anatomy and function, works in very amazing ways. So, what happens to the below knee veins after sclerotherapy? Well the NICE guidelines does not address this issue, and nowhere really is it addressed.
The NICE guidelines reported one of almost 1000 patients with a pulmonary embolism after Ultrasound Guided Sclerotherapy. So, we'd like to propose the term Deep Vein Sclerosis, or Deep Vein Sclerosae, rather than Deep Vein Thrombosis after Sclerotherapy
because it's caused by Sclerotherapy. The veins that they affected are usually patent, but non-compressible on ultrasound. Thrombus is usually absent, but it may be present, and it resolves quite quickly. We treated 386 legs in 267 patients
with CEAP III-VI disease. They had pre-intervention duplex, marking, and identification of perforators, they were treated with compression stockings and low-molecular weight Heparin, and they had serial ultrasound scanning.
Despite meticulous scanning, we identified deep vein sclerosis in 90 of our patients. So 23, almost a quarter. Perforating veins were identified with ultrasound in only 27 of this group, and forgive the mathematics there.
And perforating vein was seen in the post-intervention scans in almost a half after treatment. This is detailed list of the findings. The perforators alone were affected in 41 of these patients. And in 49% of patients, tibial veins and other
below knee deep veins were affected. Interestingly enough, in 24 of these 44 perforators were unidentified prior to treatment. And of these, a total of 49 patients of DVS involved the tibial veins and/or perforators. And, DVS involved the perforator only in 41 patients,
and this is thought to be adequate treatment of the superficial tributaries. 55% of the patients of previously unidentified perforator veins had DVS involved in the tibial veins. Treatment after we've identified this included compression stockings for at least six weeks,
aspirin for 12 weeks, and surveillance scanning. We found that no lesions actually progressed. They were unchanged in about 27%, completely resolved in 51%, and much smaller in about 22%. So, we'd like to propose that these changes
post-sclerotherapy in the below knee veins are different to deep vein thrombosis. The changes are provoked, there's a limited duration of the insult, most patients are low-risk and ambulant, and the patients are generally asymptomatic.
The veins that are non-compressible on ultrasound usually have no thrombus. In conclusion with the chairman ladies and gentlemen, Deep Vein Sclerosae occurs in almost 25% of patients having ultrasound-guided Foam Sclerotherapy, the lesions are of short length,
the course of these lesions appear fairly benign, and are adequately treated with stockings and aspirin, and the majority of these cases resolved or decreased in length within six to twelve weeks, and no lesions progressed. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, thanks for the opportunity to present. I have no disclosures. So, we all know that wounds are becoming more prevalent in our population, about 5% of the patient population has these non-healing wounds at a very significant economic cost, and it's a really high chance of lower extremity amputation
in these patients compared to other populations. The five-year survival following amputation from a foot ulcer is about 50%, which is actually a rate that's worse than most cancer, so this is a really significant problem. Now, even more significant than just a non-healing wound
is a wound that has both a venous and an arterial component to it. These patients are about at five to seven times the risk of getting an amputation, the end patients with either isolated venous disease or isolated PAD. It's important because the venous insufficiency component
brings about a lot more inflammation, and as we know, this is associated with either superficial or deep reflux, a history of DVT or incompetent perforators, but this adds an increasing complexity to these ulcers that refuse to heal.
So, it's estimated now about 15% of these ulcers are more of a mixed etiology, we define these as anyone who has some component of PAD, meaning an ABI of under point nine, and either superficial or deep reflux or a DVT on duplex ultrasound.
So we're going to talk for just a second about how do we treat these. Do we revascularize them first, do we do compression therapy? It has been shown in many, many studies, as with most things, that a multi-disciplinary approach
will improve the outcome of these patients, and the first step in any algorithm for these patients involves removing necrotic and infected tissue, dressings, if compression is feasible, based on the PAD level, you want to go ahead and do this secondary, if it's not, then you need to revascularize first,
and I'm going to show you our algorithm at Michigan that's based on summa the data. But remember that if the wounds fail to heal despite all of this, revascularization is a good option. So, based on the data, the algorithm that we typically use is if an ABI is less than point five
or a toe pressure is under 50, you want to revascularize first, I'll talk for a minute about the data of percutaneous versus open in these patients, but these are the patients you want to avoid compression in as a first line therapy.
If you have more moderate PAD, like in the point five to point eight range, you want to consider compression at the normal 40 millimeters of mercury, but you may need to modify it. It's actually been shown that that 40 millimeter of mercury
compression actually will increase flow to those wounds, so, contrary to what had previously been thought. So, revascularization, the data's pretty much equivocal right now, for these patients with these mixed ulcers, of whether you want to do endovascular or open. In diabetics, I think the data strongly favors
doing an open bypass if they have a good autogenous conduit and a good target, but you have to remember, in these patients, they have so much inflammation in the leg that wound healing from the surgical incisions is going to be significantly more difficult
than in a standard PAD patient, but the data has shown that about 60% of these ulcers heal at one year following revascularization. So, compression therapy, which is the mainstay either after revascularization in the severe PAD group or as a first line in the moderate group,
is really important 'cause it, again, increases blood flow to the wound. They've shown that that 40 millimeters of mercury compression is associated with a significant healing rate if you can do that, you additionally have to be careful, though,
about padding your bony areas, also, as we know, most patients don't actually keep their compression level at that 40, so there are sensors and other wearable technologies that are coming about that help patients with that, keeping in mind too, that the venous disease component
in these patients is really important, it's really important to treat the superficial venous reflux, EVLT is kind of the standard for that, treatment of perforators greater than five, all of that will help.
And I'm not going to go into any details of wound dressings, but there are plenty of new dressings that are available that can be used in conjunction with compression therapy. So, our final algorithm is we have a patient with these mixed arterial venous ulcers, we do woundcare debridement, determine the degree of PAD,
if it's severe, they go down the revascularization pathway, followed by compression, if it's moderate, then they get compression therapy first, possible treatment of venous disease, if it still doesn't heal at about 35 weeks, then you have to consider other things,
like biopsy for cancer, and then also consider revacularization. So, these ulcers are on a rise, they're a common problem, probably we need randomized control trials to figure out the optimal treatment strategies.
- 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 very much. Well this is a series that was actually published five years ago. And it outlined 45,000 patients after carotid endarterectomy, as well as open and closed thoracic abdominal procedures and infrainguinal bypasses.
And you can see here, that the VTE rate, and this is emblematic of a lot of studies. If you take everything together in a ball, you get an average result. And as you can see, the peripheral bypasses had a low incidence.
Carotids, very low incidence. But open procedures had a higher incidence than endovascular procedures. But here is the nub. Here is what's really important and why you need to do risk assessment.
Look at what happened to these percentages if the patients had any morbidity during hospitalization, as high as 7.8%. And here's the list after they went home. Again, it's not the .5 tenths of a percent or 1%, and this is what it's all about.
It's about the extra risk factors that the patient has. So now, anybody that's starting to do work with the Caprini Score, you've got to go to the patient-friendly form. Because we don't just do it,
if the patient comes in for surgery, and somebody does a preoperative evaluation in the holding area, stop it! It's ridiculous! Have you ever been in the holding area? What are you worried about?
You're worried about having the operation. Are they going to find cancer? Will the surgeon have a bad day? How much pain am I going to be in? How long am I going to be out of work? They're not going to talk to you
about their family history or their obstetrical misadventures. So you have them fill a form out ahead of time with their family, and then when they come in, you just double-check it. And we've studied this, it's in five languages,
and it's got perfect correlation with trained observers doing the same thing. And remember, if you fail to carefully interrogate your patients regarding the history or family history of venous thromboembolism, vascular surgery or not, sooner or later you may
be faced with a fatal PE. And the idea that you're giving anticoagulants during your procedure that's going to protect them is not valid. The relative risk of thrombosis increases with the number of risk factors identified.
A combination of genetic and acquired risk factors in a person without a history of a thrombosis personally, but with a family history, has a 60-fold higher chance than those that have a negative family history. And a positive family history increased
the risk of venous thrombosis more than 2-fold, regardless of the other risk factors. Don't forget the history of thrombosis. You won't need to look this article up. It's 183,000 patients over 25 years and it shows that both in first, second,
and third-degree relatives, as well as cohabitants in the household, there's an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Lowering down, getting lower for each degree of a relative.
But a DVT in a cousin, there may also be a thrombopathic condition in that patient. So you better pay attention to that. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, wonderful program. The database has no information on history
or family history of VTE, use of perioperative VTE prophylaxis, intraoperative anticoagulation, or perioperative use of antiplatelet agents. How are you supposed to make any sense out of DVT-related studies?
Finally, due to the lack of routine screening for VTE, the incidence of VTE may be underestimated in this NSQIP database, which only makes the need for further study more pressing. This is an important consideration because
more recent data indicates that two-thirds of the patients are found to have DVT during screening and after vascular operations, have no signs or symptoms of the problem. And I'd like to remind you, so this is based on the Boston data, which is the best data.
Patients with a low score pneumatic compression during hospitalization. Moderate score, of 7-10 days of anticoagulation. Don't make any difference if they're inpatient or outpatient. And 28 days if their score is over nine.
They lowered their incidence on the surgical services from 2.2% to a tenth of a percent at 30 days. And finally, and I think this is really, really important. Take a look at all these risk assessment scores.
To my knowledge, there's only two scores. It's not the Padua, it's not the IMPROVE that have a history of obstetrical misadventures which can reflect antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, as well as family history
in various degrees of relatives. So with that, thank you very much.
- Mr Chairman, dear colleagues. I've nothing to disclose. We know that aneurysm or dilation of the common iliac artery is present in almost 20% of cases submitted to endovascular repair and we have a variety of endovascular solution available. The first one is the internal iliac artery
embolization and coverage which is very technically easy but it's a suboptimal choice due to the higher risk of thrombosis and internal iliac problems. So the flared limbs landing in the common iliac artery is technically easy,
however, the results in the literature are conflicting. Iliac branch devices is a more demanding procedure but has to abide to a specific anatomical conditions and is warranted by good results in the literature such as this work from the group in Perugia who showed a technical success of almost 100%
as you can see, and also good results in other registries. So there are unresolved question about this problem which is the best choice in this matter, flared limbs or iliac branch devices. In order to solve this problem, we have looked at our data,
published them in Journal Vascular Interventional Neurology and this is our retrospective observational study involving treatment with either flared limbs or IBD and these are the flared limbs devices we used in this study. Anaconda, Medtronic, Cook and Gore.
And these are the IFU of the two IBD which were used in this study which were Gore-IBE and Cook-ZBS. So we looked at the 602 EVAR with 105 flared limbs which were also fit for IBD. And on the other side, we looked at EVAR-IBD
implanted in the same period excluding those implanted outside the IFU. So we ended up with 57 cases of IBD inside the IFU. These are the characteristics of the two groups of patients. The main important finding was the year age which was a little younger in the IBD group
and the common iliac artery diameter which was greater, again in the IBD group. So this is the distribution of the four types of flared limbs devices and IBD in the two groups. And as you can see, the procedural time and volume of contrast medium was significantly
higher in the IBD group. Complications did not differ significantly however, overall there were four iliac complication and all occurred in the flared limbs group. When we went to late complications, putting together all the iliac complication, they were significantly
greater in the flared limbs group compared with the IBD with zero percent complication rate. Late complications were always addressed by endovascular relining or relining and urokinase in case of infusion, in case of thrombosis. And as you can see here, the late outcome
did not differ significantly in the two groups. However, when we put together all the iliac complication, the iliac complication free survival was significantly worse in the flared limbs group. So in conclusion, flared limbs and IBD have similar perioperative outcomes.
IBD is more technically demanding, needs more contrast medium and time obviously. The complications in flared limbs are all resolvable by endovascular means and IBD has a better outcome in the long term period. So the take-home message of my presentation
is that we prefer IBD in young patients with high life expectancy and in the presence of anatomical risk factors of flared limbs late complications. Thank you for your attention.
- Good morning, thank you, Dr. Veith, for the invitation. My disclosures. So, renal artery anomalies, fairly rare. Renal ectopia and fusion, leading to horseshoe kidneys or pelvic kidneys, are fairly rare, in less than one percent of the population. Renal transplants, that is patients with existing
renal transplants who develop aneurysms, clearly these are patients who are 10 to 20 or more years beyond their initial transplantation, or maybe an increasing number of patients that are developing aneurysms and are treated. All of these involve a renal artery origin that is
near the aortic bifurcation or into the iliac arteries, making potential repair options limited. So this is a personal, clinical series, over an eight year span, when I was at the University of South Florida & Tampa, that's 18 patients, nine renal transplants, six congenital
pelvic kidneys, three horseshoe kidneys, with varied aorto-iliac aneurysmal pathologies, it leaves half of these patients have iliac artery pathologies on top of their aortic aneurysms, or in place of the making repair options fairly difficult. Over half of the patients had renal insufficiency
and renal protective maneuvers were used in all patients in this trial with those measures listed on the slide. All of these were elective cases, all were technically successful, with a fair amount of followup afterward. The reconstruction priorities or goals of the operation are to maintain blood flow to that atypical kidney,
except in circumstances where there were multiple renal arteries, and then a small accessory renal artery would be covered with a potential endovascular solution, and to exclude the aneurysms with adequate fixation lengths. So, in this experience, we were able, I was able to treat eight of the 18 patients with a fairly straightforward
endovascular solution, aorto-biiliac or aorto-aortic endografts. There were four patients all requiring open reconstructions without any obvious endovascular or hybrid options, but I'd like to focus on these hybrid options, several of these, an endohybrid approach using aorto-iliac
endografts, cross femoral bypass in some form of iliac embolization with an attempt to try to maintain flow to hypogastric arteries and maintain antegrade flow into that pelvic atypical renal artery, and a open hybrid approach where a renal artery can be transposed, and endografting a solution can be utilized.
The overall outcomes, fairly poor survival of these patients with a 50% survival at approximately two years, but there were no aortic related mortalities, all the renal artery reconstructions were patented last followup by Duplex or CT imaging. No aneurysms ruptures or aortic reinterventions or open
conversions were needed. So, focus specifically in a treatment algorithm, here in this complex group of patients, I think if the atypical renal artery comes off distal aorta, you have several treatment options. Most of these are going to be open, but if it is a small
accessory with multiple renal arteries, such as in certain cases of horseshoe kidneys, you may be able to get away with an endovascular approach with coverage of those small accessory arteries, an open hybrid approach which we utilized in a single case in the series with open transposition through a limited
incision from the distal aorta down to the distal iliac, and then actually a fenestrated endovascular repair of his complex aneurysm. Finally, an open approach, where direct aorto-ilio-femoral reconstruction with a bypass and reimplantation of that renal artery was done,
but in the patients with atypical renals off the iliac segment, I think you utilizing these endohybrid options can come up with some creative solutions, and utilize, if there is some common iliac occlusive disease or aneurysmal disease, you can maintain antegrade flow into these renal arteries from the pelvis
and utilize cross femoral bypass and contralateral occlusions. So, good options with AUIs, with an endohybrid approach in these difficult patients. Thank you.
- Good morning. I'd like to thank Dr. Veith and Symposium for my opportunity to speak. I have no disclosures. So the in Endovascular Surgery, there is decrease open surgical bypass. But, bypass is still required for many patients with PAD.
Autologous vein is preferred for increase patency lower infection rate. And, Traditional Open Vein Harvest does require lengthy incisions. In 1996 cardiac surgery reported Endoscopic Vein Harvest. So the early prospective randomized trial
in the cardiac literature, did report wound complications from Open Vein Harvest to be as high as 19-20%, and decreased down to 4% with Endoscopic Vein Harvest. Lopes et al, initially, reported increase risk of 12-18 month graft failure and increased three year mortality.
But, there were many small studies that show no effect on patency and decreased wound complications. So, in 2005, Endoscopic Vein Harvest was recommended as standard of care in cardiac surgical patients. So what about our field? The advantages of Open Vein Harvest,
we all know how to do it. There's no learning curve. It's performed under direct visualization. Side branches are ligated with suture and divided sharply. Long term patency of the bypass is established. Disadvantages of the Open Vein Harvest,
large wound or many skip wounds has an increased morbidity. PAD patients have an increased risk for wound complications compared to the cardiac patients as high as 22-44%. The poor healing can be due to ischemia, diabetes, renal failure, and other comorbid conditions.
These can include hematoma, dehiscense, infection, and increased length of stay. So the advantages of Endoscopic Vein Harvest, is that there's no long incisions, they can be performed via one or two small incisions. Limiting the size of an incision
decreases wound complications. It's the standard of care in cardiac surgery, and there's an overall lower morbidity. The disadvantages of is that there's a learning curve. Electro-cautery is used to divide the branches, you need longer vein compared to cardiac surgery.
There's concern about inferior primary patency, and there are variable wound complications reported. So recent PAD data, there, in 2014, a review of the Society of Vascular Surgery registry, of 5000 patients, showed that continuous Open Vein Harvest
was performed 49% of the time and a Endo Vein Harvest about 13% of the time. The primary patency was 70%, for Continuous versus just under 59% for Endoscopic, and that was significant. Endoscopic Vein Harvest was found to be an independent risk factor for a lower one year
primary patency, in the study. And, the length of stay due to wounds was not significantly different. So, systematic review of Endoscopic Vein Harvest data in the lower extremity bypass from '96 to 2013 did show that this technique may reduce
primary patency with no change in wound complications. Reasons for decreased primary patency, inexperienced operator, increased electrocautery injury to the vein. Increase in vein manipulation, you can't do the no touch technique,
like you could do with an Open Harvest. You need a longer conduit. So, I do believe there's a roll for this, in the vascular surgeon's armamentarium. I would recommend, how I use it in my practices is, I'm fairly inexperienced with Endoscopic Vein Harvest,
so I do work with the cardiac PA's. With increased percutaneous procedures, my practice has seen decreased Saphenous Vein Bypasses, so, I've less volume to master the technique. If the PA is not available, or the conduit is small, I recommend an Open Vein Harvest.
The PA can decrease the labor required during these cases. So, it's sometimes nice to have help with these long cases. Close surveillance follow up with Non-Invasive Arterial Imaging is mandatory every three months for the first year at least. Thank you.
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.