- I want to talk on managing branch complications. This is my disclosure. We overlook in the Berlin-Brandenburg Helios Vascular Center about 466 patients treated with branched, TVAR and fenestrated EVAR devices. All patients received Zenith stent-grafts, custom made devices, T-Branch, or standard fenestrations
in all cases. The target arteries that we are talking about were renal, SMA, celiac access and internal iliac arteries. We used exclusively bridging stent-grafts that were balloon expandable stent-grafts. This is the differentiation of the patients
so we had EVAR fenestrated grafts in 190, branched TVAR in 138 patients, 93 of them were off the shelf devices and T-branch. EVAR with iliac side branches in 138 patients and all together we treated target arteries of 1270. You see the hospital mortality of these procedures
you can see a clear difference between the EVAR fenestrated graft and the branched T version are much more complex procedure and although overall mortality was 4.9% over these 13 years. What happened in these patients we experienced
in 44 patients, 44 complications in the target arteries so unfortunately one target artery problem per patient in these complicated cases. This means rate of 3.5% problems in the target arteries overall. Involved were renal arteries in 32 cases,
SMA in 10 cases and the celiac artery in two cases. What did we do in these cases? Managed the complications once thrombolysis was different devices for example were Rotorex stenting of the dissected vessels, coiling if unavoidable or occlusion of the side branch if no access was possible.
Show you some examples. This is a very serious complication where we were unable to enter the SMA resulting in occlusion of you see on the right slide that this was solved by laparotomy and retrograde access to the SMA.
This is a stenting of a dissected renal artery which could be managed quite nicely with an extension of the stent. Here we have again a prolonged intraprocedural SMA occlusion. We finally managed to enter the vessel
but it was very, very long and prolonged time. This is an inaccessible celiac artery where we have finally had to skip, not iliac sorry, celiac artery where we had to skip the implantation finally and occlude the branch with Amplatzer plug.
All together if you look at these complications in 34 cases we were successful in clinical point of view. In 9 patients complication was little and majority of these were complications involving the SMA. Eight of nine patients had with severe complication in the SMA and died
and so the SMA complications contribute, compared to the mortality, 40% to the procedural mortality in these branched cases. So in conclusion, injury to target artery in endovascular repair with branched and fenestrated stent-grafts are rare
but may be a serious complication especially damage to the SMA has a high mortality and thus further improvement of endovascular skills, instruments for example moveable sheaths which we had not available in the beginning and troubleshooting devices are mandatory
to avoid these complications. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Veith for you kind invitation. Okay, there we go. Excuse me. DEVASS stands for Dutch EVAS study Group. We all know that women have a twofold, increased risk frequency of rupture.
The average aortic size at rupture is five millimeters smaller. They have a higher rate of undiagnosed cardiovascular diseases. They have smaller ileofemo
more concomitant iliac aneurysms They have a more challenging aortic neck. Smaller proportion is eligible for EVAR and, therefore less likely to meet EVAR IFU. They have a longer length of hospital stay after EVAR, a higher re-admission rate, more major complications,
a higher mortality rate. So, women and AAA is a challenging combination. The rationale behind EVAS is known to you all, I think. The DEVASS cohort is from three high volume centers in The Netherlands. It's a retrospective cohort of 355 patients,
included from April, 2013 to December 2015. So I have two years of result data. If you look at the baseline characteristics, 45 females were in this cohort, with the age of 76 and with some known comorbidities. They were within the instructions for use of 2013, at 28.9%
and even less in the IFU of 2016. These are some more anatomical characteristics with the AAA outer diameter 5.6 centimeters. This is the procedure, most of the patients were under general anesthesia, with the cutdown and the procedure time
was about 100 minute. Straight forward procedure 33 cases out of these 45. Let's have a quick look at the clinical outcomes. The re-intervention's done in the first 12 month. One patient had to conversion to open repair at month 11 due to type 1A Endoleak, and the others were not directly
related to the procedure itself. Although, there was thrombus in approximate stand. In the second month we saw, in the second year we saw some more type 1A migrations and a Stenosis that needed relining, and two out of these patients were within IFU.
If you look at the total cohort of type 1A Endoleak, one patient was not operated on and the other were, either open conversion or relining, and one patient was within IFU. A quick look at the death characteristics. Only one patient was within IFU,
and died after open procedure. So the re-interventions, once again, the first year four patients, in the second year five patients. Conversion to open repair, in total three patients. Endovascular re-intervention was performed
in the first year in two patients and in the second year there were three relinings performed. Endoleak 1A, in total six as stated before. No type two Endoleak reported, and in the first year five patients died, which one was aneurisym related, as in the second year, two patients died,
which one was aneurysm related. If we compare this data with the EVAS Global data, of two years not the three year data, this is the freedom from all persistent Endoleak, close to 98% which is good. Freedom from type 1A Endoleak is within IFU, 97% in the global and outside IFU 85%,
and remind these patients 71% were outside IFU. Freedom from secondary interventions, we had to re-intervene in nine patients and its comparable with outside IFU. Freedom from mortality at two years, a bit higher, aneurism related mortality is 95% which is higher, and also the all cost mortality is higher in women.
So to conclude, this is the first cohort that focuses on women after EVAS. The majority of the patients was outside IFU, and as in EVAR women do not that very good in result, appear to be very much like an EVAR. Thank you.
- Okay, thank you. We know that inflammatory AAA have quite low incidence. The main problem is related to the thickness of the aortic wall and to the retroperitoneal fibrosis that involves the organs that are close to the aorta. Open surgery is quite difficult for these reasons. And these imply a higher mortality rate
that is threefold the one for standard AAA. And the higher morbidity related to the surgical dissection in fibrosis with risk of iatrogenic injury of the involved organs. So that some authors suggest the supraceliac clamping. That of course have some other issues.
A recent paper suggests that a pre-op treatment with a cortical steroid therapy can be useful to reduce inflammatory signs and so minimize the operative risk for these patients. On the other hand, endovascular treatment has been proposed since 1997 with different outcomes.
Certainly mortality rate is lower when compared to open surgery, and even the one year mortality is lower. But we have a problem with periaortic fibrosis that does not decrease as well as with open surgery. And there is some progression, in some cases, with higher nephrosis that leads
to other types of complication. This is not a standard. You see in this paper that there is no problem with periaortic fibrosis after endovascular treatment. But in other papers, the situation is different. There is a worsening fibrosis and even the development
of fibrosis after standard EVAR in patients with no history of inflammatory AAA. And certainly the phenotype eg4 seems to be related to a worse outcome after EVAR. So, based on this situation, what we have done in the last year is to use a systemic steroid protocol
for our patients with inflammatory AAA that is the same that is used for arteritis and retroperitoneal fibrosis. And you see how impressive is the situation in this case. We had only four days of therapy, and we have a decrease in periaortic fibrosis of 28%.
We studied all our patients with PET/CT. We made a comparison with the patient with standard AAA, and we observed an increased level of captation that was really significant. This is our population. All of the patients had immunological screening,
and the evaluation of the inflammatory level. This is the operative situation. All the patients had a good result with no mortality at 30 days. Only one patient died three months later for other reasons. And what we observed is that in almost all cases,
the periaortic fibrosis reduced significantly with the, even with PET/CT. All the patients were asymptomatic. And all the patients with hydronephrosis have a release of the situation. You see that the diameter of the aorta decreased
of 9.76 millimeters, and there was a decrease in periaortic fibrosis of more or less one centimeters. So this is really significant, as you can see. And there was a reduce in the uptake for all the patients but one. We don't know exactly, he had a type two endoleak.
Don't know if this can be a correlation because it's a single patient. And another patient stopped corticosteroid therapy, and so there was a recurrence of this problem. The CRP reduced globally, but of course, it's not specific. So in some patients we had an increase for other reasons.
But our policy now is that we do EVAR, when feasible, associated to steroid therapy. That, in our practice, is effective. We use open surgery in patients unfit for standard EVAR, and probably, even for these patients, steroid therapy can be a choice.
- So, a little more on this theme that we've been talking about the last couple days, of inflow in the post-thrombotic limb. So, the key to maintaining an iliac-vein stent is good inflow and the key vessel seems to be the profunda, as we've been hearing for the last couple of days. This is the anatomy, the three axial vessels in the thigh,
the saphenous plays a very small role in venous return. We're dependent more on the femoral vein and the profunda. And the femoral vein just seems to be more prone to thrombosis and problems, and the profunda's there to salvage. We like to see good axial transformation of the profunda.
If we see this, you can get an IVUS catheter in these vessels from above usually. You can feel pretty confident the inflow's satisfactory. There's been some enthusiasm now to try and improve inflow, as we've been hearing, by interventions on the femoral vein. And you saw this paper earlier,
where these people had iliac-vein stents, and they we're trying to improve inflow either with femoral-vein stenting or femoral-vein angioplasty alone. And very, very high failure rates. All of them were occluded by a year, in both the angioplasty and stent groups.
My experience, I've probably done a handful of femoral-vein stents. This guy been in the practice for a couple, 15 years, post-thrombotic with iliac vein stents and some reason, his PCP discontinued his Warfarin, and the stent went down. So, this is in the office center,
acutely occluded common iliac, external iliac vein stent, and the confluence. You see thrombus in the confluence and in the profunda, which was obviously, discouraging. I got them open with the AngioJet, including his profunda. So, his symptoms of swollen thigh and calf,
and the thigh markedly improved. And he comes back a couple two year later, he's a UPS worker with complaining that he feels great, but the calf's still a problem, can I do anything else. We had a whole discussion on femoral vein intervention and he wanted to give it a shot.
The femoral vein was occluded beforehand. Here's the profunda open in SFA. So, this is prone on table, we got a good popliteal, we got a good profunda. And, you know, is this going to help him at all? But, he wanted to go for it.
This is with IVUS, the femoral vein's pretty much occluded. The popliteal vein's open. And we put a nitinol stent down, and they key is to try and land above your profunda collateral so you don't jail it. So, this is one if the ones that did well.
I got a couple doing well, and the others, not so well. So, this kid, 31 years old, multiple DVTs at such a young age, in both legs. We want to do something. His common iliac was wide open, this was diseased, so we stented this,
he got a little better, not great, he comes back a year later, can you do anything else. We began the whole discussion of femoral vein intervention doesn't work well. This is on the table prone, and just a harbinger of failure, if I can't get into the popliteal vein,
have to use a gastroc, that's a telling sign. So, I went ahead and stented his femoral vein, tried to preserve the collaterals. You can't see the popliteal that well down here, but it looked decent. He showed up with his INR low and occluded,
the whole thing went down. Here's the tail end of the nitinol stent. You can see the popliteal inflow is horrible. I got him open, but you know, it just doesn't look great. So, he went down and stayed down, reoccurring ulcers, and the poor young guy can't do anything.
In this case, again, the theme is we got iliac stents in place, so we can improve inflow. So, she comes in a couple years later, with new inflow disease on duplex and new symptoms. And you think, well you know, we'll just do a little segment of the femoral vein
where there's a tight lesion, maybe it'll help her inflow. With angioplasty alone, you can see the remain pretty tight, so I went ahead and put a stent there. Looked great afterwards, I was encouraged. But one month later, that segment of femoral vein stent went down.
You've heard of, in the early days, when we were doing thoracic aortic aneurysms iliac artery on a stick, well this is a femoral vein on a stick, so be careful. Conclusion, femoral vein stenting fails often and early. Uncharted waters may be a value in selected cases,
and I also want to see the PTS-XS trial results. Thanks.
- Good morning everybody. So first of all let me take note of it for the kind invitation to be here, again. These are my disclosures. So Juxtarenal Aneurysm has been described as those aneurysms very close to or even including in the lower margin of renal artery.
And of course the gold standard at that time was aortic supportive clamping and open surgery. Probably open surgery is still the first choice in this very short and complex aortic neck but what do in case of patients unfit for surgery? Or for patients who are asking for
a minor invasive alternative. Of course, Fenestrated EVAR are the solution, the option two, but they require time, are expensive, so what to in case of patients who have no time or cannot wait for this customization process?
Symptomatic patients, patients with huge aneurysm or patients just unfit for fEVAR because of either access or tortuous proximal neck anatomy. So solution is chimney or ovation VENT. What is ovation VENT? It's a kind of open chimney technique,
it's a combination of ovation with renal bare stent. So you know the the new concept of sealing of this stent graft, the circumferential apposition of polymer-filled ring to the aortic wall, typically at 13mm, so to just translate the length of the neck to a specific point
when a couple of millimeter when in that position of course. And you know with the previous, you have just heard the harder device, but with the standard device, the prime and the IX, we have the device positioned
13mm below the lowest renal artery. So, what to do in case of (unclear) when have no apposition of the ring to the aortic wall, we raise the ring, just very close to the renal artery, and then we place some bare metal stent
at the renal BMS. So here you can see our bench test with the fabric of the collars just moved by the bare metal stents. So, VENT is different from chimney, we don't use the covered stents so
it's a lowered provide bracket approach, and more importantly, chimney and endograft are typically competing for the same room so this the reason for gutters, while with VENT we have a stent and endograft, which are not competing for the same room.
The ring is responsible for the sealing and the stent is just responsible for the ventilation of the renal arteries. So this is a typical example, you can see here, a contained rupture aneurysm, in this point, and with a very short neck, so we decide
to land with the first neck and exactly at that level you can see here the steps of the procedure, the contemporary deployment of the renal stent, and the main graft the injection of the polymer, so the first ring is really in contact with the renal stent,
but they're not competing each other and so you can have a nice sealing of the sack. Another case, conical shaped neck, unfit for standard EVAR, unfit for EVAR, because was a huge aneurysm, much more than 8cm, so we decide again to raise the ring,
13mm and fit for standard ovation. And so here you can see the first ring just at this level, the renal stent, responsible for the patency of the renal artery, and you can see here that the first ring is just touching it in one point, the conical neck.
With good sealing. Again, another case with unfit for fEVAR, because of the small access, tortoise access, and so we plant a double VENT, in this case, you can see here again, prucodanus bracket approach, with five french shift,
contemporaneous deployment of stents, and first ring, again nice sealing, and nice follow up with completed sack screen cage, and another one year follow up. So, up to now we have performed 29 cases. We did the first case in June 2015,
technical success was high, 96.6%, we had just one type one endo-leak fixed introaperticaly with the coil embolization. The follow up is, mean follow up is 19 month, and 100% renal artery patency, no further intervention, no sac enlargement,
the majority of arteries, it's shrinkage more than 5mm. So just in conclusion, this option is in, we believe that in selected measures, it's a nice option. It is safe and effective when you can not wait for fenestration graft, like in case of symptomatic
or huge aneurysm, or just patients are unfit for fenestration because of tortuous anatomy or small iliac vessels. Thank you for your attention.
- Good morning, I want to thank Professor Vitta for the privilege of presenting on behalf of my chief, Professor Francesco Speziale, the result from the EXTREME Trial on the use of the Ovation stent graft. We know that available guidelines recommend to perform EVAR in patient presenting at least a suitable
aortic neck length of >10mm, but in our experience death can be a debatable indication because it may be too restrictive, because we believe that some challenging necks could be effectively managed by EVAR. This is why when we published our experience 2014,
on the use of, on EVAR, on the use of different commercially available device on-label and off-label indication, we found no significant difference in immediate results between patient treated in and out IFU, and those satisfactory outcomes were maintained
during two years of follow-up. So, we pose ourself this question, if conventional endografts guarantee satisfactory results, could new devices further expand EVAR indication? And we reported our experience, single-center experience, that suggests that EVAR by Ovation stent-graph can be
performed with satisfactory immediate and mid-term outcomes in patient presenting severe challenging anatomies. So, moving from those promising experiences, we started a new multi-center registry, aiming to demonstrate the feasibility of EVAR by Ovation implantation in challenging anatomies.
So, the EXTREME trial was born, the expanding indication for treatment with standard EVAR in patient with challenging anatomies. And this is, as I said, a multi-center prospective evaluation experience. The objective of the registry was to report the 30-day and
12 month technical and clinical success with EVAR, using the Ovation Stend-Graft in patient out of IFU for treatment by common endograft. This is a prospective, consecutively-enrolling, non-randomized, multi-center post market registry, and we plan to enroll at least 60 patients.
We evaluated as clinical endpoints, the freedom from aneurysm-related mortality, aneurysm enlargement and aneurysm rupture. And the technical endpoint evaluate were the access-related vascular complications, technical success, and freedom from Type I and III endoleaks, migration,
conversion to open repair, and re-interventions. Between March 17 and March 18, better than expected, we enrolled 122 patients across 16 center in Italy and Spain. Demographics of our patient were the common demographic for aneurysm patients.
And I want to report some anatomical features in this group. Please note, the infrarenal diameter mean was 21, and the mean diameter at 13mm was 24, with a mean aortic neck length of 7.75mm. And all grafts were released accorded to Ovation IFU. 74 patients out of 122
presented an iliac access vessel of <7mm in diameter. The technical success reported was 98% with two type I endoleak at the end of the procedure, and 15 Type II endoleaks. The Type I endoleak were treated in the same procedure
by colis embolization, successfully, and at one month, we are no new Type Ia endoleaks, nine persistent Type II endoleaks, and two limb occlusion, requiring no correction. I want to thank my chief for the opportunity of presenting and, of course, all collaborators of this registry,
and I want to thank you for your attention, and invite you, on behalf of my chief, to join us in Rome next May. Thank you.
- Thanks (mumbles) I have no disclosures. So when were talking about treating thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms in patients with chronic aortic dissections, these are some of the most difficult patients to treat. I thought it would be interesting
to just show you a case that we did. This is a patient, you can see the CT scrolling through, Type B dissection starts pretty much at the left subclavian, aneurysmal. It's extensive dissection that involves the thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta,
basically goes down to the iliac arteries. You can see the celiac, SMA, renals at least partially coming off the true and continues all the way down. It's just an M2S reconstruction. You can see again the extent of this disease and what makes this so difficult in that it extends
from the entire aorta, up proximally and distally. So what we do for this patient, we did a left carotid subclavian bypass, a left external to internal iliac artery bypass. We use a bunch of thoracic stent grafts and extended that distally.
You can see we tapered down more distally. We used an EVAR device to come from below. And then a bunch of parallel grafts to perfuse our renals and SMA. I think a couple take-home messages from this is that clearly you want to preserve the branches
up in the arch. The internal iliac arteries are, I think, very critical for perfusing the spinal cord, especially when you are going to cover this much. And when you are dealing with these dissections, you have to realize that the true lumens
can become quite small and sometimes you have to accommodate for that by using smaller thoracic endografts. So this is just what it looks like in completion. You can see how much metal we have in here. It's a full metal jacket of the aorta, oops.
We, uh, it's not advancing. Oops, is it 'cause I'm pressing in it or? All right, here we go. And then two years post-op, two years post-op, you can see what this looks like. The false lumen is completely thrombosed and excluded.
You can see the parallel grafts are all open. The aneurysm sac is regressing and this patient was successfully treated. So what are some of the tips and tricks of doing these types of procedures. Well we like to come in from the axillary artery.
We don't perform any conduits. We just stick the axillary artery separately in an offset manner and place purse-string sutures. You have to be weary of manipulating around the aortic arch, especially if its a more difficult arch, as well as any thoracic aortic tortuosity.
Cannulating of vessels, SMA is usually pretty easy, as you heard earlier. The renals and celiac can be more difficult, depending upon the angles, how they come off, and the projection. You want to make sure you maintain a stiff wire,
when you do get into these vessels. Using a Coda balloon can be helpful, as sometimes when you're coming from above, the wires and catheters will want to reflux into that infrarenal aorta. And the Coda balloon can help bounce that up.
What we do in situations where the Coda doesn't work is we will come in from below and a place a small balloon in the distal renal artery to pin the catheters, wires and then be able to get the stents in subsequently. In terms of the celiac artery,
if you're going to stent it, you want to make sure, your wire is in the common hepatic artery, so you don't exclude that by accident. I find that it is just simpler to cover, if the collaterals are intact. If there is a patent GDA on CT scan,
we will almost always cover it. You can see here that robust collateral pathway through the GDA. One thing to be aware of is that you are going to, if you're not going to revascularize the celiac artery you may need to embolize it.
If its, if the endograft is not going to oppose the origin of the celiac artery in the aorta because its aneurysmal in that segment. In terms of the snorkel extent, you want to make sure, you get enough distal purchase. This is a patient intra-procedurally.
We didn't get far enough and it pulled out and you can see we're perfusing the sac. It's critical that the snorkel or parallel grafts extend above the most proximal extent of your aortic endograft or going to go down. And so we take a lot of care looking at high resolution
pictures to make sure that our snorkel and parallel grafts are above the aortic endograft. This is just a patient just about a year or two out. You can see that the SMA stent is pulling out into the sac. She developed a endoleak from the SMA,
so we had to come in and re-extend it more distally. Just some other things I mentioned a little earlier, you want to consider true lumen space preserve the internals, and then need to sandwich technique to shorten the parallel grafts. Looking at a little bit of literature,
you can see this is the PERCLES Registry. There is a number of type four thoracos that are performed here with good results. This is a paper looking at parallel grafting and 31 thoracoabdominal repairs. And you can see freedom from endoleaks,
chimney graft patency, as well as survival is excellent. This was one looking purely at thoracoabdominal aneurysm repairs. There are 32 altogether and the success rates and results were good as well. And this was one looking at ruptures,
where they found that there was a mean 20% sac shrinkage rate and all endografts remained patent. So conclusion I think that these are quite difficult to do, but with good techniques, they can be done successfully. Thank you.
- Thanks very much, and thanks Frank for the invitation to join us once again at this excellent meeting. These are my disclosures. Now, it's well documented and all of you are fully aware that the periprocedural risk of stroke and death following transfemoral CAS
has been shown to be twice that of when compared with CEA in the important non-industry supported trials of EVA3s, ICSS, and CREST. The increase in the rate of events with CAS however,
is front loaded and occurs, certainly within the first 30 days, and more often than not within the first day or two, after that the subsequent event rates and durability parallel that of CEA. And this is nicely shown in the four-year data from EVA 3S, where we can see that the big jump in event rates
between CAS and CEA occurs upfront, after which, these two curves become entirely parallel. The 10-year data from CREST has been published, and the same phenomenon occurs here, and that is that the higher event rate with stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy occurs right here,
after which the two curves become entirely parallel. So, one has to ask what are the potential causes for periprocedural events with transfemoral CAS and it's already been discussed, a diseased aortic arch, a Type 3 aortic arch making catheterization of the right carotid artery more challenging,
and finally the need to traverse the lesion in order to place a distal embolic protection device. Obviously the embolic protection device doesn't work until it's in place, and when you pass it over the lesion the possibility of knocking free embolic debris is quite high.
I don't expect anybody to read this from the back of the room, but in 2004 there were two seminal papers that were published looking at the possibility of a direct approach to carotid artery stenting, thus avoiding the aortic arch and using flow reversal
by clamping the common carotid artery and diverting blood flow in a reverse direction back to the venous system and were showed excellent results. Along comes industry to provide us with the hardware with which to do this,
these are the components from Silk Road, and basically a small cutdown over the common carotid artery, the placement of the sheath clamping the carotid artery with reversal of flow, thus carrying any embolic material before the placement of a stent is neuroprotective.
One other thing that wasn't mentioned this morning and one of the advantages of flow reversal and the possibility of encouraging all of the release of the embolic material initially is to carry out predilatation of the lesion before placing the stent and not postdilate.
The first-in-man data on the use of this technique was published in Germany and in the proof study, in the proof study there were 44 patients undergoing TCAR, no deaths, no strokes, silent brain infarction rate of 16%, which was entirely comparable to that of carotid endarterectomy.
Along comes the ROADSTER trial at ROADSTER 141 pivotal patients deemed to be high risk by either anatomic or medical criteria, carried out in 20 US sites, there was no major strokes, there were two minor strokes, two deaths, no permanent cranial nerve injuries. And if we compare the TCAR data with CREST data,
here's the transfemoral CAS data out of CREST, 4.1%, 2.3% with carotid endarterectomy, 1.4% with TCAR. And here are the ROADSTER 2 data, if we look at stroke and death in asymptomatic patients in ROADSTER 1, 1.3% dropping to .9%,
stroke and death, ROADSTER 1 in symptomatic patients 2.2% dropping to an astonishing 0.8%. So, from my personal perspective I can offer patients either TCAR or CEA based upon selection criteria with a high degree of comfort that
both of these are going to result in excellent results. How about CREST-2, as you know this is two studies in one, comparing CAS with intensive medical therapy alone and CEA with intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone. The future of invasive intervention
to treat asymptomatic carotid stenosis will really depend upon the results of this trial. What are the possible outcomes? Intensive medical management may be equal to or better than either, carotid endarterectomy and CAS may be better than intensive medical management,
or CEA but not CAS may be better than intensive medical management alone, those are the possible possibilities To date, half of the patients have been enrolled, so stay tuned, and thanks very much for your attention.
- Good Morning. Thank you very much Dr. Veith, it is an honor and I'm very happy to share some data for the first time at this most important meeting in vascular medicine. And I do it in - oops, that's the end of my talk, how do I go to the --
- [Technician] Left button, left, left. - Okay. So, what we heard on Tuesday were some opinions, of course opinions are very important in the medical field, we heard some hypothesis.
But what I think is critical for the decision-making physician is always the facts. And I would like to discuss some facts in relation to CGuard and the state of the field of carotid revascularization today. One of the most important facts for me,
is that treating symptomatic patients is nothing to be proud of, this is not a strength, this is the failure of the system. Unfortunately today we do continue to receive patients on optimum medical therapy
in the ongoing studies, including the paradigm study that I will discuss in more detail. So if you want to dismiss large level scale level one evidence, I think what you should be able to provide methodologically is another piece of large level one scale evidence.
The third fact is conventional carotid stents do have a problem, we heard about this from Dr. Amor. This is the problem of carotid excess of minor strokes, say in the CREST study. The fact # 4 is that Endarterectomy excludes the problem of the carotid block from the equation
so carotid stents should also be able to exclude the plaque, and yes there is a way to do it one of the ways to do it is the MicroNet covered embolic prevention stent system. And there is intravascular evidence from imaging we'll hear more about it later
that yes it can do this effectively but, also there is evidence from now more that 3 studies with magnetic resonance imaging that show the the incidence of ipslateral embolization is very low with this system. The quantity of the material is very low
and also the post procedural emoblisuent issue is practically eliminated. And this is some examples of intervascular imaging just note here that one of the differences between different systems is that, MicroNet can adapt to simple prolapse
even if it were to occur, making this plaque prolapse protected. Fact # 6 that I think is also very important is that the CGUARD system allows routine endovascular reconstruction of the carotid bifurcation and here is what I mean
as a routine CEA-like effect of endovascular procedure you can minimize residual stenosis by using larger balloons and larger pressure's than we would've used with conventional carotid stent and of course there is not one patient that this can be systematically achieved with different types of plaques
different types of protection systems and different patient morphologies Fact # 7 is that the level of procedural risk is the critical factor in decision making lets take asymptomatic carotid stenosis How does a thinking physician decide between
pharmacotherapy and intervention versus isolated pharmacotherapy. The critical factor is the risk of procedure. Part of the misunderstandings is the fact that we talk often of different populations This contemporary data the the vascular patients
are different from people that we see in the street Of coarse this is what we would like to have this is what we do not have, but we can apply and have been applying some of the plaque risk criteria Fact # 8 is that with the CGUARD system
you can achieve, systematically complication level of 1%, peri procedurally and in 30 days There is accumulating evidence from more than 10 critical studies. I would like to mention, Paradigm and Paradigm in-stent study because
this what we have been involved in. Our first 100 patient at 0.9% now in nearly 300 patients, the event rate is 1.2% and not only this is peri procedural and that by 30 days this low event rate. But also this is sustained through out
now up to 3 years This is our results at 36 months you can see note here, very normal also in-stent velocities so no signal of in-stent re stenosis, no more healing no more ISR signal. The outcome Difference
between the different stent types it is important to understand this will be driven by including high risk blocks and high risk patients I want to share with you this example you see a thrombus containing
a lesion so this patient is not a patient to be treated with a filter. This is not a patient to be treated with a conventional carotid stent but yes the patient can be treated endovascularly using MicroNet covered embolic prevention stent and this is
the final result. You can see that the thrombus is trapped behind the stent MicroNet and Final Fact there's more than that and this is the data that I am showing you for the first time today, there are unmet needs on other vascular territories
and CGUARD is perfectly fit, to meet some of those need. This is an example of a Thrombus containing a lesion in the iliac. This is the procedural result on your right, six months follow up angiogram. This is a subclavian with a lot of material here
again you can preform full endoovascular reconstruction look at the precession` of the osteo placement This is another iliac artery, you can see again endovascular reconstruction with normal 6 month follow up. This is another nasty iliac, again the result, acute result
and result in six months. This is another type of the problem a young man presented with non st, acute myocardial infarction you can see this VS grapht here has a very large diameter. It's not
fees able to address the native coronary issue here So this patient requires treatment, how to this patient: the reference diameter is 7.5 I treated this patient with overlapping CGUARD's This is the angio at 3 months , and this is the follow up at 6 months again
look at the precision of the osteo placement of the device ,it does behave like a balloon, expandable. Extending that respect, this highly calcific lesion. This is the problem with of new atherosclerosis in-stent re stenosis is wrongly perceived as
the proliferation of atheroscleroses tissue with conventional stents this can be the growth of the atherosclerotic plaque. This is the subclavian, this is an example of the carotid, the precise stent, 10 years down the line, symptomatic lesion here
This is not re stenosis this is in-stent re stenosis treated with CGUARD and I want to show you the final result at 2 years. I want to thank you for your attention. Say that also, there is the issue of aneurism that can be effectively addressed , Thank you
- [Dr. de Vries] Thank you for the kind introduction. These are my disclosures. It's why do endografts sometimes need additional fixation with EndoAnchors? Well first, patients with multiple hostile neck parameters still suffer a substantial risk for type I endoleak and endoleak related mortality.
The second reason is that our deployment accuracy of the endograft is not as good as we think. We reviewed 85 consecutive cases in our own hospital and we saw that mainly do the slope of the endograft in the aortic neck, we lose some important apposition,
especially in the outer curve. So the preoperative neck length is not the same as our post-EVAR seal. And the third reason is that some other techniques, like FEVAR do have their limitations and some people are declined because of the branch arteries.
There are also some physiological conditions which is are not good enough for FEVAR. And of course open surgery, well per definition is more invasive and also patients will sometimes have their aneurysm repaired by endovascular means. So EndoAnchors really creates the stability
of a surgical anastomosin shown by David Dietz, and it really rivals the migration resistant of a hand sewn anastomosis. Of the global Anchor registry is captured real-world usage of the EndoAnchors and nowadays 770 patients have been enrolled worldwide.
The Primary Arm represents the majority of the patients in the Anchor Registry, 437 patients in the patients in the Primary Arm. It's not exclusive the Anchor Registry for the Medtronic devices, but also the workhorses like Gore and the Zenith endograft.
Of the prophylactic arm, the patients treated without any endoleak it carries 314 patients in this data slide. And you can see that the majority of those patients will hostile neck parameters. It's true in 91 percentage of the patient cohort.
The median neck length is 11 plus millimeters and also conicity substantial in more than 40% of the cases. What about procedural success? It's high, it's almost 95%. You need an average of around 5.5 EndoAnchors and the time to implant those EndoAnchors is 15 minutes,
and of course there is a learning curve. Core Lab adjudicated outcome, the two years outcomes, there is no new type Ia endoleak in this cohort and no endograft migration. In the Kaplan-Meier Estimates, especially the freedom from
aneurysm related mortality is 98.4% and freedom from secondary procedures at two years timeframe is 92%. There are no serious adverse events related to the implantation of the EndoAnchors itself. No aneurysm rupture and the aneurysm-related mortality
is due to cardiopulmonary comorbidity and not due to aneurysm rupture itself. There's one patient with a surgical conversion in this cohort. And the short neck indication that are patients in the Primary, 70 patients,
only placed with an Endurant in combination with the EndoAnchors and in a prophylactic setting or a patients with a type Ia endoleak. But the median neck length is now less than seven millimeters, so really challenging necks
and also conicity is substantial. It's also a clinical challenging patients cohort. A lot of patients with notable comorbidities and what is important to mention, 17% are patients with symptomatic aneurysm and also one patient with a ruptured aneurysm.
And the well the main treatment is then for prophylactic use but also 21% of the patient do have type Ia endoleak. Procedural results are 31 minutes fluoro time, but only 17 minutes to implant the EndoAnchors. This is the one year outcome. I think it's excellent.
Only one patient with a type I endoleak and he needed a secondary intervention. We had two other patients with a secondary intervention but it was due to a false aneurysm in the groin and a distal extension. No conversion to open surgery and no ruptures.
What about the cost effectiveness? Well you have to consider, it's not only the device cost, but also the level of resource utilization, and also clinical outcomes. And when you compare the short neck cohort, here the 70 patients to the fenestrated IDE study,
there's a cost differential of more than 5,000 U.S. dollars in benefits of the use of the EndoAnchors in those short and hostiles necks. So we can conclude that the Endurant stent graft in combination with the EndoAnchors for short neck indication is easy to use.
It's an off the shelf solution. It gives greater flexibility versus the alternatives. There is no need for renal arterial catheterization and it's really efficient. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Veith for inviting again to this great meeting. It's my disclosures. Well, as we know and heard this meeting, there are some certain limitations of current EVAR (mumbles) anatomical procedure and economical reasons,
and I would like to present a relatively new device which may address current EVAR limitations with a simple low profile system, and basically, ALTURA consists of two parallel stent graft systems. ZEUS No Gate Cannulation is needed and unique features include D-shaped proximal stents
and suprarenal fixation. Multi-purpose (mumbles) possibilities as well, and the system of utilize 14 French delivery system. And as aortic components can be deployed offset to accommodate the offset renals, and then the limbs are also unique
because they're deployed retrograde from distal proximally, and this allows precise positioning, both proximally and distally. Well, as the ALTURA clinical experience includes the very first human implants as well as more recent case performed
with a fully commercial device, and a total of 90 patients with a AAA were enrolled between 2011 and 2015, and follow-ups are taken at 30 days, six months, and annually to five years, and this presentation gives a current status of follow-up, and our results with a 12-month follow-up were published earlier this year.
Our clinical data were collected in total of in 11 sites. It includes 90 patients. And you see here, the patient demographics and anatomy do a typical, which are typical for all EVAR patients and the mean follow-up was 2.7 years. And procedure of success was 99%.
Only one patient, one of the first patient was Gen1 was not implanted, and 50% patients were done percutaneously, and majority of them underwent regional or local anesthesia. So when you look into the results, we see that there was only one case of AAA ruptured,
which occurred at three years due to type II endoleak and sac enlargement as the patient, which refused treatment due to type II endoleak. And all other deaths are paired to no original causes, and two patients had device migration at two years. The same patients appear at three-year period,
and basically these were undersized grafts was sort of our learning curve, and there was no any migration later on. Four patients had type I endoleaks visible on CT, and read by independent committee between 30 days and one year.
None have required secondary treatment and have been no aneurysm enlargement observed. And at one year, not surprisingly for this kind of devices, there was 17% type to endoleaks, but only one patient required secondary procedure due significant sac expansion.
Well, wasn't, of course, what we saw, I expected majority of patients has had shrinkage. There was a four-year period. And this is a patient who was recorded with the type IA endoleak at 30 days, caused by the last calcified nodule,
as you he's here probably none of the other device would tolerate that, but the endoleak did not extended into into the sac and had a leak result spontaneously without sac enlargement through a four-year follow-up period, as we're seeing here. Well, here another patient with type IB endoleak,
due to (mumbles) generation was treated with coils and glue an extension with additional stent graft to external iliac artery. What's interesting was the device. Device can tolerate small distal aortas and five patients who were treated
with small distal aortas and the very first patient was not dilated enough and stents were not deployed, simultaneously causing some stenosis which was easily treated with PTA afterwards, so we learned but it's very great, unique feature to treat the small distal aortas for the device.
And of course, sensing what happening with them, septal endoleaks, because everybody being concerned what happening with that, and nevertheless, there were no septal endoleaks observed during the follow-up period. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to say this Novel Altura endograft concept has potential to play major role in mainstream EVAR cases and potential benefits include predictability, reposition ability to place the device very, very, very precisely, offset renals, to maximize use of the neck, and low profile
overcomes current and anatomic limitations like tortuous iliacs, narrow bifurcation or access vessels and no limbic inhalation is needed, and basically, I truly believe that this offers option for EVAR day surgery and ruptured aneurysms. Of course, first results are very encouraging.
We need more data. Thank you very much.
- Rifampin-soaked endografts for treating prosthetic graf y work? I have no conflicts of interest. Open surgery for mycotic aneurysms is not perfect. We know it's logical, but it has a morbidity mortality of at least 40% in the abdomen and higher in the chest.
Sick, old, infected patients do poorly with major open operations so endografts sound logical. However, the theoretical reasons not to use them is putting a prosthetic endograft in an infected aorta immediately gets infected. Not removing infected tissue creates
an abcess in the aorta outside the endgraft and of course you have to replace the aorta in aorto-enteric fistulas. So, case in point, saccular aneurysm treated with a TEVAR and two weeks later as fever and abdominal pain.
You start out like this, you put an EVAR inside you get an abcess. Ended up with an open ilio-celiac open thoraco with left heart bypass. Had to sew two arches together. But what about cases where you can't
or you shouldn't do open? For example, 44 year old IV drug user, recurrent staph aureus endocarditis, bacteremia, had a previous aorto-bifem which was occluded, iliac stents, many many laparotomies ending in short bowel syndrome and an ileostomy.
CT scan and a positive tag white cell scan shows this. It's two centimeters, it's okay, treat it with antibiotics. Unfortunately, 10 days later it looks like this, so open repair. So, we tried for hours to get into the abdomen. The abdomen was frozen and, ultimately,
we ended up going to endografts so I added rifampin to it, did an aorta union and a fem fem and it looked like this and I said well, we'll see what happens. She's going to die. Amazingly, at a year the sac had totally shrunk. I remind you she was on continuous treatment.
She had her heart replaced again for the second time and notice the difference between the stent at one year to the sac size. So adding rifampin to prosthetic Dacron was first described in the late 1980's and inhibits growth in vivo and in vitro.
So I used the same concentration of 60 milligrams per milliliter. That's three amps of 600, 30 CC's water injected into the sheath. We published this awhile back. You can go straight into the sheath in a Cook.
Looks like this, or you can pre deploy a bit of little Medtronic and sort of trickle it in with an angiocatheter. So the idea that endografts in infected aortas immediately become infected, make it worse. I don't think it's true.
It may be false. What about aorto-enteric fistulas? This person showed up 63 year old hemorrhagic shock, previous Dacron patch, angioplasty to the aorta a few years ago, aorto-duodenal fistula not subtle. Nice little Hiroshima sign
and occluded bilateral external iliac arteries. Her abdomen looked like this. Multiple abdominal hernias, bowel resections, and had a skin graft on the bowel. Clearly this was the option. I'm not going to tell you how I magically got in there
but let's just leave it at that I got an endograft in there, rifampin soaked, sealed the hole and then I put her on TPN. So the idea that you have to resect and bypass, I'll get back to her soon, I think it's false. You don't necessarily have to do it every time. What about aorto-esophageal hemorrhagic shock, hematemesis?
Notice the laryng and esophageus of the contrast, real deal fistula. Put some TEVARs in there, and the idea was to temporize and to do a definitive repair knowing that we wouldn't get away with it. On post update nine, we did a cervical esophagostomy
and diverted the esophagus with the idea that maybe he could heal for a little while. He went home, we were going to repair him later, but of course he came back with fever, malaise, and of course gas around the aneurysm and we ended up having to fix him open.
So the problem with aorto-enteric fistulas is when you put an endograft in them it's sort of like a little boomerang. You get to throw them out and it's nice and it sails around but in the end you have to catch it. So, in the long term the lady I showed you before,
a year and a half later she came back with a retroperitoneal abscess. However, she was in much better shape. She wasn't bleeding to death, she'd lost weight, she'd quit smoking. She got an ax-bi-fem, open resection,
gastrojejunostomy and she's at home. So, I think the idea's, I think it's false but maybe realistically what it is, is that eventually if you do aorto-enteric fistulas you're going to have to do something and maybe if you don't remove the infection
it may make it worse. So in conclusion, endografts for mycotic aneurysms, they do save lives. I think you should use them liberally for bad cases. It could be a bad patient, a bad aorta, or bad presentation. Treat it with antibiotics as long as possible
before you put the endograft in and here's the voodoo, 60 milligrams per mil of rifampin. Don't just put in there, put it in with some semblance of science behind it, put it on Dacron, it may even lead to complete resolution. And I've also added trans-lumbar thoracic pigtail drains
in patients that I literally cannot ever want to go back in. Put 'em in for ten days wash it out. TPN on aorto-enterics for a month, voodoo, I agree, and I use antibiotics for life. Have a good plan B because it may come back in two weeks or two years, deploy them low
or cut out the super renal fixations so you can take them out a little easier. Thank you.
- [Presenter] Thank you very much. This is Jordan. It's my pleasure to share this panel with endoanchors believers, I'm one of them. So, there's my disclosures. The scope of the problem about the proximal migration starts
in order to think about the durability of thoracic endografting, because it still is a concern. The cranial migration from the distal attachment is part of this particular concern, especially when the distal neck length is less than three centimeter.
I think this is a under-reported complication in these areas. That is, what has happened, after some kind of follow-up, after four years follow-up, the distal part of the aorta, or the distal part of the endograft is dis-attached from the primary landing zone.
Because all the forces in the ascending thoracic aorta acting in the up cranial fashion. So when you are virtually sure there some kind of migration rate of two years but also have some kind of cranial migration from the distal part of the aorta at the one year is 1.2%
for the VALOR trial and 1% in one year also for the TX2 trial. In our experience, before 2006, for distal neck length, between 1.5 to 3 centimeter in length, 60% of cranial migration rate was registered at five years follow-up. So what's a lot of percent about that we try to perform
a different kind of approach for those particular short or no short, nice distal neck of thoracic aorta. So cranial migration as previously mentioned is under-reported. The upside for the abdominal aorta with the forces acting in the downstream anteriorly in the thoracic one is
posteriorly a cranial and also a cranial migration course. And this kind of phenomenon kind of course in the long run follow-up. These connections and also cranial migration. About the preventative actions there are different kind of creative alternative in order to prevent that,
but let me to focalize my attention and your attention to endoanchors philosophy that is part of our current approach. For a regular neck of more than three centimeters we can use regular endograft but sometimes when it's not so regular it's not so straight, we prefer to use in combination
with endoanchors. When you have a regular straight but between 1.5 and 3 centimeter we prefer to use distal scalloped endograft plus endoanchors as you cam see here. That is what the speakers talk about very extensively but this is just a case in order to see
what happened after two years follow-up in this lady when it has this distal type one endolink we apply the endoanchors and after three years the endoanchors remain in the same position, as you can see here, without any kind of further complications.
So another example, in combination with scalloped devices, scalloped thoracic endograft, just in order to be sure, that the movement in the distal part doesn't occur or even weaken over time. For sure, when you have very short neck length,
that means less than 1.5 centimeter, then we need to switch to another kind of solution like this fenestrated or branched endograft, like you can see here in this example. So in summary, the durability of thoracic endografting remains a concern when cranial migration is a consequence
of biomechanical forces of the thoracic aorta and it is under-reported. The proximal and distal necks deserve equal attention. And many different approaches have been suggested to avoid cranial migration. And endoanchors in combination with the scalloped,
fenestrations and branched endografts should be applied more often. Thank you very much.
- Thank you friends who have invited me again. I have nothing to disclose. And we already have published that as far as the MFM could be assumed safe and effective for thoracoabdominal aneurysm when used according to the instruction for use at one, three, and four years. Now, the question I'm going to treat now,
is there a place for the MFM? Since 2008, there were more than 110 paper published and more than 3500 patient treated. 9 percent of which amongst the total of published papers relating the use of the MFM for aortic dissections. So, we went back to our first patients.
It was a 40 year old male Jehovah Witness that I operated in 2003 of Type A dissection and repair with the MFM in 2010 because he had 11 centimeter false aneurysm. Due to his dissection, this patient was last to follow up because he was taking care full time off of
his severe debilitated son. When we checked him, the aneurysm seven years later shrunk from 11 to 4 centimeters wide. And he's doing perfectly well. Then the first patient we treated seven years ago, same patient with Professor Chocron
Type A dissection dissection repair in 2006. Type B treated with MFM in 2010. We already published that at one year that the patient was doing fine. But now, at three and seven years, the patient was totally cured.
The left renal artery was perfused retrogradely by aspiration. That's a principle that has been described through the left iliac artery. So what's next? Next there was this registry
that has been published and out of 38 patients 12 months follow up, there were no paraplegia, no stroke, no renal impairment, and no visceral insult. And at 12 month the results looked superior
to INSTEAD, IRAD and ABSORB studies. This is the most important slide to us because when you look at the results of this registry, we had 2.6 percent mortality at 30 days versus 11 30 and 30.7 no paraplegia, no renal failure, and no stroke vessel
13 to 12.5. 33 and 34 and 13 and 11.8 percent. With a positive aortic remodeling occurring over time with diminishing the true lumen increasing the true lumen and increasing the false lumen.
And so the next time, the next step, was to design an international, multicenter, prospective, non-randomized study. To treat, to use the MFM, to treat the chronic type B aortic dissection. So out of 22 patients to date,
we had mainly type B and one type A with no dissection, no paraplegia, no stroke, no renal impairment, no loss of branch patency, no rupture, no device failure, with an increase in true lumen and decrease in false lumen that was true at discharge.
That was true at one, three, and six and 12 month. And in regards with the branch occluded from the parts or the branches were maintained patent at 12 and all along those studies. So, of course these results need to be confirmed in a larger series and at longer follow up,
yet the MFM seems to induce positive aortic remodeling, is able to keep all branches patent during follow-up, has been used safely in chronic, acute, and subacute type B and one type A dissection as well. When we think about type B dissection, it is not a benign disease.
It carries at 20 percent when it's complicated mortality by day 2 and 25 percent by day 30. 30 percent of aortic dissection are complicated, with only 50 percent survival in hospital. So, TEVAR induces positive aortic remodeling, but still causes a significant 30 day mortality,
paraplegia event, and renal failure and stroke. And the MFM has stabilized decreased the false lumen and increase the true lumen. Keeps all the branch patent, favorize positive aortic remodeling. So based on these data, ladies and gentleman,
we suggest that the MFM repair should be considered for patients with aortic dissection. Thank you very much.
- Yeah, thank you very much. Unfortunately Dierk Scheinert couldn't come, so thankfully he's allowed me here to take this presentation over so thanks a lot for this. So these are the latest 5-year results of the INCRAFT device from Cordis Devices currently under FDA review not yet approved
in the US, but in Europe. These are the conflict of interests, this is (mumbles). So this device is a three-piece modular system, low porosity polyester. You can bilaterally in-situ length adjust it up to 3cm. And the main feature I think with this device
is it's a low-profile device, 13 Fr inside 14 Fr outside except the biggest body which has an outer diameter of 16 Fr. The innovation study that was 60 patients, you can see here some objectives. So the question was whether you could deploy it
accurately where you wanted to have it without any type I, III, and IV endoleaks and of course there were also some other primary and secondary endpoints and again follow-up had to be done up to five years. This is a busy slide just showing you,
please look to the right side, to show you that there were quite some violations of the recommendations in which kinds of anatomies to implant this craft. Here for example neck lengths less than 10mm, here were some patients implanted.
Also angulations over 60 degrees, three patients, there were some thrombus in the neck, and here you can see aortic bifurcation smaller than 18mm, there were quite some patients and especially the iliac sealing length was shorter than 10mm in nearly 50% of the patients
and also the diameter of the external iliac arteries were nearly 50% lower than 7mm. Here the freedom from endoleaks type I was one at 30 days which has been resolved and another one developed after 30 days which also has been involved. No type III.
Stent graft patency after 30 days also 100% and otherwise also no other adverse events with this device at thirty days. So to answer the question with this device to the first question of (mumbles) will lighter fabrics and stent material decrease EVAR durability?
Will there be more endoleaks I, III, or IV? You can see here the long-term data so no Ia endoleak developed over four and five years, there was one Ib endoleak which developed at four years which also was apparent at five years. No type III endoleak.
One graft patency failure with a (mumbles) occlusion here at four years which also was here at five years. No migration, one fraction of the (mumbles) proximal third graft, otherwise it was very safe. You can see here once again the Kaplan-Meier curve for type I endoleaks through five years here
with type Ib here later on, and this is the patency Kaplan-Meier curve also showing here the good patency at five years, and this is freedom from second large vent. Here I don't have any data whether this is type II endoleak or not so this still has to be reported and clarified.
So to conclude the INCRAFT performed well on long-term while overcoming more difficult access morphologies. The endograft can be utilized in patients with demanding access and vessel morphology, and there are more studies ongoing.
There is one in the US and Japan where we wait for long-term data, 190 patients and also from Europe's 180 patients also there we still wait for long-term data. Thank you.
- Speaking about F/EVAR and Ch/EVAR, and try to prove that the evidence of Ch/EVAR is solid, especially in some circumstances also better than the evidence about F/EVAR. Well, let's try to define this title. Durability of Ch/EVAR is solid if the procedure is done right.
And I think this is very, very crucial. We heard and we know the PERICLES Registry tried to evaluate this technique, collecting the worldwide experience from 13 US and European university centers, and published in annals of surgery.
And also, the PROTAGORAS study focused exactly on the performance of the Endurant device in order to avoid this heterogeneity which we had in the study (mumbling) published literature up to now. Focusing exactly on the Endurant device
in combination with balloon expandable covered stent. And based on these two registries and studies, we identified four key points, four key factors, which we'd like to give you as take home message in context to have the Ch/EVAR technique as solid procedure. So, we learned that the technique performs very well
if we use the technique for single or maximum double chimney grafts. We highlighted how important it is for this technique to use suitable combinations between aortic stent-graft and chimney devices. And we learned also, how important is the oversizing.
We have to have enough fabric material to wrap up the chimney grafts of 30% of the aortic stent-grafts. And in this context, we highlighted also the importance of creating a new sealing zone of 20 millimeter in order to have durable results.
Which is also very important is to know when we should probably avoid to perform the technique, and I would like also to highlight these points. So, we learned in case of excessive thrombus formation in the thoracic, especially also LSA, we have to be very, very careful with this technique,
because of course, we have the risk of cerebral vascular events. We learned also that performance of this technique in a neck diameter of more than 30 millimeter is associated with high risk of Type 1A endoleaks, which will be persistent, and which probably
lead to failure of the treatment. Which also learned is to evaluate very carefully the morphology of the renal arteries, especially focus of the calcification of the stenosis, and also of the diameter. And last but not least, it's very important to
have access to the suitable materials for renal cannulations, and also experience. So, if we consider these key points of doing and not doing chimneys, I think we have a very good base to have durable and good results over the time. And we have seen that.
You saw it very nicely (mumbling) the changes of the diameter pre and postoperative, but you forgotten to highlight that there was highly significant in the PERICLES and in the PROTAGORAS Registry. Also, what we have seen is that
more than 90% of the patients had stable or shrinkage of the sac after a CT follow up of two years. And here's a very nice overview of the Kaplan-Meier curves, highlighting that the technique performs very well in this specific combination of the Endurant devices,
abdominal device, and abdominal chimney grafts like the Advanta. Having a very nice chimney graft patency of almost 96%, and a freedom from chimney graft later interventions of 93%. Very important is also if we create these very good sealing zone of two centimeters.
We have a very, very low incidence of new Type 1A endoleaks needed reintervention. And here is an example of a case which had a very short sealing after the previous treatment with chimney for the left renal artery, and over the time was necessary to extend the sealing zone,
creating these durable solution and transformating from single to triple chimney, as we can see here. So, this is very important to know and to highlight. In context of the better or not better for F/EVAR, we can see now the results, and we've compared with meta analysis of F/EVAR.
We see that the results are similar. Keeping in mind also that in F/EVAR, we involve the SMA either as scallop or as bridging device, and we don't have evidence about the SMA outcomes and the SMA patency because most of the patient probably who will die, and will not perform autopsy
for each patient if it has an SMA occlusion or not, so I believe it is underestimated the really incidence of survival after F/EVAR. And also, regarding the patency, we have also in this context, similar results after chimney compared to the patency of the bridging device after F/EVAR.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we've considered these key points. We can achieve very good results performing Ch/EVAR, having as a solid and valuable procedure for our patients. Thank you very much.
- Thanks Stephan, yes I just want to give you five tips and tricks that I've learnt with my experience to this technique, and also then I'll present some results from the Ascend International Trials. I have an obvious disclosure that is important to show.
So, I do think that custom-made devices or phenostate graphs are the gold standard in this area of the difficult neck to aneurysm, but there are constraints with it, both financially and atomically, and of course its not the perfect solution
so we still need to strive to find better solutions for patients and indeed an off the shelf solution is very useful especially in emergency situations. I think we're all quite surprised by the outcomes from parallel grafts.
I certainly, when I saw this originally thought this was never going to work but actually, the results from standard evar with chimneys are really quite good. There is however always the potential for gutter endoleaks when aligning
parallel grafts with conventional EVAR stents which are not really designed for this purpose. So, endovascular sealing with parallel grafts offers a solution to this with the prevention potentially of gutter endoleaks because the polymus bag will seal alongside
the parallel grafts. And in practice this works quite well so you can position two, three or even four parallel grafts alongside the nellix sealing device to give yourself a really good seal and an example is shown here on the CT.
So tips for getting good outcomes from this, well the first is an obvious one, but its to plan very carefully, so do think you need to be very cautious in your planning of these with regard to multiple levels of the technique
including access, the type, length, and the nature of the parallel grafts you're going to use. I'll talk a bit more about the neck lengths but aneurysm lengths as well because there are some restraints with the
nellix device in this regard. You need to take very carefully about seal both proximally and distally and I do think you need to do this in a hybrid theater with experienced operators. I mentioned neck lengths and my Tip two is
you have to not compromise on neck quality and neck length. So you need straight healthy aorta of at least 15mm, of less than 30 diameter and a low thrombus burden. If you do compromise you'll see situations as the one on the photograph shows
where you get migration stents so you must not compromise on the quality and length of your aortic neck and if that means doing more chimneys, do it that's not a major problem but if you compromise on neck,
you will have problems. I mentioned the parallel grafts, again this is part of the planning but we use balloon expandable stents of a reasonable length to ensure that you get at least a centimeter into each of the branches
and you have to be careful to position these above the polymer bags so that they don't become constrained by the polymer bags from the nellix device. You have to be very careful when positioning these so the tip four is watch the parallax in
two different angles to be sure, as in the case here, that you line up all your stents appropriately and that you don't get crushing of any of the individual stents. So parallax is vital. And th
ltiple levels of redundancy in the nellix system which you can use to your advantage to ensure you get a good seal. So here's an example where the bags you can see are not entirely filled using the primary fill.
And it is quite difficult because often you get polymer pressures that are slightly erroneous in the endo bags. So use the redundancy including what's called the secondary fill of these bags so you can adequately fill the bags
right up into the aortic neck and ensure a very good proximal seal. So what are the results, well this is the post-market registry of Ch-EVAS this is an open-label study with no screening and I'll just show you a few slides of the data
on 154 de-novo procedures, which are a combination of single, double triple, and even quadruple chimneys. And if we look firstly at outcomes at 30 days the outcomes are good, that you'd expect in these difficult anatomies,
so 2.6% mortality and stroke, and just two cases of temporary renal failure. And if we look out 12 months, the freedom from aneurysm related and all cause mortality is favorable and comparable with any of the other endovascular techniques
in these difficult anatomies, in the upper 90 percents. And endoleak rates, you pretty much eradicate type two and type three endoleaks, but remember this is only 12 months, and very low levels of type one endoleak
and its really the type one endoleaks that are difficult to fix and if you ensure that proximal neck is adequate this shouldn't occur. And finally just secondary interventions, again this is out 12 months. Secondary Interventions are low and again
I think with the tips that I've shown you, you can reduce this to an absolute minimum. So this does offer an off the shelf alternative I don't think in any way this is to match the current gold standard which to me is the custom-made devices, but it's a very useful
adjunct to the techniques we have, and again provides that off the shelf solution which in emergencies and urgent cases is essential. Don't compromise on your neck, the outcomes I think, in this group are promising, but of course, the long term durability is
absolutely essential so it's important we follow these patients out to at least 5 years. Thank you.
- Yeah, thanks very much. Well, we've already heard that things were going well with the two first EVAS trials in the U.S and Europe predominantly, at one year and then we've seen those events described by both Jeff and Matt at two years. Root cause analysis refined IFU
and then prospectively studying this in the EVAS2 trial in the U.S but also in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific, in the Forward2 trial. I'm going to give you a little bit of an update. As we know there have been some concerning reports on retrospective reviews of experience in the early term,
and we've all heard about the details of the revised IFU, and the useful outcomes or grossly improved outcomes we can expect at two years and now Jeff has just told us at three years. Sorry, we'll just go back. So, as Matt mentioned, there have been several publications
that have retrospectively applied the IFU to center's experience to see if they could replicate the good outcomes that were achieved in the retrospective analysis of the IDE trial. Certainly, what is shown is that if you apply the revised IFU, you significantly reduce
patient applicability with this particular device. It has to be acknowledged that many of the procedures that were performed in these publications were performed, a) with a device that's different to the one that we're now going to use, and b) with a procedure that was very different.
It probably impacts on outcomes. I think the major difference with what we'll call the new Nellix device, is that it has the endobag attached firmly, not only to the top of the stent, but also at the bottom. And in our experience this attachment at the bottom
has had a particular impact on aneurysm sac size. The procedure has also evolved, and the procedure now involves steps such as unfurling of the endobags before stent deployment, and also pre-fill of the endobags with saline prior to filling with the polymer,
as well as the importance, as Matt mentioned, of accurately deploying and using all of the infrenal neck and the iliac sealing zones. We also performed a retrospective analysis of our experience in consecutive cases at Aukland Hospital with considerably longer follow-up.
And you can see that the patients on the modified IFU had a significantly different and improved freedom from type 1A endoleak, and also the composite end point of type one endoleak, sac expansion, and freedom from reintervention was highly significantly improved.
So that's a little bit different to the experience reported, possibly because we've been applying the optimized technique and had access to the new Nellix device for some time. So EVAS FORWARD 2 is being performed in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region.
A 300-patient confirmatory trial with standard parameters. This is the very first case that was done. We did this in Aukland, and you can see something we weren't observing with the earlier Nellix device without the distal seal. We're seeing some cases with significant sac shrinkage.
You can see the earlier, or interim results, I'm just presenting for the first time here today from the FORWARD 2 trial. A very high freedom from type 1A endoleak, and freedom from reintervention, as of July 2018. Just out of interest, we also did a retrospective review
of patients in our own center that has had at least one year of follow-up using the new Nellix device with optimized procedures to see what the outcome would be, and you can see at one year that there's no type one endoleaks. Impressively, absolutely no migration.
We have seen at two years a couple of patients that had some sac growth. Even on IFU we felt that they had degeneration of their iliac arteries with loss of seal. Here you can see a case where you can see the dramatic sac shrinkage we're now seeing
in some cases, and this is the one where we saw some sac growth where we ended up doing a second reintervention to extend the distal seal. Of course, the real driver for us to continue with the Nellix and EVAS technology is this suggestive but very impressive freedom
from all cause in cardiovascular mortality. That really is driving us to use this technology in our patients. So in conclusion, we'll know that, in fact, there's ongoing evolution of this technology, and we're looking forward to being involved
in next generation EVAS that will follow the important EVAS2 and EVAS FORWARD trials sometime later in 2019. Thanks very much. (applause)
- Thank you very much Germano. Thanks to Dr. Veith for inviting us and allowing us to present this here. This is work that we've done in a group in Hamburg together with Nikolaos Tsilimparis. And these are my disclosures. It's been now, more than 15 years ago
that branched endografting has been introduced as a technique for thoracoabdominal aneurysms. And for about five years we have access to the T-Branch device as we've learned from the presentations before. And as we heard from Mark Farber
there's more companies going into that space. In Europe it's also the JOTEC company, which is CryoLife now, and we will, I believe, see more companies going into this space. So, about access, we've been discussing in the past
very much about whether right or left side is the better, or safer, access for branched TEVAR, and at that moment in this publication from our center, we phrased this, the unavoidable use of an upper extremity access. We show you that we've been believing that it's unavoidable.
But is it really unavoidable? In some cases I believe it should be avoided, because we have aortic branch vessels that are occluded, thrombotic, we have AV-fistulas and LIMA Bypasses that we may risk. And we may have antegrade branches
from previous artery repair which we would judge as almost a no antegrade access option here. So what can we do in those cases? And furthermore, upper extremity access has complications and it comes at a cost.
Not only hematoma and nerve damage, plexus damage at the access site, but also stroke is reported being a complication of arm access. We've looked into our experience from two years and found that about 5% of patients needed
some sort of re-operations from complications of upper extremity access, and this is just one of the more severe complications we had with a brachial on the stick due to too small access vessels. Another point is radiation.
Because radiation also as we've shown here, this is unpublished data, is significantly higher if a operator stands at the arm compared to standing at the groin. Is it really unavoidable? If we think about this as our traditional access,
but how about this? I know this has been used a lot in fenestrated endografting. But we started applying this technology also for branched endografting to avoid upper extremity access. First case that we did was a patient
that had an irregular orifice of the right renal artery and it was only one branch that we didn't want to go through all the hassle with upper extremity access. You see here, steerable sheath. You can very well attach that artery without upper extremity access.
Next case, for fenestrated and branched, then have one branch difficult celiac artery, very small stenotic orifice from a large aneurism, but it was attachable from the groin, a good result. Next case, two branches, two fenestrations. As you can imagine,
it also went well for the SMA and for the celiac with a good result without the need of touching arm, without the need going through the arch. This is a more severe one. This is a redo after EVAR patient with an occluded one-sided iliac lack
and a crossover bypass. This is the SMA. This is the right renal artery. You see that we were able to complete this repair from one access side alone, doing a full four-branch thoracoabdominal repair using steerable sheaths.
This series has been recently published as a case series, but we have extended on that experience. I can tell you in all patients that we tried to do it, it was possible to avoid the upper extremity access. Concluding: Endovascular repair has matured over years
and can, in my view, be considered gold-standard for thoracoabdominal repair. Upper extremity access is avoidable if possible. Success rate of femoral access with steerable sheath is safe. And I thank you very much for your attention.
- Dear chairman, dear colleagues and friends, it's my pleasure to be again with you. Nothing to declare. In our experience of CCSVI and angioplasty we have more than 1,300 patients with different neurological disorders. Not only MS, but also migraine,
lateral amyotrophic sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, left sided amaurosis. We published our data with an emphasis on the safety of the procedure. We had virtually zero percent of serious complication. What about the clinical improvement?
In fact, we noticed function improvement in more than 62.5% of these patients. And in fact, the group of Pierfrancesco Veroux showed similar between 50 and 60% of the patients restoring the normal blood venous flow. In fact, in their work was shown that the type
of anatomic disturbance, anatomic feature is very important predictor if the flow will be restored by the simple PTA. And the most important into the brave dream trial was also that, in fact, the restoration of the flow was achieved in around 70% of the patients.
And exactly in these 70% of the patients with restored flow like Paulo emphasized already, there were lesion, 91% of them were lesion-free on the MRI, and 77% of them were lesion-free on the six-month. We performed a substudy regarding the hypercapnia
and hypoxaemia of the jugular veins in the CCSVI-positive patients. And what we have described in this 178 patients with CCSVI and 50 healthy control group. In fact, we established that the patients CCSVI-positive the venous sample by the jugular veins was typical
with hypercapnia and hypoxaemia in desaturation, huge desaturation with improvement after the balloon angioplasty in all three parameters. What was the reason for that? In fact, in nine patients of our group we examined, the perfusion, the nuclear perfusion of the brain
before and after the treatment. I'm here presenting non-positive for MS young patient without MRI demyelization. And but on the brain perfusion he had deep hyperperfusion on the left side, and the patient was complaining with deep fatigue.
And we saw practically full occlusion of the enominate vein. And after the recanalization using first coronary and after it peripheral balloons, and in this particular case we had to stent finally. And you see still persistence of a huge crossover collateral even after ballooning.
But after stenting we saw practically full restoration of the flow. You see in less than three to four seconds it was very interesting to see on the perfusion imaging, nuclear perfusion, full restoration of the flow of this gentleman.
So this is very important to emphasize that there is direct relationship between the blood gas disturbances on the brain level, and demyelinization process. What about the PTA? It's probably not the optimal treatment.
We have to establish reliable clinical and anatomical predictors for vascular and clinical success in order to answer the important questions: who will be vascular responders, or MRI responders, and finally the clinical responders in this group of patients?
And concluding, ladies and gentlemen, the CCSVI is a real vascular pathologic entity and is probably a trigger for more than one neurologic degenerative disorder. Endovascular treatment, balloon, PTA, and stenting of CCSVI is feasible and safe.
Methods and strategies improving the early and late patency rate have to be elaborated because the good clinical result is strongly dependent on the vascular patency and flow restoration. And thank you very much for your attention.
- Well, if fenestrated EVAR is so great, why isn't everyone doing it? And I would submit it has to do with the planning. If you have a perfectly planned procedure, the procedure will go perfectly. These are my disclosures, which are directly related to this presentation.
This is a case that was planned using AortaFit software and it was a case that we identified as being a perfect plan. We went back and looked at our fellow and resident in our training program who we trained to plan these procedures and asked them to plan this case.
Our first trainee submitted the following plan. And when we line up the SMA, we lose the left renal on this plan. We then asked our fellow to plan the case and she provided this plan.
When we line up the SMA on this case we lose the right renal. So, it tells us that there is tremendous variability in human planning. We participate in the VQI in the Pacific Northwest Regional group,
and we perform 88% of the complex EVAR in our region. And we have the lowest procedure times, the lowest estimated blood loss compared to the rest of the nation, the lowest in post-operative complications, excluding death, and the lowest in composite outcomes to include major cardiac events.
We also have the highest rate of return of our patients to a pre-surgical care setting. So how have we achieved this? Using AortaFit software, we are able to take a standard DICOM data set of a juxtarenal aneurysm patient and create a volume rendering.
We can then display the images in an axial, sagittal, and coronal view for the user. All that the user needs to do is to identify the target vessels and to plant seed points into those target vessels, the target vessels that are selected to be preserved.
What is then output from the software is a segmentation. And you see the segmented image here, but the magic of the software is that it does the automatic adjustment of the centerline using polynomial equations and goodness of fit. We can superimpose 2D slices over this to check
our orientation of the fenestrations and look at the plugs. And what's output is a graft plan that can either be given to the physician in the form of a 3D printed template or placed on the back of a manufacturing line. Sorry. So, for the physician, an STL file can be produced
to create a 3D printed template to create a physician-modified endograft, but what we really want is to be able to provide the manufacturer with a detailed plan using this software. This is an example of a Terumo Aortic TREO device. We've now done 37 of these cases.
This is a graft that has wide amplitude stents and a large amount of real estate for fenestration. So you can see inserting this 3D printed template that was created using AortaFit software. We can rotate this graft, move it in and out to find the sweet spot
for those fenestrations, and to create a truly customized device for the patient. We then, all that we have to do at that point is to line up the SMA. So you can see, on the panel on the left, we do our first aortogram
prior to deploying the stent graft. We deploy that SMA fenestration, the renals automatically align. We then select our renal arteries and then our fellows know that it's time to call for the next patient because the procedure is essentially done at that point.
This is a cone beam CT of that very first patient that I showed you, showing perfect alignment of all of the fenestrations and target vessels. And here's a 30-day follow-up CT scan, that if you pay attention and look carefully, you can see that all of the fenestrations
are perfectly aligned. There's about four centimeters of seals on length, and lack of endoleak and a successful result in this patient. This, fortunately, is published in this month's Journal of Vascular Surgery as an editor's choice.
And in summary, the long-term durability of fenestrated EVAR has been established, but planning and procedural complexity limits widespread adoption. Automated planning software, we believe, provides efficient and accurate graft plans for the physician
or endograft manufacturer. Well-planned grafts simplify branch access and the procedure and I think will increase fenestrated EVAR utilization. And simplified FEVAR may benefit the majority of patients harboring juxtarenal aneurysms and even standard infrarenal aneurysms and may be the best therapeutic option.
- [Instructor] Thank you very much. So, you saw some of the issues that our, oh, this is the slightest cut, but that's okay. Some of the issues that we've seen with these percutaneous mechanical devices, and, back in the 90's, and perhaps even more than a decade ago, there were a lot of these.
And this space gets hot and cold, and one of the problems is that the level of evidence for doing these is very low, and when it is done, it wasn't done well. And this is a nice registry, a lot of patients enrolled, unfortunately we didn't learn
what we had to learn from these types of registries, because of just the study wasn't done well. So the level of evidence is low, and when we did have them, they didn't really work. And you saw some of the problems, that these devices can cause.
And here's another problem that wasn't discussed. You can see the DVT, iliofemoral DVT in here, and a device is pushed a few times up and down, and sort of aspiration, a Bertoulli, that type of thing. And this looks, oh wow, well this looks good,
maybe the thing is working, except all the clot is up here. So, these devices tend to push the clot around. So the issue is, enter now more recently, these are some of the more recent ones. Note that the AngioVac is not here, I don't consider that a practical thrombectomy device,
and so, it's not here. So, we're going to be talking about JETi. This is a system that is an aspiration system with a jet that comes inside the catheter, therefore the clot is engaged and pulled in and broken down by the jet, therefore there's no hemolysis.
And this demonstrated in this case, which is acute and chronic 17 year old multiple DVTs in the past, the iliofemoral segments are stented, as you can see here, this segment is somewhat fresh clot but these, as you can see, are subacute clot. Look at this, so the system now is designed
for over the wire, but for DVT you can use it without the wire, because it works a lot better. As you can see it can really aspirate the clot, in before your eyes. Now this I have passed the device in here once, and you can see the fresh clot is gone,
we have some residual debris in there, we have not established flow yet, and then I turn the device on... and it pulls the whole thing in, okay? So, very powerful aspiration method. So, and as you can see here, we don't have
a flow establish, outflow established yet. Therefore, when you turn it on, you have a vacuum created right here, and so this tells you how strongly this device can aspirate and work. And this isn't on the table.
After a pass here, two passes here, some residual clot in here, obviously there's residual clot there. So we pass it around these areas once more, and this segment obviously needs to get stented and on the table, re-establish antegrade flow. Since May, we've had 19 patients treated, most of them DVT.
And, based on our assessment, 17 of the 19 patients at a total time of 90 minutes on the table, had better than 90% clot retrieve. We have 30-day patency data on only 16 of those patients, because this is really since this May. And 15 of those were open, one re-thrombosed
and we had to retrieve again. Conclusion, so preliminary experience indicates that this is an effective device. There were no safety issues, we don't see any hemolysis, we don't see any pushing around of the clot, but there is a learning curve to it,
and for best application, thank you.
- Sam, Louis, thank you very much. I also kind of reduced the title to make it fit in a slide. Those are my disclosures. We've switched to using a hybrid room routinely a couple of years ago and what happened then is that we started using 3D imaging
to guide us during the procedure using a fusion overlay. Obviously this was a huge benefit but the biggest benefit was actually 3D imaging at the end of the procedure so rather than doing an AP fluoro run, we would do a 3D acquisition in a cone beam CT
and have those reconstructions available to check technical success and to fix any issues. We've been using this technique to perform translumbar type 2 endoleak treatment and what we do is we do a cone beam CT non contrast and we fuse the pre-op CT on top of this cone beam CT
and it's actually quite easy to do because you can do it with the spine but also obviously with the endograft so it's a registration on the graft on top of the endograft and then the software is really straightforward. You just need to define a target in the middle
of the endoleak. You need to define where you want to puncture the skin and then the system will automatically generate to you a bull-eye view which is a view where you puncture the back of the patient and the progression view you obviously see the needle
go all the way to your target. And what is interesting is that if you reach the target and if you don't have a backflow so you're not in the endoleak, you have this stereo 3D software which is interesting because you do two lateral fluoro runs
and then you check the position of the needle and then it shows you on the pre-op CT where you are. So here in this specific patient, I didn't advance the needle far enough. I was still in the aortic wall,
that's why I didn't get backflow so I just slightly advanced the needle and I got backflow and I could finish the embolization by injecting contrast, close and then ONYX to completely exclude this type 2 endoleak. So now let's go to our focus today is fenestrated endograft.
You see this patient that were treated with a fenestration and branches. You can see that the selective angio in the left renal looks really good but if on the cone beam CT at the end of the procedure we actually had a kink on the left renal stent
so because I had depicted it right away at the end of the procedure I could fix it right away so this is not a secondary procedure. This is done during the index procedure so I'll go directly to what we did is we reinflated a ballon,
we re-fed the balloon and then had a nice result but what happen if you actually fail to catheterize? This was the case in this patient. You see the left renal stent is completely collapsed. I never managed to get a wire from the aortic lumen and back into the renal artery
so we position the patient in the lateral position, did a cone beam CT and used the same software so the target is now the renal artery just distal to this crushed renal stent and we punctured this patient back in the target and so you can see is right here
and you can see that the puncturing the back. We've reached the renal artery, pushed a wire through the stent now in the artery lumen and snared the wire and over this through and through wire coming out from the back we managed
to reopen this kinked left renal stent. You can see here the result from this procedure and this was published a couple of years, two years ago. Now another example, you can see here the workflow. I'm actually advancing the needle in the back
of the patient, looking at the screen and you can see in this patient that had a longer renal stent I actually punctured the renal stent right away because at the end of the procedure I positioned another covered stent inside
to exclude this puncture site and then, oops sorry, and then, can we go to the, yeah great thank you. And then I advance the wire again through this kinked renal stent into the endograft lumen and this is a snare from the groin
and I got the wire out from the groin. So you see the wire is coming from the back of the patient here, white arrow, to the groin, red arrow and this is the same patient another view and over this through and through wire
we manged to re advance and reopen this stent and we actually kinked the stent by getting the system of branched endograft through a previous fenestrated repair and fortunately my fellow told me at the end of the procedure we should check the FEVAR
with a cone beam CT and this is how we depicted this kink. So take home message, it's a very easy, straightforward workflow. It's a dedicated workflow that we use for type 2 endoleak embolization. We have this intermediate assessment with Stereo 3D
that helps us to check where we are so with 3D imaging after the learning curve it's become routine and we have new workflows like this way of salvaging a kinked renal stent. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thanks, Stefan and Frank for having me back again this year. These are my disclosures as it pertains to the renal topics here. We all know that renal dysfunction severely impacts survival, whether we're doing open or endovascular aortic repair,
as you see by these publications over the past decade, patients with no dysfunction have a significant advantage in the long term, compared to those patients who suffer acute kidney injury, or go on to be on new hemodialysis. When you look at the literature,
traditionally, through open repair, we see that the post-operative rate of acute kidney injury ranges anywhere from 20 to almost 40 percent, and it doesn't seem to vary whether it's a suprarenal or infrarenal type
of clamp or repair. Chronic renal replacement therapy in this population ranges somewhere between 0 and 3 percent. That really forms a baseline when we want to compare this to the newer techniques such as chimney and fenestrated or branched EVAR.
Now, if you look at the results of the ZFEN versus Zenith AAA trials, and this is published by Gustavo, the acute kidney injury rate is approximately at 25%, acute kidney injury rate being defined as patients, excuse me, greater than 25% change in GFR,
but in one month acute kidney injury rate is 5% for FEVAR and about 9% for EVAR in this study. There's no difference in these rates at two years or five years between the Zenith AAA and the ZFEN devices. What about the progression of patients
with Stage 4 or Stage 5? At two years, it's about the same, 2% versus 3% for EVAR, and at five years, 7 and 8% respectively. Overall, progression to renal failure occurs in about 1.5% of patients in this cohort.
Well, how does that compare to chimney cases, if you look at the Pythagoras and PERICLES studies, there are a limited number of patients, you see in Pythagoras, 128 patients, 92% of them had either one or two chimneys, meaning generally addressing renal arteries in this case,
patency of those grafts was about 96% and there is no real discussion in that manuscript of the degree of acute kidney injury. And in PERICLES registry, however, they report a 17.5% incidence of acute kidney injury post-op,
and a 1.5% incidence of temporary or permanent dialysis. What about if you compare them? This is a publication in 2017, if you look at both of these studies, very similar, 17.8% for acute kidney injury in FEVAR, and about 19% for a chimney.
You have to realize, though, there are more complete repairs in the FEVAR group, and there are more symptomatic patients in the ChEVAR group, so these aren't completely comparable, but you get some idea that they're probably in the general range of one another.
So the real questions, I think, that come up, is, which arteries can you sacrifice? Are renal embolizations impacting patients' overall function? And what is the mid-term impact of branch and fenestrate on volume of your kidneys
and patients' eGFR. We've studie we looked at the incidence and clinical significance of renal infarcts, whether we actually embolized these pre-procedure,
or whether we accidentally covered or intentionally covered an accessory renal artery, what was the outcome of those patients? We see over time, the average renal volume loss, calculated by a CT scan and VAT volume, is about 2.5% if you embolize it
and if you just cover an accessory renal, about 6.4%. But overall, about 4%, didn't change significantly, overall the GFR changed over the lifespan of the first two years of the patient of 0.1, so it wasn't a significant clinical impact on the patient's overall renal function.
Now what about looking at it specifically of what happens when you do branch and fenestrate cases with respect to eGFR and volume of those? We presented this at this past year's SABS, and it is in submission. If you look at the changes of eGFR,
you notice that in the first six months, the patient declines, but not significantly, and then you see in the graph there, it tends to come back up by a year, year and a half. Very similar to what Roy Greenberg published in his initial studies,
but what we did in this study was actually compare it to the age match publications, and you see that eGFR over time was similar to what happens in age-related changes, but we also noticed that 16% of the patients, 9 of 56, had improvement of their eGFR
to greater than 60. Now whether this is just related to the inaccuracy of the eGFR and its variance, or whether we actually improved some renal stenosis, is difficult to tell in this small study. In conclusion, open, fenestrated,
and chimney EVAR procedures are associated with acute kidney injury in approximately 20% of patients. Causes of deterioration are likely multifactorial and may be different for each technique used. Renal infarcts from covering accessory renal arteries
and embolization occur in about a quarter of the patients, and is a small contributor to renal decline over time. Renal decline made after FEVAR is similar to associated with age. Thank you.
- Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. These are my disclosures. Well, we know that the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System provide fixation and seal in aortic necks, and it can prevent or resolve migration or endoleaks. It's important to have an even spacing around aortic circumference and
to resolve type 1A endoleaks, you need successful, of course, deployment of EndoAnchors and adequate penetration into the aortic wall. The objectives for this study was to quantify the EndoAnchor penetration into the aortic wall in patients undergoing EVAR
and to assess the predictors of successful penetration and to associate that with postprocedural type 1A endoleaks. We searched in the ANCHOR database, and we included patients that has been treated for a type 1A endoleak, and we had to have a good quality
first postprocedure contrast-enhanced CT scan without any artifacts due to metal or glue, and without implantation of adjuvant aortic extension cuffs or stents. And then we selected two patient cohorts, patients with successful treatment
after the implantation of EndoAnchors for a type 1A endoleak, and patients with a persistent type 1A endoleak after the EndoAnchor implantation. Well, this is to show how we determined the position of the EndoAnchors, this is a good penetrating EndoAnchor
more than two millimeters in the aortic wall. This is borderline, and this means there is still a gap between the endograft and the aortic wall or the EndoAnchor itself is penetrating less than two millimeters. And this of course, a non-penetrating EndoAnchor.
The good ones are green, the borderlines are orange, and the non-penetrating are flagged red. Here are results, the anatomical criteria to predict type 1A endoleaks, as you can see here, at the left, in the type 1A endoleak patients, there is a larger aortic diameter
with a median of 30 millimeters, and neck length is shorter, less than one centimeter, compared to the patients with no endoleak. Then about the EndoAnchor penetration, in the patients with a persistent type 1A endoleak, there are significantly more EndoAnchors
which are borderline or non-penetrating. What are the predictors for a successful EndoAnchor penetration. Well, protective factors, oversizing of the endograft compared to the diameter of the infrarenal aortic neck, and the use of the endurant stents.
Independent risk factors are the aortic diameter at the lowest renal artery, and five and 10 millimeters below more than 30 millimeters, a significantly neck thrombus and calcium around the circumference and also a more than two millimeter thickness.
Predictors for a type 1A endoleak, protective factors is the neck length more than one centimeter, and good penetrating EndoAnchors and risk factors for a type 1A endoleak is, again, the aortic diameter five millimeters
below the lowest renal artery more than 30 millimeters, and also boerderline and non-penetrating EndoAnchors and in this logistic regression model, a non-penetrating EndoAnchor is really predictive for a type 1A endoleak, or a persistent type 1A endoleak. A few cases, this is an excellent job,
there are four EndoAnchors placed, and they all penetrate well, although they are not circumferentially divided around the circumference. The majority of the problems in the patients in the ANCHOR database, if a persistent type 1A endoleak
is mainly due to an incorrect indication, these are EndoAnchors red and orange, non-penetrating and borderline. That is because they are above the fabric, or they are in a no-neck aneurysm, so the indication is not correct.
This is again, a patient with an undersized endograft, of course, the EndoAnchors will never penetrate the aortic wall at a post-serial part of the aorta. This is another example of misdeployment, a huge load of calcium and thrombus, and again, to defined a no-neck aneurysm,
and again, well it's obvious that the EndoAnchors will not do their job. These are then the EndoAnchor distribution in successfully treated type 1A endoleaks at the left, 332 EndoAnchors, but if you select only the patients
with an EndoAnchor which are inside recommended use at the right, you can see that more than 90% of those EndoAnchors are good penetrating. Here are the patients at the left with a persistent type 1A endoleak, 248, and you can see the majority is red or orange,
and that means that majority of those patients had an EndoAnchor deployment beyond the recommended use. So to conclude, good EndoAnchor penetration is less likely when there is large aortic diameter, the EndoAnchor is not perpendicular to the stentgraft during deployment,
and it's beyond the recommended use, more than two millimeters of thrombus, not in the infrarenal neck, or a gap more than two millimeters. And in borderline or non-penetrating EndoAnchor, it's predictive for a type 1A endoleak.
Thank you very much.
- The only disclosure is the device I'm about to talk to you about this morning, is investigation in the United States. What we can say about Arch Branch Technology is it is not novel or particularly new. Hundreds of these procedures have been performed worldwide, most of the experiences have been dominated by a cook device
and the Terumo-Aortic formerly known as Bolton Medical devices. There is mattering of other experience through Medtronic and Gore devices. As of July of 2018 over 340 device implants have been performed,
and this series has been dominated by the dual branch device but actually three branch constructions have been performed in 25 cases. For the Terumo-Aortic Arch Branch device the experience is slightly less but still significant over 160 device implants have been performed as of November of this year.
A small number of single branch and large majority of 150 cases of the double branch repairs and only two cases of the three branch repairs both of them, I will discuss today and I performed. The Aortic 3-branch Arch Devices is based on the relay MBS platform with two antegrade branches and
a third retrograde branch which is not illustrated here, pointing downwards towards descending thoracic Aorta. The first case is a 59 year old intensivist who presented to me in 2009 with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection. This was being medically managed until 2014 when he sustained a second dissection at this time.
An acute ruptured type A dissection and sustaining emergent repair with an ascending graft. Serial imaging shortly thereafter demonstrated a very rapid growth of the Distal arch to 5.7 cm. This is side by side comparison of the pre type A dissection and the post type A repair dissection.
What you can see is the enlargement of the distal arch and especially the complex septal anatomy that has transformed as initial type B dissection after the type A repair. So, under FDA Compassion Use provision, as well as other other regulatory conditions
that had to be met. A Terumo or formerly Bolton, Aortic 3-branch Arch Branch device was constructed and in December 2014 this was performed. As you can see in this illustration, the two antegrade branches and a third branch
pointing this way for the for the left subclavian artery. And this is the images, the pre-deployment, post-deployment, and the three branches being inserted. At the one month follow up you can see the three arch branches widely patent and complete thrombosis of the
proximal dissection. Approximately a year later he presented with some symptoms of mild claudication and significant left and right arm gradient. What we noted on the CT Angiogram was there was a kink in the participially
supported segment of the mid portion of this 3-branch graft. There was also progressive enlargement of the distal thoracoabdominal segment. Our plan was to perform the, to repair the proximal segment with a custom made cuff as well as repair the thoracoabdominal segment
with this cook CMD thoracoabdominal device. As a 4 year follow up he's working full time. He's arm pressures are symmetric. Serum creatinine is normal. Complete false lumen thrombosis. All arch branches patent.
The second case I'll go over really quickly. 68 year old man, again with acute type A dissection. 6.1 cm aortic arch. Initial plan was a left carotid-subclavian bypass with a TEVAR using a chimney technique. We changed that plan to employ a 3-branch branch repair.
Can you advance this? And you can see this photo. In this particular case because the pre-operative left carotid-subclavian bypass and the extension of the dissection in to the innominate artery we elected to...
utilize the two antegrade branches for the bi-lateral carotid branches and actually utilize the downgoing branch through the- for the right subclavian artery for later access to the thoracoabdominal aorta. On post op day one once again he presented with
an affective co arctation secondary to a kink within the previous surgical graft, sustaining a secondary intervention and a placement of a balloon expandable stent. Current status. On Unfortunately the result is not as fortunate
as the first case. In 15 months he presented with recurrent fevers, multi-focal CVAs from septic emboli. Essentially bacteria endocarditis and he was deemed inoperable and he died. So in conclusion.
Repair of complex arch pathologies is feasible with the 3-branch Relay arch branch device. Experience obviously is very limited. Proper patient selection important. And the third antegrade branch is useful for later thoracoabdominal access.
- This is from some work in collaboration with my good friend, Mike Dake. And, a couple of years of experience at Stanford now. First described by Kazy? years ago. This technical note of using multiple main-body endographs in a sandwich formation.
Up at the top but, then yielding multiple branches to get out to the visceral vessels and leaving one branch for a bifurcated graft. We've sort of modified it a little bit and generally either use multiple
grafts in order to create a branch the celiac and SMA. Left the celiac sometimes for a chimney, but the strategy really has been in one of the limbs to share both renals and the limb that goes down to the legs. We noticed early on that this really was not for
non-operative candidates, only for urgent cases and we recognize that the visceral branches were the most important to be in their own limb. I'll just walk you through a case. 6.8 centimeter stent for foraco above
the prior opened repair. The plan drawn out here with multiple main bodies and a second main body inside in order to create the multiple branches. The first piece goes in. It's balloon molded at the level of pulmonary
vein with enough length so that the ipsalateral limb is right next to the celiac. And we then, from above get into that limb and down into the celiac vessel and extend with either a limb or a viabahn. Next, we deploy a second main body inside
of the gate, thus creating now another two limbs to work through. And then through that, extend in its own branch a limb to the SMA. This was an eight by 79 vbx. Then we've got a third limb to go through.
We put a cuff that measures about 14. This is the math so that the double renal snorkle plus the main body fills up this hole. Now, double sheath access from above, looking for both renals. Sheaths out into both renals with viabahns
inside of that. Deployment of the bottom device and then a final angiogram with a little bit of a gutter that we often see when we have any kind of parallel graft configuration. Here's the post-op CT scan wherein
that limb is the two shared renals with the leg. This is the one year post-op with no endo leaks, successful exclusion of this. Here's another example of one of an eight and a half centimeter stent three thorico similar strategy, already with an occluded
celiac. Makes it a little bit easier. One limb goes down to the superior mesenteric artery and then the other limb then is shared again bilateral renals in the lower main body. Notice in this configuration you can get all the way up to the top then by putting a thoracic component
inside of the bifurcated subabdominal component. There's the final CT scan for that. We've spent some time looking at the different combinations of how these things will fill up to minimize the gutters through some more work. In collaboration with some friends in Kampala.
So we've treated 21 patients over the last couple of years. 73 years of age, 48 percent female usual comorbid factors. Oh, I thought I had more data there to show you. O.K. I thought this was a four minute talk.
Look at that. I'm on time. Octopus endovascular strategy is a feasible off the shelf solution for high risk patients that can't undergo open repair. You know obviously, sort of in this forum and coming to this meeting we see what's
available outside of the U.S. and I certainly am awaiting clinical trial devices that will have purpose specific teacher bi-graphs. The end hospital morbidity has still been high, at four percent. The one year survival of 71 percent in this select
group of 21 patients is acceptable. Paraplegia is still an issue even when we stage them and in this strategy you can stage them by just doing the top part plus the viscerals first and leaving the renals for another day. And branch patency thus far has been
in the short term similar to the purpose specific graft as well as with the parallel graft data. Thank you.
- We are to have a distinction between acute stroke at level of distal small vessels, in which we can see the core infarct in the penumbra around the infarct. And for the treatment of acute stroke, it's important to establish the eligible patient who will receive the
intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. It remains the only proven effective intervention for acute ischemic stroke. But what about the acute stroke for large vessel intra-arterial thrombolysis? What alternatives?
Mechanical revascularization strategies or stent-assisted revascularization. But, in the past, the earliest periods studied was anecdotal cases and no selection of the patients so bad results were recorded.
We have some exclusion criteria for the urgent treatment. Internal major stoke, cerebral ischemic lesion greater than 2.5 centimeter and CT scan, loss of consciousness,
signs of intracranial hemorrhage. But the real goal of early intervention is to stop the plaque embolization. So should we remove this plaque, or we can stent it. So, as what said Rothwell in 2004, time is brain.
And the benefit from CEA is maximal in symptomatic patients operated on within two weeks of the index event. But it's better after 48 hours. In 2010, I published Siena Carotid Artery Stenting Score
for elective patients. And in Italian registry, in order to evaluate that the field urgency of carotid emergency stenting of a symptomatic patient, we have noticed some clinicians had biomarkers spotted from a prospective registry.
And we have studied the Brain ischemia biomarkers such as PAPP-A, hs-CRP, and Interleukin six. But in the (mumbles) published only in European journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery said,
that the most effective management is the quickest one. So in this publication, I say that this closed cell stent design would be benefit for the treatment of urgent patients. In this same publication in the Annals of Vascular Surgery.
And in this year, we studied the early carotid artery stenting after onset of neurological symptoms. So we know very well that we are some cerebral protection devices in order to better protect the procedure,
and we had the necessity to obtain a better protection device with proximal absolute devices. So what about new carotid stent design? In order to better approach the symptomatic patients. This is an example at Terumo Roadsaver, with the control with optical cord and tomography.
This is an example of C-Guard with the control optical cord and tomography. We established some cases related to the study with OCT, and the slice-based analysis say that compared with conventional stents,
the incidence of plaque prolapse was lower. So how to choose in emergency. Carotid artery or carotid endarterectomy stenting, my personal opinion, carotid endarterectomy is still the gold standard. Or if we had the space for carotid stenting
in patients with severe comorbidities, in patients with anatomic complex situations, in case of tandem intracranial lesions, but requires correct expertise and plaque evaluation and correct stent and cerebral protection. So in conclusion,
the most effective management is the quickest one, according to a correct selection that allows recognition of those who can really take advantage for early treatment. And how to perform CAS safely in emergency with an appropriate knowledge of
anatomy, anomalies, and equipment. And with growing experience and the use of dedicated CAS technology, CAS can now be performed safely and efficiently by skilled operators even in urgent cases. Thank you for your attention.
- I think that the most important tip cannot really be summarized in five minutes, which is that these procedures are highly dependent on how well you plan the procedure and how well you really implant the device. That is a fairly long learning curve that I think you need to actually collaborate with people
that they are experienced, and with industry to make sure that you are on the right track on making your measurements to size these devices. But there are a few things to be said about cases that are very difficult, and a few tips that I would highlight on this talk.
First, it's highly important that you build up your inventory so you can get out of trouble. I think you have to have a variety of catheters of your choice, with primary or secondary curves.
The addition of shapeable guides has been a major benefit for these types of procedures. They are fairly expensive, so I would say we don't use them routinely, but they can bail you out. They can allow you to do cases now from the femoral approach that in the past could not be achievable this way.
You have to be able to work on the diffe .035 system, .014 system, .018 system, and know when to apply this. I would like to highlight four maneuvers that we use when vessels don't align.
First, a common maneuver is really not to try to get in a quote/unquote pissing match with the fenestration and the vessel. If you can catheterize the fenestration first, and advance your sheath upwards, and lead a .018 wire into the sheath,
that will basically lock your sheath into the fenestration. Therefore, you don't have to repeatedly catheterize the fenestration and you save a lot of time. You can choose y ose something that has a secondary curve if you have room,
or a Venture 3 catheter, which is one of my choice for catheterization, and you can see here that on this case, the difficulties imposed by a shelf on the ostia of the renal artery, which makes catheterization more difficult. This .018 wire also allows you to bend your sheath
as a guide catheter so that you can achieve a downward curve to catheterize a down-going vessel, like on this renal artery. The second maneuver to highlight is that these devices are constrained posteriorly, and therefore, the fenestrations are naturally moved
posteriorly into the aorta. So one of the first maneuvers is really to try to move the fenestration more anteriorly by rotating the device. Now, some of the companies now have newer constraining mechanisms
that may alleviate some of this, but this is kind of a next maneuver that we do. Finally, rarely nowadays we have to really find more space between the fenestration and the aortic wall, but it is always useful to leave behind a wire when you deploy this device so that in the event
that you need more space, you can perhaps navigate the catheter, inflate, and create some space between the fabric and the aortic wall. Marcelo Ferreira, along with other collaborators, has described a technique that I think is very useful when you have a lot of space.
That's the case, for example, of a directional branch or perhaps if you are using fenestration to target a vessel that is somewhat away from the fabric of the endograft. That's called the snare ride technique. This is summarized on this illustration.
When you see the left renal artery to be up-going, now being targeted from the brachial approach, that was difficult to catheterize, you catheterize that from the femoral approach with an eight French sheath and a snare ride type... You snare the wire from the arm, and then you can
navigate that catheter inwards into the vessel. That can be difficult, sometimes, to actually advance the snare into the vessel. I think that there is some improvement on the profile of these snares that can improve that, but that is a very useful technique,
not only for branches, but also for fenestrations. Finally, sometimes you have too much space. You may seem you are very well aligned on the latitude with the vessel, but in fact, there is so much space the device got displaced on that sac and you cannot simply catheterize the vessel.
It's useful to downsize the system on these cases to a micro-catheter with a micro-wire to find yourself in the sac eventually out through the vessel. Once you achieve that, you would then exchange this micro-wire, usually a glide gold wire, to a .018,
a stiffer wire that is long enough. You advance a balloon that is undersized for that vessel, and with that you can straighten the system and eventually switch that for a wire that is of reasonable strength, such as a rosen wire in this case, and complete the case.
Finally, there is nothing wrong about leaving the battle to be fought another day. It's better to finish a case a little quicker and not end up with leg ischemia and a compartment syndrome and a s the situation
and come back another day. This is a case, for example, that I did a branch endograft. You can see the right renal artery is exceedingly narrowed. I could not find a way in in a reasonable time. I gave myself about half an hour. I decided to quit.
A few days later, I came back through a subcostal incision, got retrograde access, and this literally was a case that didn't take very long and end up doing very well. So in summary, patie select your proper
anticipat stent. To offset these challenges, minimize contrast a master your endovas
it is better to end with a patient alive and fight the battle another day, than to have an excessive long procedure leading to numerous other complications. Thank you very much.
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.