- Good morning, thank you, Dr. Veith, for the invitation. My disclosures. So, renal artery anomalies, fairly rare. Renal ectopia and fusion, leading to horseshoe kidneys or pelvic kidneys, are fairly rare, in less than one percent of the population. Renal transplants, that is patients with existing
renal transplants who develop aneurysms, clearly these are patients who are 10 to 20 or more years beyond their initial transplantation, or maybe an increasing number of patients that are developing aneurysms and are treated. All of these involve a renal artery origin that is
near the aortic bifurcation or into the iliac arteries, making potential repair options limited. So this is a personal, clinical series, over an eight year span, when I was at the University of South Florida & Tampa, that's 18 patients, nine renal transplants, six congenital
pelvic kidneys, three horseshoe kidneys, with varied aorto-iliac aneurysmal pathologies, it leaves half of these patients have iliac artery pathologies on top of their aortic aneurysms, or in place of the making repair options fairly difficult. Over half of the patients had renal insufficiency
and renal protective maneuvers were used in all patients in this trial with those measures listed on the slide. All of these were elective cases, all were technically successful, with a fair amount of followup afterward. The reconstruction priorities or goals of the operation are to maintain blood flow to that atypical kidney,
except in circumstances where there were multiple renal arteries, and then a small accessory renal artery would be covered with a potential endovascular solution, and to exclude the aneurysms with adequate fixation lengths. So, in this experience, we were able, I was able to treat eight of the 18 patients with a fairly straightforward
endovascular solution, aorto-biiliac or aorto-aortic endografts. There were four patients all requiring open reconstructions without any obvious endovascular or hybrid options, but I'd like to focus on these hybrid options, several of these, an endohybrid approach using aorto-iliac
endografts, cross femoral bypass in some form of iliac embolization with an attempt to try to maintain flow to hypogastric arteries and maintain antegrade flow into that pelvic atypical renal artery, and a open hybrid approach where a renal artery can be transposed, and endografting a solution can be utilized.
The overall outcomes, fairly poor survival of these patients with a 50% survival at approximately two years, but there were no aortic related mortalities, all the renal artery reconstructions were patented last followup by Duplex or CT imaging. No aneurysms ruptures or aortic reinterventions or open
conversions were needed. So, focus specifically in a treatment algorithm, here in this complex group of patients, I think if the atypical renal artery comes off distal aorta, you have several treatment options. Most of these are going to be open, but if it is a small
accessory with multiple renal arteries, such as in certain cases of horseshoe kidneys, you may be able to get away with an endovascular approach with coverage of those small accessory arteries, an open hybrid approach which we utilized in a single case in the series with open transposition through a limited
incision from the distal aorta down to the distal iliac, and then actually a fenestrated endovascular repair of his complex aneurysm. Finally, an open approach, where direct aorto-ilio-femoral reconstruction with a bypass and reimplantation of that renal artery was done,
but in the patients with atypical renals off the iliac segment, I think you utilizing these endohybrid options can come up with some creative solutions, and utilize, if there is some common iliac occlusive disease or aneurysmal disease, you can maintain antegrade flow into these renal arteries from the pelvis
and utilize cross femoral bypass and contralateral occlusions. So, good options with AUIs, with an endohybrid approach in these difficult patients. Thank you.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- Good morning. I'd like to thank everybody who's in attendance for the 7 A.M. session. So let's talk about a case. 63 year old male, standard risk factors for aneurismal disease. November 2008, he had a 52 mm aneurism,
underwent Gore Excluder, endovascular pair. Follow up over the next five, relatively unremarkable. Sac regression 47 mm no leak. June 2017, he was lost for follow up, but came back to see us. Duplex imaging CTA was done to show the sac had increased
from 47 to 62 in a type 2 endoleak was present. In August of that year, he underwent right common iliac cuff placement for what appeared to be a type 1b endoleak. September, CT scan showed the sac was stable at 66 and no leak was present. In March, six months after that, scan once again
showed the sac was there but a little bit larger, and a type two endoleak was once again present. He underwent intervention. This side access on the left embolization of the internal iliac, and a left iliac limb extension. Shortly thereafter,
contacted his PCP at three weeks of weakness, fatigue, some lethargy. September, he had some gluteal inguinal pain, chills, weakness, and fatigue. And then October, came back to see us. Similar symptoms, white count of 12, and a CT scan
was done and here where you can appreciate is, clearly there's air within the sac and a large anterior cell with fluid collections, blood cultures are negative at that time. He shortly thereafter went a 2 stage procedure, Extra-anatomic bypass, explant of the EVAR,
there purulent fluid within the sac, not surprising. Gram positive rods, and the culture came out Cutibacterium Acnes. So what is it we know about this case? Well, EVAR clearly is preferred treatment for aneurism repair, indications for use h
however, mid-term reports still show a significant need for secondary interventions for leaks, migrations, and rupture. Giles looked at a Medicare beneficiaries and clearly noted, or at least evaluated the effect of re-interventions
and readmissions after EVAR and open and noted that survival was negatively impacted by readmissions and re-interventions, and I think this was one of those situations that we're dealing with today. EVAR infections and secondary interventions.
Fortunately infections relatively infrequent. Isolated case reports have been pooled into multi-institutional cohorts. We know about a third of these infections are related to aortoenteric fistula, Bacteremia and direct seeding are more often not the underlying source.
And what we can roughly appreciate is that at somewhere between 14 and 38% of these may be related to secondary catheter based interventions. There's some data out there, Matt Smeed's published 2016, 180 EVARs, multi-center study, the timing of the infection presumably or symptomatic onset
was 22 months and 14% or greater had secondary endointerventions with a relatively high mortality. Similarly, the study coming out of Italy, 26 cases, meantime of diagnosis of the infection is 20 months, and that 34.6% of these cases underwent secondary endovascular intervention.
Once again, a relatively high mortality at 38.4%. Study out of France, 11 institutions, 33 infective endographs, time of onset of symptoms 414 days, 30% of these individuals had undergone secondary interventions. In our own clinical experience of Pittsburgh,
we looked at our explants. There were 13 down for infection, and of those nine had multiple secondary interventions which was 69%, a little bit of an outlier compared to the other studies. Once again, a relatively high mortality at one year. There's now a plethora of information in the literature
stating that secondary interventions may be a source for Bacteremia in seeding of your endovascular graft. And I think beyond just a secondary interventions, we know there's a wide range of risk factors. Perioperative contamination, break down in your sterile technique,
working in the radiology suite as opposed to the operating room. Wound complications to the access site. Hematogenous seeding, whether it's from UTIs, catheter related, or secondary interventions are possible.
Graft erosion, and then impaired immunity as well. So what I can tell you today, I think there is an association without question from secondary interventions and aortic endograft infection. Certainly the case I presented appears to show causation but there's not enough evidence to fully correlate the two.
So in summary, endograft infections are rare fortunately. However, the incidence does appear to be subtly rising. Secondary interventions following EVAR appear to be a risk factor for graft infection. Graft infections are associated without question
a high morbidity and mortality. I think it's of the utmost importance to maintain sterile technique, administer prophylactic antibiotics for all secondary endovascular catheter based interventions. Thank you.
- Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for the opportunity to present at this great meeting. I have nothing to disclose. Since Dr. DeBakey published the first paper 60 years ago, the surgical importance of deep femoral artery has been well investigated and documented.
It can be used as a reliable inflow for low extremity bypass in certain circumstances. To revascularize the disease, the deep femoral artery can improve rest pain, prevent or delay the amputation, and help to heal amputation stump.
So, in this slide, the group patient that they used deep femoral artery as a inflow for infrainguinal bypass. And 10-year limb salvage was achieved in over 90% of patients. So, different techniques and configurations
of deep femoral artery angioplasty have been well described, and we've been using this in a daily basis. So, there's really not much new to discuss about this. Next couple minutes, I'd like to focus on endovascular invention 'cause I lot I think is still unclear.
Dr. Bath did a systemic review, which included 20 articles. Nearly total 900 limbs were treated with balloon angioplasty with or without the stenting. At two years, the primary patency was greater than 70%. And as you can see here, limb salvage at two years, close to, or is over 98% with very low re-intervention rate.
So, those great outcomes was based on combined common femoral and deep femoral intervention. So what about isolated deep femoral artery percutaneous intervention? Does that work or not? So, this study include 15 patient
who were high risk to have open surgery, underwent isolated percutaneous deep femoral artery intervention. As you can see, at three years, limb salvage was greater than 95%. The study also showed isolated percutaneous transluminal
angioplasty of deep femoral artery can convert ischemic rest pain to claudication. It can also help heal the stump wound to prevent hip disarticulation. Here's one of my patient. As you can see, tes-tee-lee-shun with near
or total occlusion of proximal deep femoral artery presented with extreme low-extremity rest pain. We did a balloon angioplasty. And her ABI was increased from 0.8 to 0.53, and rest pain disappeared. Another patient transferred from outside the facility
was not healing stump wound on the left side with significant disease as you can see based on the angiogram. We did a hybrid procedure including stenting of the iliac artery and the open angioplasty of common femoral artery and the profunda femoral artery.
Significantly improved the perfusion to the stump and healed wound. The indications for isolated or combined deep femoral artery revascularization. For those patient presented with disabling claudication or rest pain with a proximal
or treatable deep femoral artery stenosis greater than 50% if their SFA or femoral popliteal artery disease is unsuitable for open or endovascular treatment, they're a high risk for open surgery. And had the previous history of multiple groin exploration, groin wound complications with seroma or a fungal infection
or had a muscle flap coverage, et cetera. And that this patient should go to have intervascular intervention. Or patient had a failed femoral pop or femoral-distal bypass like this patient had, and we should treat this patient.
So in summary, open profundaplasty remains the gold standard treatment. Isolated endovascular deep femoral artery intervention is sufficient for rest pain. May not be good enough for major wound healing, but it will help heal the amputation stump
to prevent hip disarticulation. Thank you for much for your attention.
- Thank you Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. These are my disclosure. Open repair is the gold standard for patient with arch disease, and the gupta perioperative risk called the mortality and major morbidity remain not negligible.
Hybrid approach has only slightly improved these outcomes, while other off-the-shelf solution need to be tested on larger samples and over the long run. In this scenario, the vascular repair would double in the branch devices as emerging, as a tentative option with promising results,
despite addressing a more complex patient population. The aim of this multi-center retrospective registry is to assess early and midterm results after endovascular aortic arch repair. using the single model of doubling the branch stent graft in patient to fit for open surgery.
All patient are treated in Italy, with this technique. We're included in this registry for a total of 24 male patient, fit for open surgery. And meeting morphological criteria for double branch devices.
This was the indication for treatment and break-down by center, and these were the main end points. You can see here some operative details. Actually, this was theo only patient that did not require the LSA
re-revascularization before the endovascular procedure, because the left tibial artery rising directly from the aortic arch was reattached on the left common carotid artery. You can see here the large window in the superior aspect of the stent graft
accepting the two 13 millimeter in the branches, that are catheterized from right common carotid artery and left common carotid artery respectively. Other important feature of this kind of stent graft is the lock stent system, as you can see, with rounded barbs inside
the tunnels to prevent limb disconnection. All but one patient achieved technical success. And two of the three major strokes, and two retrograde dissection were the cause of the four early death.
No patient had any type one or three endoleak. One patient required transient dialysis and four early secondary procedure were needed for ascending aorta replacement and cervical bleeding. At the mean follow-up of 18 months,
one patient died from non-aortic cause and one patient had non-arch related major stroke. No new onset type one or three endoleak was detected, and those on standard vessel remained patent. No patient had the renal function iteration or secondary procedure,
while the majority of patients reported significant sac shrinkage. Excluding from the analysis the first six patients as part of a learning curve, in-hospital mortality, major stroke and retrograde dissection rate significant decrease to 11%, 11% and 5.67%.
Operative techniques significantly evolve during study period, as confirmed by the higher use of custom-made limb for super-aortic stenting and the higher use of common carotid arteries
as the access vessels for this extension. In addition, fluoroscopy time, and contrast median's significantly decrease during study period. We learned that stroke and retrograde dissection are the main causes of operative mortality.
Of course, we can reduce stroke rate by patient selection excluding from this technique all those patient with the Shaggy Aorta Supra or diseased aortic vessel, and also by the introduction and more recent experience of some technical points like sequentIal clamping of common carotid arteries
or the gas flushing with the CO2. We can also prevent the retrograde dissection, again with patient selection, according to the availability of a healthy sealing zone, but in our series, 6 of the 24 patients
presented an ascending aorta larger than 40 millimeter. And on of this required 48-millimeter proximal size custom-made stent graft. This resulted in two retrograde dissection, but on the other hand, the availability on this platform of a so large proximal-sized,
customized stent graft able to seal often so large ascending aorta may decrease the incidence of type I endoleak up to zero, and this may make sense in order to give a chance of repair to patients that we otherwise rejected for clinical or morphological reasons.
So in conclusion, endovascular arch repair with double branch devices is a feasible approach that enrich the armamentarium for vascular research. And there are many aspects that may limit or preclude the widespread use of this technology
with subsequent difficulty in drawing strong conclusion. Operative mortality and major complication rates suffer the effect of a learning curve, while mid-term results of survival are more than promising. I thank you for your attention.
- Thanks Dr. Weaver. Thank you Dr. Reed for the invitation, once again, to this great meeting. These are my disclosures. So, open surgical repair of descending aortic arch disease still carries some significant morbidity and mortality.
And obviously TEVAR as we have mentioned in many of the presentations has become the treatment of choice for appropriate thoracic lesions, but still has some significant limitations of seal in the aortic arch and more techniques are being developed to address that.
Right now, we also need to cover the left subclavian artery and encroach or cover the left common carotid artery for optimal seal, if that's the area that we're trying to address. So zone 2, which is the one that's,
it is most commonly used as seal for the aortic arch requires accurate device deployment to maximize the seal and really avoid ultimately, coverage of the left common carotid artery and have to address it as an emergency. Seal, in many of these cases is not maximized
due to the concern of occlusion of the left common carotid artery and many of the devices are deployed without obtaining maximum seal in that particular area. Failure of accurate deployment often leads to a type IA endoleak or inadvertent coverage
of the left common carotid artery which can become a significant problem. The most common hybrid procedures in this group of patients include the use of TEVAR, a carotid-subclavian reconstruction and left common carotid artery stenting,
which is hopefully mostly planned, but many of the times, especially when you're starting, it may be completely unplanned. The left common carotid chimney has been increasingly used to obtain a better seal
in this particular group of patients with challenging arches, but there's still significant concerns, including patients having super-vascular complications, stroke, Type A retrograde dissections and a persistent Type IA endoleak
which can be very challenging to be able to correct. There's limited data to discuss this specific topic, but some of the recent publications included a series of 11 to 13 years of treatment with a variety of chimneys.
And these publications suggest that the left common carotid chimneys are the most commonly used chimneys in the aortic arch, being used 76% to 89% of the time in these series. We can also look at these and the technical success
is very good. Mortality's very low. The stroke rate is quite variable depending on the series and chimney patency's very good. But we still have a relatively high persistent
Type IA endoleak on these procedures. So what can we do to try to improve the results that we have? And some of these techniques are clearly applicable for elective or emergency procedures. In the elective setting,
an open left carotid access and subclavian access can be obtained via a supraclavicular approach. And then a subclavian transposition or a carotid-subclavian bypass can be performed in preparation for the endovascular repair. Following that reconstruction,
retrograde access to left common carotid artery can be very helpful with a 7 French sheath and this can be used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes at the same time. The 7 French sheath can easily accommodate most of the available covered and uncovered
balloon expandable stents if the situation arises that it's necessary. Alignment of the TEVAR is critical with maximum seal and accurate placement of the TEVAR at this location is paramount to be able to have a good result.
At that point, the left common carotid artery chimney can be deployed under control of the left common carotid artery. To avoid any embolization, the carotid can be flushed, primary repaired, and the subclavian can be addressed
if there is concern of a persistent retrograde leak with embolization with a plug or other devices. The order can be changed for the procedure to be able to be done emergently as it is in this 46 year old policeman with hypertension and a ruptured thoracic aneurism.
The patient had the left common carotid access first, the device deployed appropriately, and the carotid-subclavian bypass performed in a more elective fashion after the rupture had been addressed. So, in conclusion, carotid chimney's and TEVAR
combination is a frequently used to obtain additional seal on the aortic arch, with pretty good results. Early retrograde left common carotid access allows safe TEVAR deployment with maximum seal,
and the procedure can be safely performed with low morbidity and mortality if we select the patients appropriately. Thank you very much.
- Thank you. I have a little disclosure. I've got to give some, or rather, quickly point out the technique. First apply the stet graph as close as possible to the hypogastric artery.
As you can see here, the end of distal graft. Next step, come from the left brachial you can lay the catheter in the hypogastric artery. And then come from both
as you can see here, with this verge catheter and you put in position the culver stent, and from the femoral you just put in position the iliac limb orthostatic graft.
The next step, apply the stent graft, the iliac limb stent graft, keep the viabahn and deployed it in more the part here. What you have here is five centimeter overlap to avoid Type I endoleak.
The next step, use a latex balloon, track over to the iliac limb, and keep until the, as you can see here, the viabahn is still undeployed. In the end of the procedure,
at least one and a half centimeters on both the iliac lumen to avoid occlusion to viabahn. So we're going to talk about our ten years since I first did my first description of this technique. We do have the inclusion criteria
that's very important to see that I can't use the Sandwich Technique with iliac lumen unless they are bigger than eight millimeters. That's one advantage of this technique. I can't use also in the very small length
of common iliac artery and external iliac artery and I need at least four millimeters of the hypogastric artery. The majority patients are 73 age years old. Majority males. Hypertension, a lot of comorbidity of oldest patients.
But the more important, here you can see, when you compare the groups with the high iliac artery and aneurismal diameter and treat with the Sandwich Technique, you can see here actually it's statistically significant
that I can treat patient with a very small real lumen regarding they has in total diameter bigger size but I can treat with very small lumen. That's one of the advantages of this technique. You can see the right side and also in the left side. So all situations, I can treat very small lumen
of the aneurysm. The next step so you can show here is about we performed this on 151 patients. Forty of these patients was bilateral. That's my approach of that. And you can see, the procedure time,
the fluoroscope time is higher in the group that I performed bilaterally. And the contrast volume tends to be more in the bilateral group. But ICU stay, length of stay, and follow up is no different between these two groups.
The technical success are 96.7%. Early mortality only in three patients, one patient. Late mortality in 8.51 patients. Only one was related with AMI. Reintervention rate is 5, almost 5.7 percent. Buttock claudication rate is very, very rare.
You cannot find this when you do Sandwich Technique bilaterally. And about the endoleaks, I have almost 18.5% of endoleaks. The majority of them was Type II endoleaks. I have some Type late endoleaks
also the majority of them was Type II endoleaks. And about the other complications I will just remark that I do not have any neurological complications because I came from the left brachial. And as well I do not have colon ischemia
and spinal cord ischemia rate. And all about the evolution of the aneurysm sac. You'll see the majority, almost two-thirds have degrees of the aneurysm sac diameter. And some of these patients
we get some degrees but basically still have some Type II endoleak. That's another very interesting point of view. So you can see here, pre and post, decrease of the aneurysm sac.
You see the common iliac artery pre and post decreasing and the hypogastric also decreasing. So in conclusion, the Sandwich Technique facilitates safe and effective aneurysm exclusion
and target vessel revascularization in adverse anatomical scenarios with sustained durability in midterm follow-up. Thank you very much for attention.
- So my charge is to talk about using band for steal. I have no relevant disclosures. We're all familiar with steal. The upper extremity particularly is able to accommodate for the short circuit that a access is with up to a 20 fold increase in flow. The problem is that the distal bed
is not necessarily as able to accommodate for that and that's where steal comes in. 10 to 20% of patients have some degree of steal if you ask them carefully. About 4% have it bad enough to require an intervention. Dialysis associated steal syndrome
is more prevalent in diabetics, connective tissue disease patients, patients with PVD, small vessels particularly, and females seem to be predisposed to this. The distal brachial artery as the inflow source seems to be the highest risk location. You see steal more commonly early with graft placement
and later with fistulas, and finally if you get it on one side you're very likely to get it on the other side. The symptoms that we are looking for are coldness, numbness, pain, at the hand, the digital level particularly, weakness in hand claudication, digital ulceration, and then finally gangrene in advanced cases.
So when you have this kind of a picture it's not too subtle. You know what's going on. However, it is difficult sometimes to differentiate steal from neuropathy and there is some interaction between the two.
We look for a relationship to blood pressure. If people get symptomatic when their blood pressure's low or when they're on the access circuit, that is more with steal. If it's following a dermatomal pattern that may be a median neuropathy
which we find to be pretty common in these patients. Diagnostic tests, digital pressures and pulse volume recordings are probably the best we have to assess this. Unfortunately the digital pressures are not, they're very sensitive but not very specific. There are a lot of patients with low digital pressures
that have no symptoms, and we think that a pressure less than 60 is probably consistent, or a digital brachial index of somewhere between .45 and .6. But again, specificity is poor. We think the digital pulse volume recordings is probably the most useful.
As you can see in this patient there's quite a difference in digital waveforms from one side to the other, and more importantly we like to see augmentation of that waveform with fistula compression not only diagnostically but also that is predictive of the benefit you'll get with treatment.
So what are our treatment options? Well, we have ligation. We have banding. We have the distal revascularization interval ligation, or DRIL, procedure. We have RUDI, revision using distal inflow,
and we have proximalization of arterial inflow as the approaches that have been used. Ligation is a, basically it restores baseline anatomy. It's a very simple procedure, but of course it abandons the access and many of these patients don't have a lot of good alternatives.
So it's not a great choice, but sometimes a necessary choice. This picture shows banding as we perform it, usually narrowing the anastomosis near the artery. It restricts flow so you preserve the fistula but with lower flows.
It's also simple and not very morbid to do. It's got a less predictable effect. This is a dynamic process, and so knowing exactly how tightly to band this and whether that's going to be enough is not always clear. This is not a good choice for low flow fistula,
'cause again, you are restricting flow. For the same reason, it's probably not a great choice for prosthetic fistulas which require more flow. So, the DRIL procedure most people are familiar with. It involves a proximalization of your inflow to five to 10 centimeters above the fistula
and then ligation of the artery just below and this has grown in popularity certainly over the last 10 or 15 years as the go to procedure. Because there is no flow restriction with this you don't sacrifice patency of the access for it. It does add additional distal flow to the extremity.
It's definitely a more morbid procedure. It involves generally harvesting the saphenous vein from patients that may not be the best risk surgical patients, but again, it's a good choice for low flow fistula. RUDI, revision using distal inflow, is basically
a flow restrictive procedure just like banding. You're simply, it's a little bit more complicated 'cause you're usually doing a vein graft from the radial artery to the fistula. But it's less complicated than DRIL. Similar limitations to banding.
Very limited clinical data. There's really just a few series of fewer than a dozen patients each to go by. Finally, a proximalization of arterial inflow, in this case rather than ligating the brachial artery you're ligating the fistula and going to a more proximal
vessel that often will accommodate higher flow. In our hands, we were often talking about going to the infraclavicular axillary artery. So, it's definitely more morbid than a banding would be. This is a better choice though for prosthetic grafts that, where you want to preserve flow.
Again, data on this is very limited as well. The (mumbles) a couple years ago they asked the audience what they like and clearly DRIL has become the most popular choice at 60%, but about 20% of people were still going to banding, and so my charge was to say when is banding
the right way to go. Again, it's effect is less predictable than DRIL. You definitely are going to slow the flows down, but remember with DRIL you are making the limb dependent on the patency of that graft which is always something of concern in somebody
who you have caused an ischemic hand in the first place, and again, the morbidity with the DRIL certainly more so than with the band. We looked at our results a few years back and we identified 31 patients who had steal. Most of these, they all had a physiologic test
confirming the diagnosis. All had some degree of pain or numbness. Only three of these patients had gangrene or ulcers. So, a relatively small cohort of limb, of advanced steal. Most of our patients were autogenous access,
so ciminos and brachycephalic fistula, but there was a little bit of everything mixed in there. The mean age was 66. 80% were diabetic. Patients had their access in for about four and a half months on average at the time of treatment,
although about almost 40% were treated within three weeks of access placement. This is how we do the banding. We basically expose the arterial anastomosis and apply wet clips trying to get a diameter that is less than the brachial artery.
It's got to be smaller than the brachial artery to do anything, and we monitor either pulse volume recordings of the digits or doppler flow at the palm or arch and basically apply these clips along the length and restricting more and more until we get
a satisfactory signal or waveform. Once we've accomplished that, we then are satisfied with the degree of narrowing, we then put some mattress sutures in because these clips will fall off, and fix it in place.
And basically this is the result you get. You go from a fistula that has no flow restriction to one that has restriction as seen there. What were our results? Well, at follow up that was about almost 16 months we found 29 of the 31 patients had improvement,
immediate improvement. The two failures, one was ligated about 12 days later and another one underwent a DRIL a few months later. We had four occlusions in these patients over one to 18 months. Two of these were salvaged with other procedures.
We only had two late recurrences of steal in these patients and one of these was, recurred when he was sent to a radiologist and underwent a balloon angioplasty of the banding. And we had no other morbidity. So this is really a very simple procedure.
So, this is how it compares with DRIL. Most of the pooled data shows that DRIL is effective in 90 plus percent of the patients. Patency also in the 80 to 90% range. The DRIL is better for late, or more often used in late patients,
and banding used more in earlier patients. There's a bigger blood pressure change with DRIL than with banding. So you definitely get more bang for the buck with that. Just quickly going through the literature again. Ellen Dillava's group has published on this.
DRIL definitely is more accepted. These patients have very high mortality. At two years 50% are going to be dead. So you have to keep in mind that when you're deciding what to do. So, I choose banding when there's no gangrene,
when there's moderate not severe pain, and in patients with high morbidity. As promised here's an algorithm that's a little complicated looking, but that's what we go by. Again, thanks very much.
- Thank you. Historically, common femoral endarterectomy is a safe procedure. In this quick publication that we did several years ago, showed a 1.5% 30 day mortality rate. Morbidity included 6.3% superficial surgical site infection.
Other major morbidity was pretty low. High-risk patients we identified as those that were functionally dependent, dyspnea, obesity, steroid use, and diabetes. A study from Massachusetts General Hospital their experience showed 100% technical success.
Length of stay was three days. Primary patency of five years at 91% and assisted primary patency at five years 100%. Very little perioperative morbidity and mortality. As you know, open treatment has been the standard of care
over time the goal standard for a common femoral disease, traditionally it's been thought of as a no stent zone. However, there are increased interventions of the common femoral and deep femoral arteries. This is a picture that shows inflection point there.
Why people are concerned about placing stents there. Here's a picture of atherectomy. Irritational atherectomy, the common femoral artery. Here's another image example of a rotational atherectomy, of the common femoral artery.
And here's an image of a stent there, going across the stent there. This is a case I had of potential option for stenting the common femoral artery large (mumbles) of the hematoma from the cardiologist. It was easily fixed
with a 2.5 length BioBond. Which I thought would have very little deformability. (mumbles) was so short in the area there. This is another example of a complete blow out of the common femoral artery. Something that was much better
treated with a stent that I thought over here. What's the data on the stenting of the endovascular of the common femoral arteries interventions? So, there mostly small single centers. What is the retrospective view of 40 cases?
That shows a restenosis rate of 19.5% at 12 months. Revascularization 14.1 % at 12 months. Another one by Dr. Mehta shows restenosis was observed in 20% of the patients and 10% underwent open revision. A case from Dr. Calligaro using cover stents
shows very good primary patency. We sought to use Vascular Quality Initiative to look at endovascular intervention of the common femoral artery. As you can see here, we've identified a thousand patients that have common femoral interventions, with or without,
deep femoral artery interventions. Indications were mostly for claudication. Interventions include three-quarters having angioplasty, 35% having a stent, and 20% almost having atherectomy. Overall technical success was high, a 91%.
Thirty day mortality was exactly the same as in this clip data for open repair 1.6%. Complications were mostly access site hematoma with a low amount distal embolization had previously reported. Single center was up to 4%.
Overall, our freedom for patency or loss or death was 83% at one year. Predicted mostly by tissue loss and case urgency. Re-intervention free survival was 85% at one year, which does notably include stent as independent risk factor for this.
Amputation free survival was 93% at one year, which factors here, but also stent was predictive of amputation. Overall, we concluded that patency is lower than historical common femoral interventions. Mortality was pretty much exactly the same
that has been reported previously. And long term analysis is needed to access durability. There's also a study from France looking at randomizing stenting versus open repair of the common femoral artery. And who needs to get through it quickly?
More or less it showed no difference in outcomes. No different in AVIs. Higher morbidity in the open group most (mumbles) superficial surgical wound infections and (mumbles). The one thing that has hit in the text of the article
a group of mostly (mumbles) was one patient had a major amputation despite having a patent common femoral artery stent. There's no real follow up this, no details of this, I would just caution of both this and VQI paper showing increased risk amputation with stenting.
- Thank you, Tim, and thank you, Frank, for giving me the opportunity to address this specific problem of the gutter endoleaks, which has been described up to 30% after ChEVAR and parallel grafting. But I have to say that in the most papers, not only gutter endoleaks were included,
but also new onset of type Ia endoleak. One paper coming from Stanford addressed specifically the question, how we should deal with the gutter-related type Ia endoleak, and they conclude that in the vast majority of the cases, these gutter endoleaks disappear
and the situation is benign. And based on my own experience, I can confirm this. This is one of the first cases treated with parallel grafts for symptomatic thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And I was a bit concerned as I saw this endoleak at the end of the angiography,
but the lady didn't have any pains and also no option for open or for other type of repair, so we waited. We waited and we saw that the endoleak disappeared after one month. And we saw also shrinkage of the aneurysm after one year.
So now, the next question was how to prevent this. And from the PERICLES registry, but also from the PROTAGORAS, we learned how to deal with this and how to prevent. And it's extremely important to oversize enough the aortic stent graft,
more than treating with the EVAR, normal EVAR. We should reach a sealing zone of at least 15, 20 millimeters. And we should avoid also to use more than two chimney grafts in such patients. The greater the number of the chimney used,
the higher is the risk of type Ia endoleak. And last but not least, we should use the right stent graft. And you see here the CT scan after using a flexible nitinol skeleton endograft on the left, and the gutters if you use a very stiff,
stainless steel skeleton in such situations. The last question was how to treat these patients. And based on the PERICLES, again, we should distinguish three different patterns. One is due to an excessive oversizing of the graft with infolding.
I have only one case, one professor of pathology, treated six years ago now without any endoleak due to this problem. The most are due to an undersized aortic endograft. And in the pattern C, we have an insufficient sealing zone and migration of the graft.
Now, we should consider the pattern B. And with an undersized aortic endograft and if the gutter is small, one possible solution would be to treat this patient with coiling, using coils or Onyx to occlude this gutter endoleaks,
like in this patient. And for the pattern C, if the sealing zone is insufficient, well, we should extend the sealing zone using the chimney parallel technique, as you can see in this case. So in conclusion, ladies and gentle,
gutters are usually benign and more than 95% disappeared in the follow-up. But in case of persistence, we should evaluate the CT scan exactly. And in case of oversizing and not enough oversizing and not enough length,
we should treat this patient accordingly. Thank you very much for your attention.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- I will be talking about new KDOQI guidelines. I know many of you have heard about KDOQI guidelines being revised for the past maybe over a year or maybe two. Yes, it is being done, and it is going slow only because it's being done in a very different way. It's more than an update.
It's going to be more of an overhaul for the entire KDOQI guidelines. We in KDOQI have looked at access as a solitary problem like we talked about grafts, catheters, fistulas for access, but actually it sort of turns out
that access is part of a bigger problem. Fits into a big ESKD lifeline of a patient. Instated distal patients come in many varieties. It can affect any age, and they have a lot of other problems so once you have chronic renal failure, renal replacement mortality fits in
only when it becomes Stage IV or Stage V. And renal replacement mortality is not just access, it is PD access, it's hemo access, it is transplant. So these things, we need to see how they fit in in a given person. So the new KDOQI guidelines concentrates more
on individualizing care. For example, here the young Darien was an 11 year old with a prune belly syndrome. Now he has failed PD. Then there's another person here who is Lydia who is about 36 or 40 year old lady
with a insulin dependent diabetes. Already has bad vascular pedicle. Lost both legs. Needs access. Now both these patient though they need access, it's not the same.
It's different. For example, if you think of Darien, he was in PD but he has failed PD. We would love to get him transplanted. Unfortunately he's got terrible social situation so we can't get him transplanted.
So he needs hemo. Now if he needs hemo, we need to find an access that lasts for a long time because he's got many years ahead of him. On the other hand we have Lydia, who has got significant vascular disease.
With her obesity and existing infectious status, probably PD won't be a good option for her. So she needs hemo, and she's obviously not a transplant candidate. So how are we going to plan for hemo? So these are things which we are to more concentrate
and individualize when we look at patients, and the new guidelines concentrate more on these sort of aspects. Doing right access for right patient, right time, and for right reasons. And we go about planning this keeping the patient first
then a life plan ESKD lifeline for the patient, and what access we are looking at, and what are the needs of the patient? Now this is also different because it has been done more scientifically. We actually have a evidence review team.
We just poured over pretty much 1500 individual articles. Recent articles. And we have looked through about 4000 abstracts and other articles. And this data is correlated through a workgroup. There a lot of new chapters.
Chapter specific surgery like peri-operative, intra-operative, post-operative, cat issues, managing complication issues. And we started off with the coming up with the Scope of Work. The evidence review team took the Scope of Work
and tried to get all the articles and sift through the articles and came up and rated the evidence using a certain rating system which is very scientific. The workgroup then kind of evaluated the whole system, and then came up with what is clinically relevant.
It's one thing for statisticians to say how strong evidence this is, but it's another thing how it is looked upon by the clinicians. So then we kind of put this into a document. Document went through internal and external review process.
This is the process we have tried to do it. Dr. Lok has been the Chair of the group. Myself and Dr. Yevzlin are the Vice-Chairs. We have incredible workgroup which has done most of the work. And here are the workgroup members.
We comprised of nephrologist, transplant surgeons, vascular surgeons, Allied Health personnel, pediatric nephrologist so it's a multi interventional radiologist and interventional nephrologist. This is a multi disciplinary group which has gone through this process.
Timothy Wilt from Minnesota was the head of the Evidence Review Team, who has worked on the evidence building. And now for the editorial sections we have Dr. Huber, Lee, and Dr. Lok taking care of it. So where are we today?
We have pretty much gone through the first part of it. We are at the place where we are ready for the Internal Review and External Review. So many of you probably will get a chance to look through it when it comes for the External Review and would love
to have your comments on this document. Essentially, we are looking at access in the context of end stage renal disease, and that is new. And obviously we have gone through and done a very scientific review, a very scientific methodology to try
to evaluate the evidence and try to come up with guidelines. Thank you.
- Thank you very much Raul and our co-chair and also Frank Veith for inviting me again. I'm going to tell you a little bit about flow augmentation. And I have no disclosures related to this. Well, flow augmentation after venous stenting for venous obstruction potentially improves outcome. That's a statement that is
most of the people will support that. Important characteristic of noninvasive compression device after venous stenting is that they improve blood flow inside the newly stented patient,
they stimulate the calf pump muscle, and they're a synergistic tool along anticoagulation, and to decrease the risk for re-occlusion. Well, there are flow devices. Most of the people I think use intermittent pneumatic calf compression
for a few days after the procedure. That can be done but there are now neuromuscular stimulating devices like the FlowAid and the Geko device to stimulate nerves and then the calf won't contract. The physiologic effects of intermittent
pneumatic compression are there. They had been analyzed significantly. There's a decrease of venous stasis and venous pressure, increase flow, increase fibrinolysis, and the blood volume is better and the venous emptying is better.
There's an increased endothelial shear stress, increased the A-V pressure gradient, and there's a decrease in incidence of thrombosis. Those are already published in several papers. Well, what about the neurostimulation device? We have the FlowAid.
FlowAid is a battery powdered neuromuscular electro-stimulation device designed to increase blood flow in the veins. And again this also shows the sequential pattern of neuromuscular electrical stimulation at the calf and causes the calf muscle pump to expel blood
and increase venous, arterial, and microcirculatory blood flow. While these analyses have all been done with healthy volunteers and they show a better outcome then also in intermittent pneumatic compression.
The same is for the Geko device. It's a device which you put along and you stimulate the peroneal nerve, you get a calf contraction. And this also showed in several papers in healthy volunteers that it improves
venous flow, arterial flow, and microcirculatory flow. But it's all analyzed in healthy volunteers, so we said, well, let's do like a short pilot study and see if for even patient with PTS we get the same results, and we looked at that.
But we did a very short pilot in seven patients. We stopped it because we saw already that we need a bigger study, but I will just explain to you what we found in those seven patients. We measured the flow velocity and volume
before and after stenting in the iliac tract to see if we have the increased flow in the common femoral vein in those PTS patients. These are the seven patients, and as you can see it's important
that they don't have a VCSS of 6.4, and the diseased leg, and less than one in the healthy leg, and the Villalta scores will show above 11 on average. So those patients were analyzed and this is what you see. You see
the velocity in the femoral vein before stenting at baseline is, can I point it, yeah, okay, is here. That you see there's a very low velocity. You can increase the velocity with the neurostimulation but there's a higher velocity increase
with the intermittent pneumatic compression. After stenting you see luckily that the velocity has increased, and the stimulation of the neuromuscular is indeed also higher, but the intermittent
pneumatic compression does better. If you look at the volume flow, of course before the treatment, it's low, 32 cc a minute, and then you get an increase with the Geko and an increase with the intermittent
pneumatic compression which is much higher. And after stenting you see that it also improves, you see luckily the stent procedure was successful because we have a much higher flow rate than before the stent procedure. So in conclusion in the literature and the pilot studies
said that neurostimulatory devices have a proven good augmented blood flow in healthy subjects, even better than IPC devices, but there's no experience in PTS patients yet. So this small pilot study shows that the results obtained in healthy subjects
cannot be extrapolated to PTS patients or patients with post stent situations, therefore we are conducting now two randomized studies to compare FlowAid with IPC and the Geko device with IPC, and to see for if this has use, because why is this important?
A potential benefit of the neurostimulation is that you can use it mobile and 24/7 instead of with the IPC procedure which you can only use in a bedridden patient. So if it is as good as or close to, you can use it for a few weeks after stenting
to get the flow up and running and that you have less early stent occlusions. We are also analyzing for if it can replace AV fistula which we do after end of phlebectomies and to prevent really early re-occlusion. And as I said we need those studies to be done
but that the important message is that we don't go home with the fact that those devices, although in healthy volunteers show a very good outcome, they have to be tested in patients with PTS. Thank you very much.
- Thank you for asking me to speak. Thank you Dr Veith. I have no disclosures. I'm going to start with a quick case again of a 70 year old female presented with right lower extremity rest pain and non-healing wound at the right first toe
and left lower extremity claudication. She had non-palpable femoral and distal pulses, her ABIs were calcified but she had decreased wave forms. Prior anterior gram showed the following extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease due to the small size we went ahead and did a CT scan and confirmed.
She had a very small aorta measuring 14 millimeters in outer diameter and circumferential calcium of her aorta as well as proximal common iliac arteries. Due to this we treated her with a right common femoral artery cutdown and an antegrade approach to her SFA occlusion with a stent.
We then converted the sheath to a retrograde approach, place a percutaneous left common femoral artery access and then placed an Endologix AFX device with a 23 millimeter main body at the aortic bifurcation. We then ballooned both the aorta and iliac arteries and then placed bilateral balloon expandable
kissing iliac stents to stent the outflow. Here is our pre, intra, and post operative films. She did well. Her rest pain resolved, her first toe amputation healed, we followed her for about 10 months. She also has an AV access and had a left arterial steel
on a left upper extremity so last week I was able to undergo repeat arteriogram and this is at 10 months out. We can see that he stent remains open with good flow and no evidence of in stent stenosis. There's very little literature about using endografts for occlusive disease.
Van Haren looked at 10 patients with TASC-D lesions that were felt to be high risk for aorta bifem using the Endologix AFX device. And noted 100% technical success rate. Eight patients did require additional stent placements. There was 100% resolution of the symptoms
with improved ABIs bilaterally. At 40 months follow up there's a primary patency rate of 80% and secondary of 100% with one acute limb occlusion. Zander et all, using the Excluder prothesis, looked at 14 high risk patients for aorta bifem with TASC-C and D lesions of the aorta.
Similarly they noted 100% technical success. Nine patients required additional stenting, all patients had resolution of their symptoms and improvement of their ABIs. At 62 months follow up they noted a primary patency rate of 85% and secondary of 100
with two acute limb occlusions. The indications for this procedure in general are symptomatic patient with a TASC C or D lesion that's felt to either be a high operative risk for aorta bifem or have a significantly calcified aorta where clamping would be difficult as we saw in our patient.
These patients are usually being considered for axillary bifemoral bypass. Some technical tips. Access can be done percutaneously through a cutdown. I do recommend a cutdown if there's femoral disease so you can preform a femoral endarterectomy and
profundaplasty at the same time. Brachial access is also an alternative option. Due to the small size and disease vessels, graft placement may be difficult and may require predilation with either the endograft sheath dilator or high-pressure balloon.
In calcified vessels you may need to place covered stents in order to pass the graft to avoid rupture. Due to the poor radial force of endografts, the graft must be ballooned after placement with either an aortic occlusion balloon but usually high-pressure balloons are needed.
It usually also needs to be reinforced the outflow with either self-expanding or balloon expandable stents to prevent limb occlusion. Some precautions. If the vessels are calcified and tortuous again there may be difficult graft delivery.
In patients with occluded vessels standard techniques for crossing can be used, however will require pre-dilation before endograft positioning. If you have a sub intimal cannulation this does put the vessel at risk for rupture during
balloon dilation. Small aortic diameters may occlude limbs particularly using modular devices. And most importantly, the outflow must be optimized using stents distally if needed in the iliac arteries, but even more importantly, assuring that you've
treated the femoral artery and outflow to the profunda. Despite these good results, endograft use for occlusive disease is off label use and therefor not reimbursed. In comparison to open stents, endograft use is expensive and may not be cost effective. There's no current studies looking
into the cost/benefit ratio. Thank you.
- Thank you so much. We have no disclosures. So I think everybody would agree that the transposed basilic vein fistula is one of the most important fistulas that we currently operate with. There are many technical considerations
related to the fistula. One is whether to do one or two stage. Your local criteria may define how you do this, but, and some may do it arbitrarily. But some people would suggest that anything less than 4 mm would be a two stage,
and any one greater than 4 mm may be a one stage. The option of harvesting can be open or endovascular. The option of gaining a suitable access site can be transposition or superficialization. And the final arterial anastomosis, if you're not superficializing can either be
a new arterial anastomosis or a venovenous anastomosis. For the purposes of this talk, transposition is the dissection, transection and re tunneling of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the arm, either as a primary or staged procedure. Superficialization is the dissection and elevation
of the basilic vein to the superior aspect of the upper arm, which may be done primarily, but most commonly is done as a staged procedure. The natural history of basilic veins with regard to nontransposed veins is very successful. And this more recent article would suggest
as you can see from the upper bands in both grafts that either transposed or non-transposed is superior to grafts in current environment. When one looks at two-stage basilic veins, they appear to be more durable and cost-effective than one-stage procedures with significantly higher
patency rates and lower rates of failure along comparable risk stratified groups from an article from the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Meta-ana, there are several meta-analysis and this one shows that between one and two stages there is really no difference in the failure and the patency rates.
The second one would suggest there is no overall difference in maturation rate, or in postoperative complication rates. With the patency rates primary assisted or secondary comparable in the majority of the papers published. And the very last one, again based on the data from the first two, also suggests there is evidence
that two stage basilic vein fistulas have higher maturation rates compared to the single stage. But I think that's probably true if one really realizes that the first stage may eliminate a lot of the poor biology that may have interfered with the one stage. But what we're really talking about is superficialization
versus transposition, which is the most favorite method. Or is there a favorite method? The early data has always suggested that transposition was superior, both in primary and in secondary patency, compared to superficialization. However, the data is contrary, as one can see,
in this paper, which showed the reverse, which is that superficialization is much superior to transposition, and in the primary patency range quite significantly. This paper reverses that theme again. So for each year that you go to the Journal of Vascular Surgery,
one gets a different data set that comes out. The final paper that was published recently at the Eastern Vascular suggested strongly that the second stage does consume more resources, when one does transposition versus superficialization. But more interestingly also found that these patients
who had the transposition had a greater high-grade re-stenosis problem at the venovenous or the veno-arterial anastomosis. Another point that they did make was that superficialization appeared to lead to faster maturation, compared to the transposition and thus they favored
superficialization over transposition. If one was to do a very rough meta-analysis and take the range of primary patencies and accumulative patencies from those papers that compare the two techniques that I've just described. Superficialization at about 12 months
for its primary patency will run about 57% range, 50-60 and transposition 53%, with a range of 49-80. So in the range of transposition area, there is a lot of people that may not be a well matched population, which may make meta-analysis in this area somewhat questionable.
But, if you get good results, you get good results. The cumulative patency, however, comes out to be closer in both groups at 78% for superficialization and 80% for transposition. So basilic vein transposition is a successful configuration. One or two stage procedures appear
to carry equally successful outcomes when appropriate selection criteria are used and the one the surgeon is most favored to use and is comfortable with. Primary patency of superficialization despite some papers, if one looks across the entire literature is equivalent to transposition.
Cumulative patency of superficialization is equivalent to transposition. And there is, appears to be no apparent difference in complications, maturation, or access duration. Thank you so much.
- Thank you (mumbles). The purpose of deep venous valve repair is to correct the reflux. And we have different type of reflux. We know we have primary, secondary, the much more frequent and the rear valve agenesia. In primary deep venous incompetence,
valves are usually present but they are malfunctioning and the internal valvuloplasty is undoubtedly the best option. If we have a valve we can repair it and the results are undoubtedly the better of all deep vein surgery reconstruction
but when we are in the congenital absence of valve which is probably the worst situation or we are in post-thrombotic syndrome where cusps are fully destroyed, the situation is totally different. In this situation, we need alternative technique
to provide a reflux correction that may be transposition, new valve or valve transplants. The mono cuspid valve is an option between those and we can obtain it by parietal dissection. We use the fibrotic tissue determined by the
sickening of the PTS event obtaining a kind of flap that we call valve but as you can realize is absolutely something different from a native valve. The morphology may change depending on the wall feature and the wall thickness
but we have to manage the failure of the mono cuspid valve which is mainly due to the readhesion of the flap which is caused by the fact that if we have only a mono cuspid valve, we need a deeper pocket to reach the contralateral wall so bicuspid valve we have
smaller cusps in mono cuspid we have a larger one. And how can we prevent readhesion? In our first moment we can apply a technical element which is to stabilize the valve in the semi-open position in order not to have the collapse of the valve with itself and then we had decide to apply an hemodynamic element.
Whenever possible, the valve is created in front of a vein confluence. In this way we can obtain a kind of competing flow, a better washout and a more mobile flap. This is undoubtedly a situation that is not present in nature but helps in providing non-collapse
and non-thrombotic events in the cusp itself. In fact, if we look at the mathematical modeling in the flow on valve you can see how it does work in a bicuspid but when we are in a mono cuspid, you see that in the bottom of the flap
we have no flow and here there is the risk of thrombosis and here there is the risk of collapse. If we go to a competing flow pattern, the flap is washed out alternatively from one side to the other side and this suggest us the idea to go through a mono cuspid
valve which is not just opens forward during but is endovascular and in fact that's what we are working on. Undoubtedly open surgery at the present is the only available solution but we realized that obviously to have the possibility
to have an endovascular approach may be totally different. As you can understand we move out from the concept to mimic nature. We are not able to provide the same anatomy, the same structure of a valve and we have to put
in the field the possibility to have no thrombosis and much more mobile flap. This is the lesson we learn from many years of surgery. The problem is the mobile flap and the thrombosis inside the flap itself. The final result of a valve reconstruction
disregarding the type of method we apply is to obtain an anti-reflux mechanism. It is not a valve, it is just an anti-reflux mechanism but it can be a great opportunity for patient presenting a deep vein reflux that strongly affected their quality of life.
- I think by definition this whole session today has been about challenging vascular access cases. Here's my disclosures. I went into vascular surgery, I think I made the decision when I was either a fourth year medical student or early on in internship because
what intrigued me the most was that it seemed like vascular surgeons were only limited by their imagination in what we could do to help our patients and I think these access challenges are perfect examples of this. There's going to be a couple talks coming up
about central vein occlusion so I won't be really touching on that. I just have a couple of examples of what I consider challenging cases. So where do the challenges exist? Well, first, in creating an access,
we may have a challenge in trying to figure out what's going to be the best new access for a patient who's not ever had one. Then we are frequently faced with challenges of re-establishing an AV fistula or an AV graft for a patient.
This may be for someone who's had a complication requiring removal of their access, or the patient who was fortunate to get a transplant but then ended up with a transplant rejection and now you need to re-establish access. There's definitely a lot of clinical challenges
maintaining access: Treating anastomotic lesions, cannulation zone lesions, and venous outflow pathology. And we just heard a nice presentation about some of the complications of bleeding, infection, and ischemia. So I'll just start with a case of a patient
who needed to establish access. So this is a 37-year-old African-American female. She's got oxygen-dependent COPD and she's still smoking. Her BMI is 37, she's left handed, she has diabetes, and she has lupus. Her access to date - now she's been on hemodialysis
for six months, all through multiple tunneled catheters that have been repeatedly having to be removed for infection and she was actually transferred from one of our more rural hospitals into town because she had a infected tunneled dialysis catheter in her femoral region.
She had been deemed a very poor candidate for an AV fistula or AV graft because of small veins. So the challenges - she is morbidly obese, she needs immediate access, and she has suboptimal anatomy. So our plan, again, she's left handed. We decided to do a right upper extremity graft
but the plan was to first explore her axillary vein and do a venogram. So in doing that, we explored her axillary vein, did a venogram, and you can see she's got fairly extensive central vein disease already. Now, she had had multiple catheters.
So this is a venogram through a 5-French sheath in the brachial vein in the axilla, showing a diffusely diseased central vein. So at this point, the decision was made to go ahead and angioplasty the vein with a 9-millimeter balloon through a 9-French sheath.
And we got a pretty reasonable result to create venous outflow for our planned graft. You can see in the image there, for my venous outflow I've placed a Gore Hybrid graft and extended that with a Viabahn to help support the central vein disease. And now to try and get rid of her catheters,
we went ahead and did a tapered 4-7 Acuseal graft connected to the brachial artery in the axilla. And we chose the taper mostly because, as you can see, she has a pretty small high brachial artery in her axilla. And then we connected the Acuseal graft to the other end of the Gore Hybrid graft,
so at least in the cannulation zone we have an immediate cannualation graft. And this is the venous limb of the graft connected into the Gore hybrid graft, which then communicates directly into the axillary vein and brachiocephalic vein.
So we were able to establish a graft for this patient that could be used immediately, get rid of her tunneled catheter. Again, the challenges were she's morbidly obese, she needs immediate access, and she has suboptimal anatomy, and the solution was a right upper arm loop AV graft
with an early cannulation segment to immediately get rid of her tunneled catheter. Then we used the Gore Hybrid graft with the 9-millimeter nitinol-reinforced segment to help deal with the preexisting venous outflow disease that she had, and we were able to keep this patient
free of a catheter with a functioning access for about 13 months. So here's another case. This is in a steal patient, so I think it's incredibly important that every patient that presents with access-induced ischemia to have a complete angiogram
of the extremity to make sure they don't have occult inflow disease, which we occasionally see. So this patient had a functioning upper arm graft and developed pretty severe ischemic pain in her hand. So you can see, here's the graft, venous outflow, and she actually has,
for the steal patients we see, she actually had pretty decent flow down her brachial artery and radial and ulnar artery even into the hand, even with the graft patent, which is usually not the case. In fact, we really challenged the diagnosis of ischemia for quite some time, but the pressures that she had,
her digital-brachial index was less than 0.5. So we went ahead and did a drill. We've tried to eliminate the morbidity of the drill bit - so we now do 100% of our drills when we're going to use saphenous vein with endoscopic vein harvest, which it's basically an outpatient procedure now,
and we've had very good success. And here you can see the completion angiogram and just the difference in her hand perfusion. And then the final case, this is a patient that got an AV graft created at the access center by an interventional nephrologist,
and in the ensuing seven months was treated seven different times for problems, showed up at my office with a cold blue hand. When we duplexed her, we couldn't see any flow beyond the AV graft anastomosis. So I chose to do a transfemoral arteriogram
and what you can see here, she's got a completely dissected subclavian axillary artery, and this goes all the way into her arterial anastomosis. So this is all completely dissected from one of her interventions at the access center. And this is the kind of case that reminded me
of one of my mentors, Roger Gregory. He used to say, "I don't wan "I just want out of the trap." So what we ended up doing was, I actually couldn't get into the true lumen from antegrade, so I retrograde accessed
her brachial artery and was able to just re-establish flow all the way down. I ended up intentionally covering the entry into her AV graft to get that out of the circuit and just recover her hand, and she's actually been catheter-dependent ever since
because she really didn't want to take any more chances. Thank you very much.
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- Mr Chairman, dear colleagues. I've nothing to disclose. We know that aneurysm or dilation of the common iliac artery is present in almost 20% of cases submitted to endovascular repair and we have a variety of endovascular solution available. The first one is the internal iliac artery
embolization and coverage which is very technically easy but it's a suboptimal choice due to the higher risk of thrombosis and internal iliac problems. So the flared limbs landing in the common iliac artery is technically easy,
however, the results in the literature are conflicting. Iliac branch devices is a more demanding procedure but has to abide to a specific anatomical conditions and is warranted by good results in the literature such as this work from the group in Perugia who showed a technical success of almost 100%
as you can see, and also good results in other registries. So there are unresolved question about this problem which is the best choice in this matter, flared limbs or iliac branch devices. In order to solve this problem, we have looked at our data,
published them in Journal Vascular Interventional Neurology and this is our retrospective observational study involving treatment with either flared limbs or IBD and these are the flared limbs devices we used in this study. Anaconda, Medtronic, Cook and Gore.
And these are the IFU of the two IBD which were used in this study which were Gore-IBE and Cook-ZBS. So we looked at the 602 EVAR with 105 flared limbs which were also fit for IBD. And on the other side, we looked at EVAR-IBD
implanted in the same period excluding those implanted outside the IFU. So we ended up with 57 cases of IBD inside the IFU. These are the characteristics of the two groups of patients. The main important finding was the year age which was a little younger in the IBD group
and the common iliac artery diameter which was greater, again in the IBD group. So this is the distribution of the four types of flared limbs devices and IBD in the two groups. And as you can see, the procedural time and volume of contrast medium was significantly
higher in the IBD group. Complications did not differ significantly however, overall there were four iliac complication and all occurred in the flared limbs group. When we went to late complications, putting together all the iliac complication, they were significantly
greater in the flared limbs group compared with the IBD with zero percent complication rate. Late complications were always addressed by endovascular relining or relining and urokinase in case of infusion, in case of thrombosis. And as you can see here, the late outcome
did not differ significantly in the two groups. However, when we put together all the iliac complication, the iliac complication free survival was significantly worse in the flared limbs group. So in conclusion, flared limbs and IBD have similar perioperative outcomes.
IBD is more technically demanding, needs more contrast medium and time obviously. The complications in flared limbs are all resolvable by endovascular means and IBD has a better outcome in the long term period. So the take-home message of my presentation
is that we prefer IBD in young patients with high life expectancy and in the presence of anatomical risk factors of flared limbs late complications. Thank you for your attention.
- Good morning, I would like to thank Dr. Veith, and the co-chairs for inviting me to talk. I have nothing to disclose. Some background on this information, patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are at least three times more likely to suffer a thrombo-embolic event, when compared to the general population.
The incidence is 0.1 - 0.5% per year. Overall mortality associated with these events can be as high as 25%, and postmortem exams reveal an incidence of 39-41% indicating that systemic thrombo-embolism is probably underdiagnosed. Thrombosis mainly occurs during disease exacerbation,
however proctocolectomy has not been shown to be preventative. Etiology behind this is not well known, but it's thought to be multifactorial. Including decrease in fibrinolytic activity, increase in platelet activation,
defects in the protein C pathway. Dyslipidemia and long term inflammation also puts patients at risk for an increase in atherosclerosis. In addition, these patients lack vitamins, are often dehydrated, anemic, and at times immobilized. Traditionally, the venous thrombosis is thought
to be more common, however recent retrospective review of the Health Care Utilization Project nationwide inpatient sample database, reported not only an increase in the incidence but that arterial complications may happen more frequently than venous.
I was going to present four patients over the course of one year, that were treated at my institution. The first patient is 25 year old female with Crohn's disease, who had a transverse colectomy one year prior to presentation. Presented with right flank pain, she was found to have
right sided PE, a right sided pulmonary vein thrombosis and a left atrial thrombosis. She was admitted for IV heparin, four days later she had developed abdominal pains, underwent an abdominal CTA significant for SMA occlusion prompting an SMA thrombectomy.
This is a picture of her CAT scan showing the right PE, the right pulmonary vein thrombosis extending into the left atrium. The SMA defect. She returned to the OR for second and third looks, underwent a subtotal colectomy,
small bowel resection with end ileostomy during the third operation. She had her heparin held post-operatively due to significant post-op bleeding, and over the next three to five days she got significantly worse, developed progressive fevers increase found to have
SMA re-thrombosis, which you can see here on her CAT scan. She ended up going back to the operating room and having the majority of her small bowel removed, and went on to be transferred to an outside facility for bowel transplant. Our second patient is a 59 year old female who presented
five days a recent flare of ulcerative colitis. She presented with right lower extremity pain and numbness times one day. She was found to have acute limb ischemia, category three. An attempt was made at open revascularization with thrombectomy, however the pedal vessels were occluded.
The leg was significantly ischemic and flow could not be re-established despite multiple attempts at cut-downs at different levels. You can see her angiogram here at the end of the case. She subsequently went on to have a below knee amputation, and her hospital course was complicated by
a colonic perforation due to the colitis not responding to conservative measures. She underwent a subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy. Just in the interest of time we'll skip past the second, third, and fourth patients here. These patients represent catastrophic complications of
atypical thrombo-embolic events occurring in IBD flares. Patients with inflammatory disease are at an increased risk for both arterial and venous thrombotic complications. So the questions to be answered: are the current recommendations adequate? Currently heparin prophylaxis is recommended for
inpatients hospitalized for severe disease. And, if this is not adequate, what treatments should we recommend, the medication choice, and the duration of treatment? These arterial and venous complications occurring in the visceral and peripheral arteries
are likely underappreciated clinically as a risk for patients with IBD flares and they demonstrate a need to look at further indications for thrombo-prophylaxis. Thank you.
- Thank you, Ulrich. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith so kindly, for this invitation. These are my disclosures and my friends. I think everyone knows that the Zenith stent graft has a safe and durable results update 14 years. And I think it's also known that the Zenith stent graft
had such good shrinkage, compared to the other stent grafts. However, when we ask Japanese physicians about the image of Zenith stent graft, we always think of the demo version. This is because we had the original Zenith in for a long time. It was associated with frequent limb occlusion due to
the kinking of Z stent. That's why the Spiral Z stent graft came out with the helical configuration. When you compare the inner lumen of the stent graft, it's smooth, it doesn't have kink. However, when we look at the evidence, we don't see much positive studies in literature.
The only study we found was done by Stephan Haulon. He did the study inviting 50 consecutive triple A patients treated with Zenith LP and Spiral Z stent graft. And he did two cases using a two iliac stent and in six months, all Spiral Z limb were patent. On the other hand, when you look at the iliac arteries
in Asians, you probably have the toughest anatomy to perform EVARs and TEVARs because of the small diameter, calcification, and tortuosity. So this is the critical question that we had. How will a Spiral Z stent graft perform in Japanese EIA landing cases, which are probably the toughest cases?
And this is what we did. We did a multi-institutional prospective observational study for Zenith Spiral Z stent graft, deployed in EIA. We enrolled patients from June 2017 to November 2017. We targeted 50 cases. This was not an industry-sponsored study.
So we asked for friends to participate, and in the end, we had 24 hospitals from all over Japan participate in this trial. And the board collected 65 patients, a total of 74 limbs, and these are the results. This slide shows patient demographics. Mean age of 77,
80 percent were male, and mean triple A diameter was 52. And all these qualities are similar to other's reporting in these kinds of trials. And these are the operative details. The reason for EIA landing was, 60 percent had Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm.
12 percent had Hypogastric Artery Aneurysm. And 24 percent had inadequate CIA, meaning short CIA or CIA with thrombosis. Outside IFU was observed in 24.6 percent of patients. And because we did fermoral cutdowns, mean operative time was long, around three hours.
One thing to note is that we Japanese have high instance of Type IV at the final angio, and in our study we had 43 percent of Type IV endoleaks at the final angio. Other things to notice is that, out of 74 limbs, 11 limbs had bare metal stents placed at the end of the procedure.
All patients finished a six month follow-up. And this is the result. Only one stenosis required PTA, so the six months limb potency was 98.6 percent. Excellent. And this is the six month result again. Again the primary patency was excellent with 98.6 percent. We had two major adverse events.
One was a renal artery stenosis that required PTRS and one was renal stenosis that required PTA. For the Type IV index we also have a final angio. They all disappeared without any clinical effect. Also, the buttock claudication was absorbed in 24 percent of patients at one month, but decreased
to 9.5 percent at six months. There was no aneurysm sac growth and there was no mortality during the study period. So, this is my take home message, ladies and gentlemen. At six months, Zenith Spiral Z stent graft deployed in EIA was associated with excellent primary patency
and low rate of buttock claudication. So we have most of the patients finish a 12 month follow-up and we are expecting excellent results. And we are hoping to present this later this year. - [Host] Thank you.
So I think when it comes to distal bypasses and ultra-distal bypasses it's all about how we make our decision. We know now that early intervention these patients have better outcome. We use waveform analysis to make our decision about how critical their skin is
we use different topical anesthesia depending the patient's fitness. I think this is just one important point that patient's with dark skin did not show all the full range of skin changes and patients get this dark foot sign
even before they start necrosing their skin. It's very important how we give our anesthetics we use vascular anesthesia with special interest prevascular disease because these patients are quite labile. We use even sometimes inotropes during the procedure
and post operative to maintain a good blood pressure. We believe that short bypasses have got better outcomes. Dr. Veith, have already published in the 80s about short bypasses also doing now the Tibiotibial bypasses on the look anesthetic. Some patients with very high risk for general anesthesia.
And our study we showed that the majority of our patients, who had ultra-distal bypasses had the bypasses from either popliteal or SFA artery. We use different techniques to improve on how to take our bypasses from the proximal anastomosis distally. So we use hybrid revascularization, we use drug-eluting
balloons, and stenting of the SFA and popliteal artery, so we can perform our bypass from the popliteal level. We even use Remote Endarterectomy to improve on our length of the inflow. So by doing remote endarterectomy of the SFA
and popliteal artery, we can take the bypass quite distally from the popliteal artery to the foot level. This is a patient who got critical leg ischaemia on the right side limited, venous conduit. We did remote endarterectomy of her SFA and popliteal artery. And then we can
easily take the bypass from the popliteal artery down to the foot level. On the left side, she had hybrid revascularization with SFA stenting and ultra-distal bypass. We use venous conduit in almost all our patients with ultra-distal bypass.
In distal bypasses we can PTFE but the majority of our patients have long saphenous veins or even arm veins. We started using Omniflow in our infected patients for distal bypasses with quite good results. We scan all our veins prior to the procedure
to make sure that we got good quality vein and amount to perform the procedure. We have published in our small veins series less than 3mm, we still have a very good outcome in distal bypasses. Especially when we do tibial bypasses
or dorsalis pedis bypasses we turn the grafts anatomically. You can see in this angiogram the graft going through the interosseous membrane down to the foot level. We put our incision a bit immediately on the foot level so if there is necrosis of the wound on the foot level that we don't expose the graft, especially when we
knew the patient was coming from the lateral aspect through the interosseous membrane. We select our bypasses especially in the foot level using the duplic scanogram, angiogram or CT angiogram. During the procedure we don't clamp our arteries we use the Flo-Rester and Flo-Through prothesis
to stop patients from bleeding while we're doing it. And we've never used tourniquet before all this has been published. Hand held doppler is the only quality control that we do we don't do on-table angiograms and we find this quite useful for our patients.
We can do the debridement and at the same time while we're doing the bypass at the ankle level. As for anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy We do antiplatelet therapy for all patient with distal and ultra-distal bypass. And we use heparin and warfarin for patients
who have got redo surgery. Graft surveillance for all our patients Unfortunately, we can only afford it in the NHS for one year, but if the patient get an intervention they go for another full year. Salvage angioplasty is essential for these patients
and we treat these patients as quite as a emergency when they present. So, conclusion, Mr. Sherman, ladies and gentlemen, distal and ultra-distal bypasses require good planning. We use veins for all our bypasses when it comes to the foot level and ultra-distal bypasses,
and of course selecting the target vessel in the foot is very important. Graft Surveillance is essential to maintain quality and outcome for these patients. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, and thank you Dr. Veith for the opportunity to present. So, acute aortic syndromes are difficult to treat and a challenge for any surgeon. In regionalization of care of acute aortic syndromes is now a topic of significant conversation. The thoughts are that you can move these patients
to an appropriate hospital infrastructure with surgical expertise and a team that's familiar with treating them. Higher volumes, better outcomes. It's a proven concept in trauma care. Logistics of time, distance, transfer mortality,
and cost are issues of concern. This is a study from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample which basically demonstrates the more volume, the lower mortality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. And this is a study from Clem Darling
and his Albany Group demonstrating that with their large practice, that if they could get patients transferred to their central hospital, that they had a higher incidence of EVAR with lower mortality. Basically, transfer equaled more EVARs and a
lower mortality for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Matt Mell looked at interfacility transfer mortality in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms to try to see if actually, transfer improved mortality. The take home message was, operative transferred patients
did do better once they reached the institution of destination, however they had a significant mortality during transfer that basically negated that benefit. And transport time, interestingly did not affect mortality. So, regional aortic management, I think,
is something that is quite valuable. As mentioned, access to specialized centers decrease overall mortality and morbidity potentially. In transfer mortality a factor, transport time does not appear to be. So, we set up a rapid transport system
at Keck Medical Center. Basically predicated on 24/7 coverage, and we would transfer any patient within two hours to our institution that called our hotline. This is the number of transfers that we've had over the past three years.
About 250 acute aortic transfers at any given... On a year, about 20 to 30 a month. This is a study that we looked at, that transport process. 183 patients, this is early on in our experience. We did have two that expired en route. There's a listing of the various
pathologies that we treated. These patients were transferred from all over Southern California, including up to Central California, and we had one patient that came from Nevada. The overall mortality is listed here. Ruptured aortic aneurysms had the highest mortality.
We had a very, very good mortality with acute aortic dissections as you can see. We did a univariate and multivariate analysis to look at factors that might have affected transfer mortality and what we found was the SVS score greater than eight
had a very, very significant impact on overall mortality for patients that were transferred. What is a society for vascular surgery comorbidity score? It's basically an equation using cardiac pulmonary renal hypertension and age. The asterisks, cardiac, renal, and age
are important as I will show subsequently. So, Ben Starnes did a very elegant study that was just reported in the Journal of Vascular Surgery where he tried to create a preoperative risk score for prediction of mortality after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.
He found four factors and did an ROC curve. Basically, age greater than 76, creatinine greater than two, blood pressure less than 70, or PH less than 7.2. As you can see, as those factors accumulated there was step-wise increased mortality up to 100% with four factors.
So, rapid transport to regional aortic centers does facilitate the care of acute aortic syndromes. Transfer mortality is a factor, however. Transport mode, time, distance are not associated with mortality. Decision making to deny and accept transfer is evolving
but I think renal status, age, physiologic insult are important factors that have been identified to determine whether transfer should be performed or not. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much. These are my disclosures. So, infected aorta, in terms of the primary infected aorta and secondary infected stent grafts is a difficult problem, and its instance is probably increasing the more we treat. These patients present late, they're often very malnourished,
and they have significant comorbidity. One place where endovascular therapy is definitely effective is in the emergency situation, both the primary infected aortas, like this case on the right hand side, and also for primary aorto-enteric fistula in an emergency.
This is a young man who had obesity surgery and leaked from his gastric anastomosis. He had an esophageal stent, which then caused a significant infection in the mediastinum and eroded through his aorta. He came in in extremis bleeding
and a short stent to cover that saves his life and gives you an opportunity for later on. It's also effective in secondary infections. This is a young lady who had an aortobifemoral bypass, who is bleeding in the retroperitoneum, and you can cover that with a stent graft
and think about further treatment later. Certainly in the short term, endovascular results from treating primary mycotic aneurysms are good. Our series on the left hand side, we had only one death in our endovascular group. In further case series and in systematic reviews,
the 30 day mortality is consistently somewhere between 10% and 15% in the early stage. Long term results from primary mycotic aneurysm treatment are not that bad. This is the biggest paper, I think, in circulation, showing the three, four, five year results
which are acceptable, but you have to remember that success was gained in this group. In those without persistent sepsis, in those without aortoenteric fistula, and probably in some bacterial types, particularly salmonella, which can be treated
well before the endograft is implanted. The secondary graft infection we have to remember, though, has a significant early mortality. This is our series from Imperial, our open graft excision surgery, for urgent and emergency cases included, is 25%,
but for that you swap an excellent five year mortality. Only a few patients die in that long period. If you're putting an endograft in for secondary graft infection and aortoenteric fistula, we can look to this systematic review which I was good to join in with Steve Kakkos.
The results for endovascular treatment are poor. The rate of current sepsis at two years is 42% in the endovascular group, far worse than that for excisional surgery, so they don't do well. I've got significant concerns for endovascular treatment, and we need to worry about these if we're going to put
endovascular grafts in and leave them in. The first is of antimicrobial resistance, there are more and more resistant bugs occurring in our practice, and it's certainly been our practice in our series. Over the last three years, the number of patients with resistant bugs is up to about 50%.
This is a young man who had infective endocarditis with a fungal disease, a multi-resistant fungus. This is the state of his aorta in the top left hand panel. Of course he needs a deep venous reconstruction, which we then cover with Omentum, and he did well after that.
For aortoenteric fistula, if you're going to put an endograft in, in our experience, these get reinfected and rupture, and they probably do need definitive treatment. In secondary graft infection, aortoenteric fistula, remember, is present in 1/3 of patients,
and you need to consider this. You're only going to find that at surgery if you're placing a stent graft in. Again, we discussed earlier in this session, further interventions: graft infection
is more commonly associated with multiple interventions, and it provides a further nidus for infection. So, when is endovascular therapy effective? Well, endovascular treatments in the emergency cases are life-saving and I think they are effective. For primary aortic infection, it's effective
when there is clearance of sepsis, a low -virulence microorganism, and no fistula. Then, the results are acceptable. For secondary cases treated with Endo techniques, the long term recurrence of sepsis is significant, and they really need definitive graft excision,
or you need to accept they have antibiotics and accept palliation. Thank you very much.
- Good morning everybody. Here are my disclosures. So, upper extremity access is an important adjunct for some of the complex endovascular work that we do. It's necessary for chimney approaches, it's necessary for fenestrated at times. Intermittently for TEVAR, and for
what I like to call FEVARCh which is when you combine fenestrated repair with a chimney apporach for thoracoabdominals here in the U.S. Where we're more limited with the devices that we have available in our institutions for most of us. This shows you for a TEVAR with a patient
with an aortic occlusion through a right infracrevicular approach, we're able to place a conduit and then a 22-french dryseal sheath in order to place a TEVAR in a patient with a penetrating ulcer that had ruptured, and had an occluded aorta.
In addition, you can use this for complex techniques in the ascending aorta. Here you see a patient who had a prior heart transplant, developed a pseudoaneurysm in his suture line. We come in through a left axillary approach with our stiff wire.
We have a diagnostic catheter through the femoral. We're able to place a couple cuffs in an off-label fashion to treat this with a technically good result. For FEVARCh, as I mentioned, it's a good combination for a fenestrated repair.
Here you have a type IV thoraco fenestrated in place with a chimney in the left renal, we get additional seal zone up above the celiac this way. Here you see the vessels cannulated. And then with a nice type IV repaired in endovascular fashion, using a combination of techniques.
But the questions always arise. Which side? Which vessel? What's the stroke risk? How can we try to be as conscientious as possible to minimize those risks? Excuse me. So, anecdotally the right side has been less safe,
or concerned that it causes more troubles, but we feel like it's easier to work from the right side. Sorry. When you look at the image intensifier as it's coming in from the patient's left, we can all be together on the patient's right. We don't have to work underneath the image intensifier,
and felt like right was a better approach. So, can we minimize stroke risk for either side, but can we minimize stroke risk in general? So, what we typically do is tuck both arms, makes lateral imaging a lot easier to do rather than having an arm out.
Our anesthesiologist, although we try not to help them too much, but it actually makes it easier for them to have both arms available. When we look at which vessel is the best to use to try to do these techniques, we felt that the subclavian artery is a big challenge,
just the way it is above the clavicle, to be able to get multiple devices through there. We usually feel that the brachial artery's too small. Especially if you're going to place more than one sheath. So we like to call, at our institution, the Goldilocks phenomenon for those of you
who know that story, and the axillary artery is just right. And that's the one that we use. When we use only one or two sheaths we just do a direct puncture. Usually through a previously placed pledgeted stitch. It's a fairly easy exposure just through the pec major.
Split that muscle then divide the pec minor, and can get there relatively easily. This is what that looks like. You can see after a sheath's been removed, a pledgeted suture has been tied down and we get good hemostasis this way.
If we're going to use more than two sheaths, we prefer an axillary conduit, and here you see that approach. We use the self-sealing graft. Whenever I have more than two sheaths in, I always label the sheaths because
I can't remember what's in what vessel. So, you can see yes, I made there, I have another one labeled right renal, just so I can remember which sheath is in which vessel. We always navigate the arch first now. So we get all of our sheaths across the arch
before we selective catheterize the visceral vessels. We think this partly helps minimize that risk. Obviously, any arch manipulation is a concern, but if we can get everything done at once and then we can focus on the visceral segment. We feel like that's a better approach and seems
to be better for what we've done in our experience. So here's our results over the past five-ish years or so. Almost 400 aortic interventions total, with 72 of them requiring some sort of upper extremity access for different procedures. One for placement of zone zero device, which I showed you,
sac embolization, and two for imaging. We have these number of patients, and then all these chimney grafts that have been placed in different vessels. Here's the patients with different number of branches. Our access you can see here, with the majority
being done through right axillary approach. The technical success was high, mortality rate was reasonable in this group of patients. With the strokes being listed there. One rupture, which is treated with a covered stent. The strokes, two were ischemic,
one hemorrhagic, and one mixed. When you compare the group to our initial group, more women, longer hospital stay, more of the patients had prior aortic interventions, and the mortality rate was higher. So in conclusion, we think that
this is technically feasible to do. That right side is just as safe as left side, and that potentially the right side is better for type III arches. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Professor Veith. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present on behalf of my chief the results of the IRONGUARD 2 study. A study on the use of the C-Guard mesh covered stent in carotid artery stenting. The IRONGUARD 1 study performed in Italy,
enrolled 200 patients to the technical success of 100%. No major cardiovascular event. Those good results were maintained at one year followup, because we had no major neurologic adverse event, no stent thrombosis, and no external carotid occlusion. This is why we decided to continue to collect data
on this experience on the use of C-Guard stent in a new registry called the IRONGUARD 2. And up to August 2018, we recruited 342 patients in 15 Italian centers. Demographic of patients were a common demographic of at-risk carotid patients.
And 50 out of 342 patients were symptomatic, with 36 carotid with TIA and 14 with minor stroke. Stenosis percentage mean was 84%, and the high-risk carotid plaque composition was observed in 28% of patients, and respectively, the majority of patients presented
this homogenous composition. All aortic arch morphologies were enrolled into the study, as you can see here. And one third of enrolled patients presented significant supra-aortic vessel tortuosity. So this was no commerce registry.
Almost in all cases a transfemoral approach was chosen, while also brachial and transcervical approach were reported. And the Embolic Protection Device was used in 99.7% of patients, with a proximal occlusion device in 50 patients.
Pre-dilatation was used in 89 patients, and looking at results at 24 hours we reported five TIAs and one minor stroke, with a combined incidence rate of 1.75%. We had no myocardial infection, and no death. But we had two external carotid occlusion.
At one month, we had data available on 255 patients, with two additional neurological events, one more TIA and one more minor stroke, but we had no stent thrombosis. At one month, the cumulative results rate were a minor stroke rate of 0.58%,
and the TIA rate of 1.72%, with a cumulative neurological event rate of 2.33%. At one year, results were available on 57 patients, with one new major event, it was a myocardial infarction. And unfortunately, we had two deaths, one from suicide. To conclude, this is an ongoing trial with ongoing analysis,
and so we are still recruiting patients. I want to thank on behalf of my chief all the collaborators of this registry. I want to invite you to join us next May in Rome, thank you.
- Thank you. Here are my disclosures. Our preferred method for zone one TAVR has evolved to a carotid/carotid transposition and left subclavian retro-sandwich. The technique begins with a low transverse collar incision. The incision is deepened through the platysma
and subplatysmal flaps are then elevated. The dissection is continued along the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid entering the carotid sheath anteromedial to the jugular vein. The common carotid artery is exposed
and controlled with a vessel loop. (mumbling) The exposure's repeated for the left common carotid artery and extended as far proximal to the omohyoid muscle as possible. A retropharyngeal plane is created using blunt dissection
along the anterior border of the cervical vertebra. A tunneling clamp is then utilized to preserve the plane with umbilical tape. Additional vessel loops are placed in the distal and mid right common carotid artery and the patient is systemically anticoagulated.
The proximal and distal vessel loops are tightened and a transverse arteriotomy is created between the middle and distal vessel loops. A flexible shunt is inserted and initially secured with the proximal and middle vessel loops. (whistling)
It is then advanced beyond the proximal vessel loop and secured into that position. The left common carotid artery is then clamped proximally and distally, suture ligated, clipped and then transected. (mumbling)
The proximal end is then brought through the retropharyngeal tunnel. - [Surgeon] It's found to have (mumbles). - An end-to-side carotid anastomosis is then created between the proximal and middle vessel loops. If preferred the right carotid arteriotomy
can be made ovoid with scissors or a punch to provide a better shape match with the recipient vessel. The complete anastomosis is back-bled and carefully flushed out the distal right carotid arteriotomy.
Flow is then restored to the left carotid artery, I mean to the right carotid artery or to the left carotid artery by tightening the middle vessel loop and loosening the proximal vessel loop. The shunt can then be removed
and the right common carotid artery safely clamped distal to the transposition. The distal arteriotomy is then closed in standard fashion and flow is restored to the right common carotid artery. This technique avoids a prosthetic graft
and the retropharyngeal space while maintaining flow in at least one carotid system at all times. Once, and here's a view of the vessels, once hemostasis is assured the platysma is reapproximated with a running suture followed by a subcuticular stitch
for an excellent cosmetic result. Our preferred method for left subclavian preservation is the retro-sandwich technique which involves deploying an initial endograft just distal to the left subclavian followed by both proximal aortic extension
and a left subclavian covered stent in parallel fashion. We prefer this configuration because it provides a second source of cerebral blood flow independent of the innominate artery
and maintains ready access to the renovisceral vessels if further aortic intervention is required in the future. Thank you.
- Thank you Dr. Albaramum, it's a real pleasure to be here and I thank you for being here this early. I have no disclosures. So when everything else fails, we need to convert to open surgery, most of the times this leads to partial endograft removal,
complete removal clearly for infection, and then proximal control and distal control, which is typical in vascular surgery. Here's a 73 year old patient who two years after EVAR had an aneurism growth with what was thought
to be a type II endoleak, had coiling of the infermius mesenteric artery, but the aneurism continued to grow. So he was converted and what we find here is a type III endoleak from sutures in the endograft.
So, this patient had explantations, so it is my preference to have the nordic control with an endovascular technique through the graft where the graft gets punctured and then we put a 16 French Sheath, then we can put a aortic balloon.
And this avoids having to dissect the suprarenal aorta, particularly in devices that have super renal fixation. You can use a fogarty balloon or you can use the pruitt ballon, the advantage of the pruitt balloon is that it's over the wire.
So here's where we removed the device and in spite of the fact that we tried to collapse the super renal stent, you end up with an aortic endarterectomy and a renal endarterectomy which is not a desirable situation.
So, in this instance, it's not what we intend to do is we cut the super renal stent with wire cutters and then removed the struts individually. Here's the completion and preservation of iliac limbs, it's pretty much the norm in all of these cases,
unless they have, they're not well incorporated, it's a lot easier. It's not easy to control these iliac arteries from the inflammatory process that follows the placement of the endograft.
So here's another case where we think we're dealing with a type II endoleak, we do whatever it does for a type II endoleak and you can see here this is a pretty significant endoleak with enlargement of the aneurism.
So this patient gets converted and what's interesting is again, you see a suture hole, and in this case what we did is we just closed the suture hole, 'cause in my mind,
it would be simple to try and realign that graft if the endoleak persisted or recurred, as opposed to trying to remove the entire device. Here's the follow up on that patient, and this patient has remained without an endoleak, and the aneurism we resected
part of the sack, and the aneurism has remained collapsed. So here's another patient who's four years status post EVAR, two years after IMA coiling and what's interesting is when you do delayed,
because the aneurism sacks started to increase, we did delayed use and you see this blush here, and in this cases we know before converting the patient we would reline the graft thinking, that if it's a type III endoleak we can resolve it that way
otherwise then the patient would need conversion. So, how do we avoid the proximal aortic endarterectomy? We'll leave part of the proximal portion of the graft, you can transect the graft. A lot of these grafts can be clamped together with the aorta
and then you do a single anastomosis incorporating the graft and the aorta for the proximal anastomosis. Now here's a patient, 87 years old, had an EVAR,
the aneurism grew from 6 cm to 8.8 cm, he had coil embolization, translumbar injection of glue, we re-lined the endograft and the aneurism kept enlarging. So basically what we find here is a very large type II endoleak,
we actually just clip the vessel and then resected the sack and closed it, did not remove the device. So sometimes you can just preserve the entire device and just take care of the endoleak. Now when we have infection,
then we have to remove the entire device, and one alternative is to use extra-anatomic revascularization. Our preference however is to use cryo-preserved homograft with wide debridement of the infected area. These grafts are relatively easy to remove,
'cause they're not incorporated. On the proximal side you can see that there's a aortic clamp ready to go here, and then we're going to slide it out while we clamp the graft immediately, clamp the aorta immediately after removal.
And here's the reconstruction. Excuse me. For an endograft-duodenal fistula here's a patient that has typical findings, then on endoscopy you can see a little bit of the endograft, and then on an opergy I series
you actually see extravasation from the duodenal. In this case we have the aorta ready to be clamped, you can see the umbilical tape here, and then take down the fistula, and then once the fistula's down
you got to repair the duodenal with an omental patch, and then a cryopreserved reconstruction. Here's a TEVAR conversion, a patient with a contained ruptured mycotic aneurysm, we put an endovascular graft initially, Now in this patient we do the soraconomy
and the other thing we do is, we do circulatory support. I prefer to use ECMO, in this instances we put a very long canula into the right atrium, which you're anesthesiologist can confirm
with transassof forgeoligico. And then we use ECMO for circulatory support. The other thing we're doing now is we're putting antibiotic beads, with specific antibiotic's for the organism that has been cultured.
Here's another case where a very long endograft was removed and in this case, we put the device offline, away from the infected field and then we filled the field with antibiotic beads. So we've done 47 conversions,
12 of them were acute, 35 were chronic, and what's important is the mortality for acute conversion is significant. And at this point the, we avoid acute conversions,
most of those were in the early experience. Thank you.
- I'm going to be speaking about indirect access sites for access intervention. I'm going to be focusing on the transjugular approach. So access interventions, typically we perform them through a direct puncture of the fistula. Sometimes you place two introducers. There are some disadvantages to the direct approach.
The crossing catheters technique that we generally use for declots is awkward and cumbersome. The introducers can obstruct flow, there's dead space behind the introducers that can trap clot, and there's radiation exposure or the direct exposure
or scatter radiation from hands near the field. Admit it, we've all had access-site complications, suture-site necrosis and infection, as well as pseudoaneurysms. There's also prolonged procedure time related to needing to obtain hemostasis
in the high-pressure segment. There are also problems particularly to immature fistulas, such as hematoma formation, spasm at the introducer site causing pseudo-stenosis, decreased flow, and fistula thrombosis. Now, the good news is that we do have options
for alternative access sites. I'm sure many of you here use arterial access for immature fistulas in particular. Brachial access can be used to, this can be used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. We can also utilize radial or ulnar access.
Rarely, femoral access is used, as we saw in the last presentation. But there's also pendula venous access sites. You can sometimes, as a fortuitous tributary, what I call a target of opportunity, and also, the internal jugular vein.
Now, the transjugular approach was first reported in 1998. It does have some definite advantages over direct puncture technique. You can avoid the cumbersome access, you can keep your hands away from the beam, and there's no dead space as compared
to crossing sheaths for your declot. And if the intervention is unsuccessful, you can convert your IJ access to a catheter if you already have a wire in it. There are some technical challenges associated with this technique.
You do have to overcome the valves. It can be difficult to access the cephalic vein, but you can get around this by using a snare. And there's possibly a risk of IJ thrombosis if you're using large introducers. When to use this technique?
Well, when direct puncture's going to be difficult or cumbersome, when there's a short cannulation segment, when it's an extensively stented access, and when there's inflow pathology requiring a retrograde approach or arterial empathalogy, and it's a good option for clotted access.
The technique, micropuncture access of the jugular vein, ipsilateral or contralateral, place a sheath, and an important thing to use is a reverse-curve catheter, followed by glidewire. So here, we've cannulated the jugular vein going down,
glidewire out into the arm. If you're unable to cross into the cephalic vein, you can use that snare technique. And you can get a long, stable access in this way. It's been reported about, there's about 10 publications on transjugular approach, seven retrospective studies.
There's a large study that's reported thrombectomy. Also a large study looking at immature fistulas. Smaller studies looking at dysfunctional access and pseudoaneurysms. Two case reports, one review article, but there's of course no randomized studies.
There's a recent study from this year from Ferral and Alonzo. This was a retrospective study. Over two years they performed 30 transjugular AV access interventions. This accounted for 5% of their access experience
and this series was all fistulance. Indications for the procedure, 43% were declots, 43% were arterial and fistual pathology, there were two immature fistulas and two bleeding pseudoaneurysms. The access approach was 29 for ipsilateral,
only one contralateral. The results, 97% technical success, a snare was required in 4 cases, a catheter was inserted in two of the cases. There were no episodes of jugular vein thrombosis. In the remaining time, I'd like to show
a couple of case studies. Again, from Ferral and Alonzo. This is a case of an immature fistula. This was a partially occluded, immature left upper arm fistula. The initial fistulagram shows outflow stenosis
with a multiple stenosis in thrombus, and there's an arterial in stenosis that's distal to the access point, so you're not going to be able to treat that. They performed four millimeter angioplasty. Follow-up fistulagram shows a small, but patent vein
and the arterial end could not be treated. They brought the patient back in two weeks for a staged transjugular approach. And you can see the jugular catheter coming down. The vein diameter's improved, but there's still the untreated arterial end stenosis,
which is easily treated through the jugular approach. This is a study from, a case from Dr. Rabellino, ruptured pseudoaneurysm. This is a basilic transposition with a ruptured pseudoaneurysm at an infiltration site. Pretty ugly arm, swollen, skin necrosis.
I don't think we want to be sticking that arm. They initially went with a femoral approach for the fistulagram, demonstrated the pseudoaneurysm. As you can see here, tandem outflow stenoses. Coming up from below with the femoral artery diagnostic catheter.
Down and into the arm through the jugular approach. And here, you can see the venous outflow after angioplasty, covered stent deployed through the jugular access. So in summary, the transjugular approach is a useful but underutilized technique. The advantages include single-puncture intervention,
does not involve the outflow vein directly, simplified hemostasis, it's a low pressure system. It does have the advantage that you can use large introducers, there's less radiation for the operator, and you can convert to a catheter easily if needed. It is a useful technique for fistula maturation,
thrombectomy, and access maintenance. I say go for the jugular.
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.