- 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.
- 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 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)
- It's my pleasure on behalf of the Sentury Trial investigators to present the two year data on the BTG Novate Sentry filter. These are my disclosures. Well, as we have heard this afternoon, it's no surprise to anyone the topic of IVC filter placement is controversial.
We know that IVC filters can protect patients by preventing PE. We also know that retrievable filters that are not retrieved have been reported to have, be associated with some complications. And we talked about FDA advisory,
obviously that has resulted somewhat in a decrease in filter use in this country. Obviously complication rates we've also heard about increase with implant time and include tilting, migration, fracture, perforation and embolization. And retrieval success reduces with implant time.
What's not controversial, and we have heard also about this, is the frequency of PE in this country and the expense associated with it. Obviously, survival benefits have been shown in appropriate populations, that are selected based on known indications. And existing retrieval technology, unfortunately,
as we've heard from Dr. Askandari, has not met the needs of patients when up to 40 to 50 percent are not coming back for retrieval. That was sort of the impetus behind the design of the Sentry Bioconvertible IVC Filter, which is designed to protect patients at transient risk
from PE and reduce complications of existing technologies. It employs a stable frame with filter arms held together by a bioabsorbable filament and designed to provide PE protection during a transient risk period, reduce IVC filter complications, including tilting, migration, fracture, perforation and embolization.
And this just shows an example in vitro and with a CT scan of the filter in the so-called filtering configuration. The filter then automatically bioconverts after the PE risk period is past. That's guaranteed to be in the
filtering position for at least 60 days. It bioconverts by hydrolysis of the bioabsorbable element, which allows the filter arms to retract to the IVC wall, leaving a patent lumen and reducing the risk for IVC occlusion or thrombosis later on, and obviously, the cost of IFC filter retrieval.
Here you can see filters that are in the bioconverted configuration. This just shows the deployment. It's a simple pin and pull seven French delivery system. These stable arms allow this to be placed almost always without any tilting
and is quite easy and accurate to deploy. This is in an ovine modeled pre-clinical study shows in a bioconverted configuration all of the filter elements become endothelialized and in this angioscopic view, really can't even see any of the filter elements.
This is again sort of predicated on something that I believe we're not all that familiar with and that's when the timing of PE occurs. And you can see here, from the trauma literature, orthopedic literature, other literature, on 500,000 patients and in these groups you can see
that over 90 percent of PEs take place in less than 10 days after an initial event and 99 percent of PEs within 20 days. That led the FDA to write a position decision analysis paper, which recommend filter retrieval between
29 and 54 days after implantation. So, on s, 23 sites, 63 operators. You can see this was a relatively imaging-intense protocol with 24 month CT Venogram and CT Venograms also at one month and six months.
Long term follow up, 94 percent of the eligible subjects were imaged at 24 months. You can see that 67.5 percent of the subjects had current PE and/or DVT at the time of enrollment, and 100 percent had contraindication to anticoagulation for some or all of the protection period.
In terms of the composite primary endpoint, there was a high degree of technical success, 100 percent of the patients received the device. 100 percent freedom from new symptomatic PE to 60 days. Two patients had symptomatic caval thrombosis at 8
by angiojet, one by EKOS. And there was no tilting, migration, embolization, fracture or perforation. At 12 months there were no new symptomatic PEs and there were no device related complications out to 12 months.
And at 24 months, two new symptomatic PEs, days 581 and 632,in patients with fully bioconverted filters. There were no device related out to 24 months. Both of these were adjudicated by a clinical events committee as not being device related.
And again, you can see that the bioconversion rate of 96.5 percent compares favorably to published retrieval rates, and we've talked about that. So, in conclusion, the primary endpoint at six months was met with clinical success of 97.4 percent. No new symptomatic PEs at 12 months.
2.4 new symptomatic PEs at 24 months, but no tilting, migration, perforation, fracture or embolization. And the 96.5 percent bioconversion rate compares favorably to published retrieval rates. Thanks very much.
- Thank you. 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 (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.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- Thank you, 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.
- Thank you, Dr. Ascher. Great to be part of this session this morning. These are my disclosures. The risk factors for chronic ischemia of the hand are similar to those for chronic ischemia of the lower extremity with the added risk factors of vasculitides, scleroderma,
other connective tissue disorders, Buerger's disease, and prior trauma. Also, hemodialysis access accounts for a exacerbating factor in approximately 80% of patients that we treat in our center with chronic hand ischemia. On the right is a algorithm from a recent meta-analysis
from the plastic surgery literature, and what's interesting to note is that, although sympathectomy, open surgical bypass, and venous arterialization were all recommended for patients who were refractory to best medical therapy, endovascular therapy is conspicuously absent
from this algorithm, so I just want to take you through this morning and submit that endovascular therapy does have a role in these patients with digit loss, intractable pain or delayed healing after digit resection. Physical examination is similar to that of lower extremity, with the added brachial finger pressures,
and then of course MRA and CTA can be particularly helpful. The goal of endovascular therapy is similar with the angiosome concept to establish in-line flow to the superficial and deep palmar arches. You can use an existing hemodialysis access to gain access transvenously to get into the artery for therapy,
or an antegrade brachial, distal brachial puncture, enabling you treat all three vessels. Additionally, you can use a retrograde radial approach, which allows you to treat both the radial artery, which is typically the main player in these patients, or go up the radial and then back over
and down the ulnar artery. These patients have to be very well heparinized. You're also giving antispasmodic agents with calcium channel blockers and nitroglycerin. A four French sheath is preferable. You're using typically 014, occasionally 018 wires
with balloon diameters 2.3 to three millimeters most common and long balloon lengths as these patients harbor long and tandem stenoses. Here's an example of a patient with intractable hand pain. Initial angiogram both radial and ulnar artery occlusions. We've gone down and wired the radial artery,
performed a long segment angioplasty, done the same to the ulnar artery, and then in doing so reestablished in-line flow with relief of this patient's hand pain. Here's a patient with a non-healing index finger ulcer that's already had
the distal phalanx resected and is going to lose the rest of the finger, so we've gone in via a brachial approach here and with long segment angioplasty to the radial ulnar arteries, we've obtained this flow to the hand
and preserved the digit. Another patient, a diabetic, middle finger ulcer. I think you're getting the theme here. Wiring the vessels distally, long segment radial and ulnar artery angioplasty, and reestablishing an in-line flow to the hand.
Just by way of an extreme example, here's a patient with a vascular malformation with a chronically occluded radial artery at its origin, but a distal, just proximal to the palmar arch distal radial artery reconstitution, so that served as a target for us to come in
as we could not engage the proximal radial artery, so in this patient we're able to come in from a retrograde direction and use the dedicated reentry device to gain reentry and reestablish in-line flow to this patient with intractable hand pain and digit ulcer from the loss of in-line flow to the hand.
And this patient now, two years out, remains patent. Our outcomes at the University of Pennsylvania, typically these have been steal symptoms and/or ulceration and high rates of technical success. Clinical success, 70% with long rates of primary patency comparing very favorably
to the relatively sparse literature in this area. In summary, endovascular therapy can achieve high rates of technical, more importantly, clinical success with low rates of major complications, durable primary patency, and wound healing achieved in the majority of these patients.
- Thank you (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- Dear chairman, dear colleagues and friends, it's my pleasure to be again with you. Nothing to declare. In our experience of CCSVI and angioplasty we have more than 1,300 patients with different neurological disorders. Not only MS, but also migraine,
lateral amyotrophic sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, left sided amaurosis. We published our data with an emphasis on the safety of the procedure. We had virtually zero percent of serious complication. What about the clinical improvement?
In fact, we noticed function improvement in more than 62.5% of these patients. And in fact, the group of Pierfrancesco Veroux showed similar between 50 and 60% of the patients restoring the normal blood venous flow. In fact, in their work was shown that the type
of anatomic disturbance, anatomic feature is very important predictor if the flow will be restored by the simple PTA. And the most important into the brave dream trial was also that, in fact, the restoration of the flow was achieved in around 70% of the patients.
And exactly in these 70% of the patients with restored flow like Paulo emphasized already, there were lesion, 91% of them were lesion-free on the MRI, and 77% of them were lesion-free on the six-month. We performed a substudy regarding the hypercapnia
and hypoxaemia of the jugular veins in the CCSVI-positive patients. And what we have described in this 178 patients with CCSVI and 50 healthy control group. In fact, we established that the patients CCSVI-positive the venous sample by the jugular veins was typical
with hypercapnia and hypoxaemia in desaturation, huge desaturation with improvement after the balloon angioplasty in all three parameters. What was the reason for that? In fact, in nine patients of our group we examined, the perfusion, the nuclear perfusion of the brain
before and after the treatment. I'm here presenting non-positive for MS young patient without MRI demyelization. And but on the brain perfusion he had deep hyperperfusion on the left side, and the patient was complaining with deep fatigue.
And we saw practically full occlusion of the enominate vein. And after the recanalization using first coronary and after it peripheral balloons, and in this particular case we had to stent finally. And you see still persistence of a huge crossover collateral even after ballooning.
But after stenting we saw practically full restoration of the flow. You see in less than three to four seconds it was very interesting to see on the perfusion imaging, nuclear perfusion, full restoration of the flow of this gentleman.
So this is very important to emphasize that there is direct relationship between the blood gas disturbances on the brain level, and demyelinization process. What about the PTA? It's probably not the optimal treatment.
We have to establish reliable clinical and anatomical predictors for vascular and clinical success in order to answer the important questions: who will be vascular responders, or MRI responders, and finally the clinical responders in this group of patients?
And concluding, ladies and gentlemen, the CCSVI is a real vascular pathologic entity and is probably a trigger for more than one neurologic degenerative disorder. Endovascular treatment, balloon, PTA, and stenting of CCSVI is feasible and safe.
Methods and strategies improving the early and late patency rate have to be elaborated because the good clinical result is strongly dependent on the vascular patency and flow restoration. And thank you very much for your attention.
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 very much both. It was a great pleasure to see you. I continue to be grateful for the guidance you have given me over the years. Thank you to the organizers for advising me to speak. These are my disclosures. So really there are two questions posed by this topic.
One is, is the patent popliteal vein necessary? I would assume from this is it necessary for patency and symptom relief to be achieved in treating patients with both acute DVT and potentially chronic. And has the evolution formic mechanical therapy
led to over stenting. Which means we have to ask the question what is an appropriate rate for stenting. I am not sure we know the answer to that. So being able to answer over stenting requires us to know how many patients
actually need the stent in the first place in acute DVT treatments. The problem is essentially this. Is that when we form lithic therapies and this is a classic case of treatment formed with formic and mechanical device
but without a follow up using lithic in the patient for whom lithic was not feasible. You end up opening up a vessel but you can see from the image on the left hand side that there is a degree still of luminol contrast deficit suggesting some cult left behind
in the external iliac vein. Well there is obviously a May-Thurner legion at the top. The question of over stenting is one of do we just stent the May-Thruner and extend it down into the external iliac vein to trap that thrombus
or would a period of time of lithic have resulted in this clot resolving and not needed a stent at the end of it. To get to the question of how many people should be stented. The only way we can really do this
is try and exstipulate from the literature to some extent. This is the short and long term outcome from the Kevin study. Where there is ultrasound follow up of patients underwent standard treatment only.
And a additional group in the patients had catheter-directed thrombolysis. We can see there that the patients did six months in catheter-directed thrombolysis group is around 60%. And the patency seen with the non treated group
is around 40%. If we kind of use these numbers as a guide we probably expect therefore that the stent rate would be somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. To account for treating the outflow structure that presumably patients see at six months.
But this is clearly not a very rebost method of being absolutely clear on who needs stents. Additional method is we don't really have and answer for who should be stented at the end of a procedure. So if you look at the massive variability
in the other studies. We see that attract stent rate is approximately 28% for the study. Which is obviously a operative discretion and has been criticized for that reason. But there is no comment on the Popliteal vein
or Popliteal vein patency. Cavent did an stent rate of 15% again with no real comment on whether the Popliteal vein was open and it wasn't a prerequisite for treatment in the study. This contrast with the Ansberg Aspirex Registry.
Which is a registry of a purely mechanical device to aspirex clot and the stent rate is 100%. Baekgaard Copenhagen used a catered-directed thrombolysis with a mandated open popliteal vein for purpose to be in the study. He has a stent rate of 60%.
My own personal experience of 160 odd patients is that were stenting around 80% of patients with outflow legion at the end of treatment. And were not really bothered by whether the popliteal vein is clear or not. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question
whether it makes a difference in the long run. So its very difficult even looking at the data we have because there is no standard definition of what a outflow stenosis is. There is no objective measure for an outflow stenosis. So stenting becomes and operative discretion decision.
But you would have to say that if your taking purely mechanical devices and the stent rates are going up to 100% that the inclination would be that there is potential for formic mechanical therapy to lead to overstenting and increase use
for stents for sure. In our experience then we had 81 patients who had CDT alone verse 70 patients who had AngioJet Thrombectomy. The basic characteristics of the group are pretty much identical.
With similar ages and no difference between whether the thrombus with left side or right side of body or so on. And these are the patency curves for the different groups with equivalent primary, primary assisted and secondary patency over two yeas.
We had no difference in stent rates with the median stenting of 80% in both groups with two stents used in average for each of those patients. However in our practice AngioJet is rarely used alone. So we had 70 patients for whom AngioJet was used. 24 of those where AngioJet was used up front
as the first line of treatment followed by some CDT. We have tended find that if we wanted full clock clearance. We have always had omit to some extent. And single stage therapy is quite difficult to achieve unless you spent a lot of time in it.
Patency in the popliteal vein is clearly affected by some extent. These are our follow up results if we don't have a patent popliteal vein at the end. It does drop off in stent patency. So the conclusions then I think.
Is that patent popliteal vein is necessary for long term results. But you can still treat patients that have acute popliteal vein for larsons that is not a contraindication. Pure mechanical therapies may well lead to higher stent rate.
But is this a bad thing or a good thing? We don't really know this at this stage as to what the long term outcomes will be. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- I want to thank the organizers for putting together such an excellent symposium. This is quite unique in our field. So the number of dialysis patients in the US is on the order of 700 thousand as of 2015, which is the last USRDS that's available. The reality is that adrenal disease is increasing worldwide
and the need for access is increasing. Of course fistula first is an important portion of what we do for these patients. But the reality is 80 to 90% of these patients end up starting with a tunneled dialysis catheter. While placement of a tunneled dialysis catheter
is considered fairly routine, it's also clearly associated with a small chance of mechanical complications on the order of 1% at least with bleeding or hema pneumothorax. And when we've looked through the literature, we can notice that these issues
that have been looked at have been, the literature is somewhat old. It seemed to be at variance of what our clinical practice was. So we decided, let's go look back at our data. Inpatients who underwent placement
of a tunneled dialysis catheter between 1998 and 2017 reviewed all their catheters. These are all inpatients. We have a 2,220 Tesio catheter places, in 1,400 different patients. 93% of them placed on the right side
and all the catheters were placed with ultrasound guidance for the puncture. Now the puncture in general was performed with an 18 gauge needle. However, if we notice that the vein was somewhat collapsing with respiratory variation,
then we would use a routinely use a micropuncture set. All of the patients after the procedures had chest x-ray performed at the end of the procedure. Just to document that everything was okay. The patients had the classic risk factors that you'd expect. They're old, diabetes, hypertension,
coronary artery disease, et cetera. In this consecutive series, we had no case of post operative hemo or pneumothorax. We had two cut downs, however, for arterial bleeding from branches of the external carotid artery that we couldn't see very well,
and when we took out the dilator, patient started to bleed. We had three patients in the series that had to have a subsequent revision of the catheter due to mal positioning of the catheter. We suggest that using modern day techniques
with ultrasound guidance that you can minimize your incidents of mechanical complications for tunnel dialysis catheter placement. We also suggest that other centers need to confirm this data using ultrasound guidance as a routine portion of the cannulation
of the internal jugular veins. The KDOQI guidelines actually do suggest the routine use of duplex ultrasonography for placement of tunnel dialysis catheters, but this really hasn't been incorporated in much of the literature outside of KDOQI.
We would suggest that it may actually be something that may be worth putting into the surgical critical care literature also. Now having said that, not everything was all roses. We did have some cases where things didn't go
so straight forward. We want to drill down a little bit into this also. We had 35 patients when we put, after we cannulated the vein, we can see that it was patent. If it wasn't we'd go to the other side
or do something else. But in 35%, 35 patients, we can put the needle into the vein and get good flashback but the wire won't go down into the central circulation.
Those patients, we would routinely do a venogram, we would try to cross the lesion if we saw a lesion. If it was a chronically occluded vein, and we weren't able to cross it, we would just go to another site. Those venograms, however, gave us some information.
On occasion, the vein which is torturous for some reason or another, we did a venogram, it was torturous. We rolled across the vein and completed the procedure. In six of the patients, the veins were chronically occluded
and we had to go someplace else. In 20 patients, however, they had prior cannulation in the central vein at some time, remote. There was a severe stenosis of the intrathoracic veins. In 19 of those cases, we were able to cross the lesion in the central veins.
Do a balloon angioplasty with an 8 millimeter balloon and then place the catheter. One additional case, however, do the balloon angioplasty but we were still not able to place the catheter and we had to go to another site.
Seven of these lesions underwent balloon angioplasty of the innominate vein. 11 of them were in the proximal internal jugular vein, and two of them were in the superior vena cava. We had no subsequent severe swelling of the neck, arm, or face,
despite having a stenotic vein that we just put a catheter into, and no subsequent DVT on duplexes that were obtained after these procedures. Based on these data, we suggest that venous balloon angioplasty can be used in these patients
to maintain the site of an access, even with the stenotic vein that if your wire doesn't go down on the first pass, don't abandon the vein, shoot a little dye, see what the problem is,
and you may be able to use that vein still and maintain the other arm for AV access or fistular graft or whatever they need. Based upon these data, we feel that using ultrasound guidance should be a routine portion of these procedures,
and venoplasty should be performed when the wire is not passing for a central vein problem. Thank you.
- 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.
- Thank you, thanks for the opportunity to present. I have no disclosures. So, we all know that wounds are becoming more prevalent in our population, about 5% of the patient population has these non-healing wounds at a very significant economic cost, and it's a really high chance of lower extremity amputation
in these patients compared to other populations. The five-year survival following amputation from a foot ulcer is about 50%, which is actually a rate that's worse than most cancer, so this is a really significant problem. Now, even more significant than just a non-healing wound
is a wound that has both a venous and an arterial component to it. These patients are about at five to seven times the risk of getting an amputation, the end patients with either isolated venous disease or isolated PAD. It's important because the venous insufficiency component
brings about a lot more inflammation, and as we know, this is associated with either superficial or deep reflux, a history of DVT or incompetent perforators, but this adds an increasing complexity to these ulcers that refuse to heal.
So, it's estimated now about 15% of these ulcers are more of a mixed etiology, we define these as anyone who has some component of PAD, meaning an ABI of under point nine, and either superficial or deep reflux or a DVT on duplex ultrasound.
So we're going to talk for just a second about how do we treat these. Do we revascularize them first, do we do compression therapy? It has been shown in many, many studies, as with most things, that a multi-disciplinary approach
will improve the outcome of these patients, and the first step in any algorithm for these patients involves removing necrotic and infected tissue, dressings, if compression is feasible, based on the PAD level, you want to go ahead and do this secondary, if it's not, then you need to revascularize first,
and I'm going to show you our algorithm at Michigan that's based on summa the data. But remember that if the wounds fail to heal despite all of this, revascularization is a good option. So, based on the data, the algorithm that we typically use is if an ABI is less than point five
or a toe pressure is under 50, you want to revascularize first, I'll talk for a minute about the data of percutaneous versus open in these patients, but these are the patients you want to avoid compression in as a first line therapy.
If you have more moderate PAD, like in the point five to point eight range, you want to consider compression at the normal 40 millimeters of mercury, but you may need to modify it. It's actually been shown that that 40 millimeter of mercury
compression actually will increase flow to those wounds, so, contrary to what had previously been thought. So, revascularization, the data's pretty much equivocal right now, for these patients with these mixed ulcers, of whether you want to do endovascular or open. In diabetics, I think the data strongly favors
doing an open bypass if they have a good autogenous conduit and a good target, but you have to remember, in these patients, they have so much inflammation in the leg that wound healing from the surgical incisions is going to be significantly more difficult
than in a standard PAD patient, but the data has shown that about 60% of these ulcers heal at one year following revascularization. So, compression therapy, which is the mainstay either after revascularization in the severe PAD group or as a first line in the moderate group,
is really important 'cause it, again, increases blood flow to the wound. They've shown that that 40 millimeters of mercury compression is associated with a significant healing rate if you can do that, you additionally have to be careful, though,
about padding your bony areas, also, as we know, most patients don't actually keep their compression level at that 40, so there are sensors and other wearable technologies that are coming about that help patients with that, keeping in mind too, that the venous disease component
in these patients is really important, it's really important to treat the superficial venous reflux, EVLT is kind of the standard for that, treatment of perforators greater than five, all of that will help.
And I'm not going to go into any details of wound dressings, but there are plenty of new dressings that are available that can be used in conjunction with compression therapy. So, our final algorithm is we have a patient with these mixed arterial venous ulcers, we do woundcare debridement, determine the degree of PAD,
if it's severe, they go down the revascularization pathway, followed by compression, if it's moderate, then they get compression therapy first, possible treatment of venous disease, if it still doesn't heal at about 35 weeks, then you have to consider other things,
like biopsy for cancer, and then also consider revacularization. So, these ulcers are on a rise, they're a common problem, probably we need randomized control trials to figure out the optimal treatment strategies.
- Thank you so much. I have no disclosures. These guidelines were published a year ago and they are open access. You can download the PDF and you can also download the app and the app was launched two months ago
and four of the ESVS guidelines are in that app. As you see, we had three American co-authors of this document, so we have very high expertise that we managed to gather.
Now the ESVS Mesenteric Guidelines have all conditions in one document because it's not always obvious if it's acute, chronic, acute-on-chron if it's arteri
if there's an underlying aneurysm or a dissection. And we thought it a benefit for the clinician to have all in one single document. It's 51 pages, 64 recommendations, more than 300 references and we use the
ESC grading system. As you will understand, it's impossible to describe this document in four minutes but I will give you some highlights regarding one of the chapters, the Acute arterial mesenteric ischaemia chapter.
We have four recommendations on how to diagnose this condition. We found that D-dimer is highly sensitive so that a normal D-dimer value excludes the condition but it's also unfortunately unspecific. There's a common misconception that lactate is
useful in this situation. Lactate becomes elevated very late when the patient is dying. It's not a good test for diagnosing acute mesenteric ischaemia earlier. And this is a strong recommendation against that.
We also ask everyone uses the CTA angiography these days and that is of course the mainstay of diagnoses as you can see on this image. Regarding treatment, we found that in patients with acute mesenteric arterial ischaemia open or endovascular revascularisation
should preferably be done before bowel surgery. This is of course an important strategic recommendation when we work together with general surgeons. We also concluded that completion imaging is important. And this is maybe one of the reasons why endovascular repair tends to do better than
open repair in these patients. There was no other better way of judging the bowel viability than clinical judgment a no-brainer is that these patients need antibiotics and it's also a strong recommendation to do second look laparotomoy.
We found that endovascular treatment is first therapy if you suspect thrombotic occlusion. They had better survival than the open repair, where as in the embolic situation, we found no difference in outcome.
So you can do both open or endo for embolus, like in this 85 year old man from Uppsala where we did a thrombus, or the embolus aspiration. Regarding follow up, we found that it was beneficial to do imaging follow-up after stenting, and also secondary prevention is important.
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the ESVS Guidelines can be downloaded freely. There are lots of recommendations regarding diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. And they are most useful when the diagnosis is difficult and when indication for treatment is less obvious.
Please read the other chapters, too and please come to Hamburg next year for the ESVS meeting. Thank You
- [Audience Member 1] So I have a question for Dr. Jackson, but maybe everybody else on the panel can chip in, and it just has to do with what your first intervention is going to be for a focal stenosis in a vein graft, and I guess, Ben, my question is, in general, is your first time you intervene going to be a drug-eluding stent?
Our strategy generally has been, to start with, a cutting balloon based on a series, I think it was from Schneider, who compared it and saw pretty good results. Nowadays, I think maybe I'd do that, and at the same time then put a drug-coated balloon in, and that's
increasing the cost, there's no good data to say that's better than just a cutting balloon, but I think I might do that and reserve the drug-eluding stent for the second time or third time. So my question is, what's your intervention the first time you intervene endovascularly
for a focal vein graft stenosis? - [Dr. Benjamin Jackson] So if you're not going to do an open revision, right, we'll preface with that, I'll use a coronary drug-eluding stent first. - [Audience Member 1] Okay. - [Speaker 1] Okay, so, are you happy with that?
- [Audience Member 1] Well, I was hoping to get other opinions, but if you want to move on, that's fine. - [Speaker 1] Alright, so I'll give you my opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with putting a stent. The idea that the stent is going to be occupying space and is going to mess up your next procedure, I think
that's more out of fear than actually the reality. We have patients that in the SFA popliteal segmentary, we're on the fifth round of stents, and you'd be surprised how you can distend the fifth stent inside the SFA. I never thought it was possible, actually.
We have some IBIS documentation showing at least a five millimeter lumen after you do that thing. So I'm not so concerned about that. The problem with this, and I agree with putting a stent because there's a very rigid lesion sometimes. It's not easy to balloon them, it's not easy to
because usually the cutting balloon probably already got the lumen that you want, but then definitely it increases the cost that way. Again, who knows the other answer. Anybody else? - [Dr. Chris Metzger] Yeah, a brief comment.
I don't think all vein graft lesions are alike, so it depends if it's diffused or focal. The other thing is, I think your response to initial therapy is important, so if you do your balloon, cutting balloon, then it's going to tell you recoil, not recoil,
and the other thing I would say is intravascular ultrasound, if you're in doubt on how large that is, I think helps a lot. So, you know, if it's very focal, very high grade, I think drug-eluding stent is perfect, the question is what size, IBIS helps with that.
Otherwise, I think your strategy for longer disease might be a reasonable strategy as well. - [Dr. George Adams] And the only other comment I'd make is if there is a thrombotic component like Chris was saying, depending on the client morphology I might use laser atherectomy followed by a
biologic therapy such as a drug-coated balloon. - [Speaker 1] Yes, sir? - [Audience Member 2] About that last presentation, are you using any type of anticoagulation when you do these PTFE tibial bypasses, or were the groups comparable where there's only antiplatelet
therapy in the vein grafts and in the prosthetic grafts, or are you putting all of them on factor 10A inhibitor coumadin? - [Dr. Peter Lin] So our patient, we typically put them on aspirin, and for the Propaten we don't add any distal antiplatelet agents.
- [Audience Member 2] Because that's a lot better than historical reports, probably. I wondered, why do you think it shows so much better, even with previous vein cusp patches? - [Dr. Peter Lin] So I think the patch matters, and I also think that over the years, we also learned
a whole lot about the distal anastomotic patch, because time won't let me tell you something and go into great detail. So the patch, you know, we make, is about two to two and a half centimeter long, so that length of the patch is almost twice the length of
the diameter of the graft itself, so I think that's also a significant factor. So it's something that previous literature has not really emphasized on, and the PTFE ideally should be connected to the proximal one-third, instead of distal one-third, so that also may make
some of the same area boost configuration. So the whole idea is you want to make the patch as long distally as possible. So some of the variations, I think, have in part helped, and ideally is that the vein is available, that would be great, if not we also have used a lot
of bovine patch as our patch material, so that thing I think made a lot of difference. So I don't think, all things considered, antiplatelet agents played a huge role, but I think the distal anastomotic compliance mismatch, if we can alleviate that, it will help your outcome.
- [Speaker 1] So Peter, you believe that those grafts have a thrombotic threshold, or you think there's no thrombotic threshold for PTFE? - [Dr. Peter Lin] Oh, I think so. - [Speaker 1] Let me just continue my thought process. So if there is a thrombotic threshold, it doesn't matter
how long you're going to put the vein patch. You can put a 16 millimeter vein patch, it's not going to make any difference, if you reach that thrombotic threshold. So then we come to the criticism that maybe you're selecting the cases
with good runoff, and in the good runoff, it's hard to show a difference between vein and (unintelligible) bonded with the patch, maybe. But if you are to do those terrible cases that have an isolated TPO segment, or they're all the way on the foot or the plantar arteries, that maybe the
saphenous vein will come up much better than this. What do you think? - [Dr. Peter Lin] Well, these are all great points. It's hard to discern based on a single yes or no answer. Saphenous vein has certain limitations, although I believe there's still a standard of care
in terms of conduit choice. Often times the veins are sclerotic, we're limited by vein length, so again, I brought up some points that in some patients we can only connect it to a superficial femoral, even a popliteal bypass because the vein is not long enough.
So PTFE, while it's not perfect in some scenarios, it does have advantages, because I can connect it even to the external iliac artery, I can connect at the common femoral artery, so that's that benefit. I did mention very briefly in our multi-vein analysis, the single vessel runoff is the (unintelligible) runoff.
So in those cases, you're going to have bad outcome no matter what kind of conduit you use, I do believe that, but in general we'd just use aspirin for that patient. But I believe that if we do believe there's an underlying prothrombotic condition, we would add additional anticoagulants, but that's not typical routine practice.
- [Speaker 1] Alright, I just want to add that in poor runoff situations, the vein clearly does better, and it works for a long time. We had published three years ago, on plantar arteries in branches of tibial vessels in the foot, and they did work, only with vein.
Everything else kind of failed, even with the fistulas. Yes, sir? - [Audience Member 3] I have just a quick question about the Phoenix device, a two part question. A, do you use it with a filter, or can you use it with a filter, and two, do you use it as a standalone therapy
or adjunct to a drug-eluding balloon or anything else? - [Dr. George Adams] So, in general, atherectomy is always with adjunct balloon angioplasty. In regards to the filter, especially with the Phoenix device, you have to be careful and very selective with the wire that you use,
you want to use a nitinol wire. So for a filter usually I use a free-floating filter, the NAV-6, and you can't use it over that nitinol wire, you have to use a graduated tip wire, usually a Viper or a Viper Flex. So I would select cases where you would not use
a filter specifically with this device, so if you have a long lesion or if there's any thrombotic component to it, I'd be very conscientious of using this device with that. - [Speaker 1] Thank you. Any questions from the panel?
Because I have a few questions. - [Dr. George Adams] Actually, it was I think very stimulating as to the conversation we just had, in regards to thrombotic or anticoagulants with antiplatelets, you know. Recently the COMPASS trial just came out, as well
as an E-PAD which was more or less a pilot study, showing that just taking peripheral arterial disease regardless of grafts, there seems to be a thrombotic component, and factor 10A inhibitors may have benefit in addition to antiplatelet therapy in regards to all PAD patients.
I think it's a very interesting discussion. - [Speaker 1] I have a question, Dr. Dorigo. Once you identify the high risk group of patients, is there any strategy to modify them to improve them and get them to another category? - [Dr. Walter Dorigo] Most of the perimeters we
examined were not modifiable. Age, extension of disease, coronary artery disease. Maybe one possibility is to improve the runoff status but, in concomitance with the intervention, one can try to improve the runoff score. But four out of five factors were not modifiable.
- [Speaker 1] Thank you, okay. I have one more question. So, do you do distal bypasses? - [Speaker 2] We do distal bypasses, I personally don't. I have a big group, I have three people in my group that only do distal bypasses.
- [Speaker 1] So, it says a patient in your group does not have a saphenous vein, and has a limited runoff. How will you approach there? - [Speaker 2] Well, that was a question I would want to ask both Walter and Peter.
Is there a role for composite bypasses? Because we do it quite a lot where we only have shorter parts of vein available, shorter lengths of vein available, we would do the above-knee PTFE, and then cross the knee with the vein. But I remember that last year at this meeting,
the Americans said that it's worse results, but we still do it. - [Dr. Walter Dorigo] Yes, in the registry are a crude amount, so about one, 150 composite bypasses with the short or long segmental vein and the part of PTFE graft, we use it.
And the results are not particularly better than those with the grafts, but it's likely better. - [Speaker 1] Right, I want to ask the panel, if you have the use the common femoral artery as an in-flow, and this vessel has been used
a few times before, what do you prefer to use? The external iliac, redo the groin again, or use the deep femoral as an in-flow? We'll start with Peter Lin. - [Dr. Peter Lin] I would probably go to external iliac,
because higher, it's got proximal better vessels, and it's greater diameter, all things considered. If you go deep femoral, you still got to navigate across a stenotic plaque common femoral artery. - [Speaker 1] No, it's not stenotic, it's a normal vessel. - [Dr. Peter Lin] So, I would, if all had been equal,
obviously common femoral might be better, but if common femoral's highly disease, stented and treated, and so there's a lot of scar tissue, I'd probably go with external iliac. - [Speaker 1] Okay, anybody else want to make a comment on what they preferentially use for in-flow?
- [Speaker 2] It depends what material you're going to use. If we use the vein, we go back to the common femoral, if we use prosthetic material, we would prefer to have a site where it's easier to go in and lower the risk of infection. - [Speaker 1] Right. I'll say that it depends on
the length, if I have enough length just to go deep femoral, I'll go deep femoral preferentially, but I have gone to the external iliac with a vein and have had no problem with kinking or anything, it would just make a tunnel lateral to the artery. We don't go medially because there are too many
branches there, but laterally, and you can do the anastomosis vein, and it only adds about two, three centimeters of length when you get it just above the inguinal ligament. With that, I'm going to thank the speakers, it was a great conference, and call the next moderators, please.
- Ladies and gentlemen, I thank Frank Veith and the organizing committee for the invitation. I have no disclosures for this presentation. Dialysis is the life line of patients with end-stage renal failure. Hemodialysis can be done by constructing an A-V fistula, utilizing a graft or through a central venous catheter.
Controversy as to the location of A-V fistula, size of adequate vein and priority of A-V fistula versus A-V graft exists among different societies. Our aims were to present our single center experience with A-V fistulas and grafts. Compare their patency rates,
compare different surgical sites, and come up with preferences to allow better and longer utilization. We collected all patients who underwent A-V fistula or A-V graft between the years 2008 through 2014. We included all patients who had preoperative
duplex scanning or those deemed to have good vessels on clinical examination. Arteries larger than two point five millimeter and veins larger than three millimeter were considered fit. Dialysis was performed three times per week. Follow up included check for a thrill,
distal pulse in the arter non-increased venous pressure or visible effective dialysis and no prolonged bleeding. Any change of one of the above would led to obtaining
fistulogram resulting in either endovascular or open repair of the fistula. We started with 503 patients, 32 of which were excluded due to primary failure within 24 hours. We considered this, of course, the surgeon's blame. So we left with 471 patients with a mean age of 58 years,
51 were older than 60, there was a male predominance of 63%, and over half were diabetics. The type of fistula was 41% brachio-cephalic fistula, 30% radio-cephalic fistula, 16% A-V Graft, and 13% brachio-basilic fistula.
Overall, we had 84% fistulas and 16% grafts. The time to first dialysis and maturation of fistula was approximately six weeks. First use of grafts was after two weeks. 11 patients with A-V fistula needed early intervention prior to or after the first dialysis session.
In sharp contrast, none of the A-V grafts needed early intervention. 68 patients were operated for their first ever fistula without duplex scanning due to clinically good vessels. Their patency was comparable to those who underwent a preoperative scanning.
Looking at complications, A-V grafts needed more reintervention than fistulas. All of them were late. Infection was more prominent in the graft group and pseudoaneurysms were more prominent in the A-V fistula group, some of them occluded
or invaded the skin and resulted in bleeding. Here's a central vein occlusion and you can see this lady is after a brachio-basilic A-V shunt. You can see the swollen arm, the collaterals. Here are multiple venous aneurysms. Here's an ulcer.
When we looked at primary patency of A-V fistulas versus graft, A-V fistulas fared better than grafts for as long as five years. When you looked at 50% patency in grafts, it was approximately 18 months, in Fistula, 13. Here's an assisted primary patency by endovascular technique
and when we looked at the secondary patency for the first 24, two years, months, there was no difference between A-V fistulas and A-V grafts, but there's a large difference afterwards. Comparing radio-cephalic fistula to brachio-cephalic fistula there was really no big difference in maturation.
The time was approximately six weeks. As for primary patency there is a trend towards better patency with brachio-cephalic fistula after six months, one year, and two years, but it didn't reach statistical significance. For patients with diabetes,
differences were statistically significant. Brachio-cephalic fistula showed a trend toward shorter maturation time, needed less reintervention, and had a longer patency rate. In conclusions then, ladies and gentlemen, A-V fistula require a longer maturation time
and have higher pseudoaneurysm formation rate, but better patency rates compared to A-V grafts. A-V grafts have a faster maturation time, but more late interventions are required and infection is more common. Finally, diabetic patients have a better result
with proximal A-V fistulas. Thank you for the opportunity to present our data.
- You already heard about different devices which can finish the treatment of acute DVT in the lab and I would like to add one of the devices which is quite widespread in Europe. And share the first study on this device. This is called the Aspirex device. So what is the objective?
Post traumatic syndrome after proximal DVT, I think that's clear. 25% of the patient are at risk for developing post traumatic syndrome. I think that is clear and some of these patient even expect severe post traumatic syndrome.
We already saw this ATTRACT trial outcome and we learned that especially patient with Iliofemoral DVT might benefit from treatment, invasive treatment of Iliofemoral DVT but of course, we need to know that is catheter-directed thrombolysis causes issues
and therefore our way should be to go away from thrombolytic therapy to a pure mechanical thrombectomy approach. This is a typical case example of a patient, 20 year old female patient who came to the emergency room with that leg on the left side in the morning,
back pain in the evening and this is clear that it is a descending Iliofemoral DVT in that patient caused by May-Thurner syndrome. So, with modern devices like this Aspirex, mechanical thrombectomy device, the 10 French device is able to aspirate up to 130 millimeter,
ml per minute of clots. You see that this can be effectively treated and then stinted within the May-Thurner syndrome within one session approach. So, but, what is clear of course that we need to get data
for these modern Mechanical Thrombectomy devices and therefore, we conducted clinical follow-up study to evaluate safety and efficiency of that Aspirex Mechanical Thrombectomy device. This device is based on the Archimedic principle which you can see here it comes with six up
to 10 French systems and with that you are able, as I already showed to sac 130ml of thrombus per minute. So these are the study details I want to show you. We treated 50 psychs, 56 patients with acute, subacute and acute on chronic which means up to 3 months of symptoms patients with Iliofermal DVT.
We performed IVIS on all these patients. We found May-Thurner syndrome in at least half of these patients as a reason for the Iliofermal DVT. You see the patient demographics. Some of the patients had even malignancy condition. A lot of patients were on oral contraceptives.
Here are the clinical symptoms within our cohort. Most of the patients came with swelling and rest pain. The rVCSS at the beginning was 4.5 within this cohort. Most of the traumatic lesions were on the left side involving even the profunda and the common femoral vein in this cohort.
You see here the excess which we used for treating these Iliofermal DVT, we used in the main part of the cohort, the left popliteal vein access or left femoral vein access. 84% were treated with 10 French system, the Aspirex device. As I mentioned we used IVIS
to analyze underlying pathologies. We found in most of the patients underlying pathologies and this explains why we implanted stents in 100% of the patients. You see the treatment duration which was in mean 94 minutes within this treatment cohort.
These are the patency analysis within one year. You see patency at 12 months, 87% percent in these patients, which we could follow up after 12 months. Here you see the Post-thrombotic syndrome analysis after 12 months so only low PTS
and some kind of moderate PTS were seen in these patients. There were no severe Post-thrombotic syndrome. Most of the patients just had a little bit of swelling after that procedure. Of course, it's important to mention safety and those end points.
There were just some small punctures associated, site being complicationS. Of course re-hospitalization is a severe adverse event which you can see here. But there were of course no bleeding events in this cohort. And to follow up
on this much more multicentric perspective trial, we just started a multicenter trial on this and we'll follow up patients up to five years within this just initiated multicenter registry. And I think we can show some preliminary data next year. Thank you very much.
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. Thank you.
- Thank you very much. Well this is a series that was actually published five years ago. And it outlined 45,000 patients after carotid endarterectomy, as well as open and closed thoracic abdominal procedures and infrainguinal bypasses.
And you can see here, that the VTE rate, and this is emblematic of a lot of studies. If you take everything together in a ball, you get an average result. And as you can see, the peripheral bypasses had a low incidence.
Carotids, very low incidence. But open procedures had a higher incidence than endovascular procedures. But here is the nub. Here is what's really important and why you need to do risk assessment.
Look at what happened to these percentages if the patients had any morbidity during hospitalization, as high as 7.8%. And here's the list after they went home. Again, it's not the .5 tenths of a percent or 1%, and this is what it's all about.
It's about the extra risk factors that the patient has. So now, anybody that's starting to do work with the Caprini Score, you've got to go to the patient-friendly form. Because we don't just do it,
if the patient comes in for surgery, and somebody does a preoperative evaluation in the holding area, stop it! It's ridiculous! Have you ever been in the holding area? What are you worried about?
You're worried about having the operation. Are they going to find cancer? Will the surgeon have a bad day? How much pain am I going to be in? How long am I going to be out of work? They're not going to talk to you
about their family history or their obstetrical misadventures. So you have them fill a form out ahead of time with their family, and then when they come in, you just double-check it. And we've studied this, it's in five languages,
and it's got perfect correlation with trained observers doing the same thing. And remember, if you fail to carefully interrogate your patients regarding the history or family history of venous thromboembolism, vascular surgery or not, sooner or later you may
be faced with a fatal PE. And the idea that you're giving anticoagulants during your procedure that's going to protect them is not valid. The relative risk of thrombosis increases with the number of risk factors identified.
A combination of genetic and acquired risk factors in a person without a history of a thrombosis personally, but with a family history, has a 60-fold higher chance than those that have a negative family history. And a positive family history increased
the risk of venous thrombosis more than 2-fold, regardless of the other risk factors. Don't forget the history of thrombosis. You won't need to look this article up. It's 183,000 patients over 25 years and it shows that both in first, second,
and third-degree relatives, as well as cohabitants in the household, there's an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Lowering down, getting lower for each degree of a relative.
But a DVT in a cousin, there may also be a thrombopathic condition in that patient. So you better pay attention to that. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, wonderful program. The database has no information on history
or family history of VTE, use of perioperative VTE prophylaxis, intraoperative anticoagulation, or perioperative use of antiplatelet agents. How are you supposed to make any sense out of DVT-related studies?
Finally, due to the lack of routine screening for VTE, the incidence of VTE may be underestimated in this NSQIP database, which only makes the need for further study more pressing. This is an important consideration because
more recent data indicates that two-thirds of the patients are found to have DVT during screening and after vascular operations, have no signs or symptoms of the problem. And I'd like to remind you, so this is based on the Boston data, which is the best data.
Patients with a low score pneumatic compression during hospitalization. Moderate score, of 7-10 days of anticoagulation. Don't make any difference if they're inpatient or outpatient. And 28 days if their score is over nine.
They lowered their incidence on the surgical services from 2.2% to a tenth of a percent at 30 days. And finally, and I think this is really, really important. Take a look at all these risk assessment scores.
To my knowledge, there's only two scores. It's not the Padua, it's not the IMPROVE that have a history of obstetrical misadventures which can reflect antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, as well as family history
in various degrees of relatives. So with that, thank you very much.
- [Speaker] Thank you. My disclosures. So upper extremity dvt occurs in 4-10% of all causes of venous thrombosis. And while a minority, dvt in the upper extremity can often be caused by thoracic outlet syndrome, effort thrombosis, occasionally
idiopathic venous thrombosis. The majority is more likely related to central venous catheters, pacemakers, cancer, etc. This is some of the presentation of someone with Paget Schroeder or venous thoracic outlet syndrome, we're all well aware of this.
Some features of this can be sudden onset of pain, discoloration and some of this subcutaneous collateral veins that we note. Initial treatment of this is traditionally with venous thrombolysis. Although the results are good, this thrombolysis can
be associated with bleeding complications, potential for renal insufficiency, prolonged dwell times, and increased cost. I think it's important that this is not just a talk about a technique but a technique in the context of an operation this is soon to come.
Whether you choose to take out the rib at the same setting or you choose to delay the operation by a week or two, by and large the complications associated with that venous thrombolysis are going to come back and haunt you in the next operations. I think that's the context of this talk.
One of the risks I just mentioned about some of these techniques is, that's sort of curious to me, is the acute kidney injury after AngioJet venous thrombolysis. You see here, this paper, of a hundred patients, 50 AngioJet, 50 catheter directed thrombolysis, shows a statistical significantly
increased risk of acute kidney failure in the AngioJet group. Eight fold odds ratio. The Indigo system enables operators to remove the thrombus in a single setting, while potentially reducing or eliminating the need for thrombolysis.
This has already been discussed by some of the prior speakers, you see the different iterations first introduced in 2014. The CAT8 is the largest device and you can see some of the features of this proprietary technology with the separator and the directional sheaths that
allow us to aspirate nicely. This continuous suction you see here, can be very nicely controlled with an on-off switch that minimizes blood loss. It's single operator design, very easy to set up, hands free aspiration, a very simple set up.
You also heard just recently about the volume that can be aspirated in 20 seconds you see, especially with the larger profile devices, quite impressive amount of thrombus can be removed. Again, with the careful control for blood loss. The directionality of the sheath is also important,
and you can see some of the different directionality sheaths. Here's a couple case examples of a Paget-Schroder patient comes in with an acute sudden onset of arm pain and swelling discoloration, and you can see the penumbra device being used to clean out that vein.
This is another example, a 25-year old male with acute right arm swelling, sort of a body lifter type, and you can see here, this is the separator that's being moved forward and backwards, in and out to help break out the thrombus. This is the CAT8 device.
The pre-intervention picture seen here, we're crossing the lesion with a wire and and you can see the post-intervention on the right. You, of course, have the venous compression from the first rib, thoracic outlet, but the vein is widely open and now we can go ahead and see
the specimen that's retrieved as you've seen other videos in the prior presentations. This, of course, is what we're left with at the time of surgery. I only bring this up to remind us that there is a second stage to this treatment,
which is the rib resection. A combined experience that I just want to put together, very small numbers of course but, 16 patients with thoracic outlet who presented and were treated with the Penumbra system. You can see here, some of the demographic data.
I'll just point out the symptoms, of course, pain, swelling in these patients, imaging mostly venous duplex, occasionally CT or MR venogram. They all of course get venography at the time of procedure. The extent of the thrombus in all of them was complete occlusion and you can see some
of the extent in the subclavian axillary veins. Site of access can be the brachial or the basilic vein. The operative details as well, shown here, and I'll just point out the estimated blood loss, it can be very reasonable, especially with some experience you can sort of control that
on-off valve and minimize blood loss with this technique. Adjunctive therapies are shown here and of course, maybe because we're a little bit stuck on our ways, we did have a fair number of adjunctive lytic therapy. There were only three patients who had overnight lysis. A lot of venoplasty done at the time of the procedure.
All veins remained patent until the day of the rib resection but I will point out that one of these patients did develop a significant complication with hemothorax. This is one of those patients who had overnight lysis. And I point that out to stress that perhaps
this is what we're trying to move away from. So, in conclusion, mechanicothrombectomy using Indigo device shows promising initial results. Minimal blood loss, one complication of the hemothroax with the overnight lytics. No renal insufficiency or distal embolization.
The practice pattern, I think, need to adjust away from routing lytics to additionally minimize complications prior to surgery. Thank you.
- Thank you very much for the very kind invitation, and I promise I'll do my best to stick to time. The answer is probably to this audience I don't really need to say very much about the ATTRACT trial, but I think it is quite important to note that the ATTRACT trials have now been out for some time, and it is constantly being
talked about in its various dimensions. So I'm going to just spend a few seconds really talking about the ATTRACT trial. A large number of patients screened. One in 41 patients were actually recruited into it and it was a trial that ran for a long time.
Wasn't really with respect to the primary endpoint any particularly good evidence, but for those people who had moderate or severe post-thrombotic syndrome, it probably was of benefit. And if you looked at the Villalta score
and the VCSS scores there was some evidence to support it. So overall, probably some positive take-home messages, but not as affirmative as people would have thought. Now the reason that I've dwelled a little bit on that is that actually, what do we mean when we talk about the post-thrombotic syndrome?
Because I would say in the upper limb, because I have never personally seen an ulcer in the upper limb. Has anybody seen an ulcer in the upper limb due to venous disease? No.
So in a way we are talking about a slightly different entity. We are talking about a limb that has undoubtedly much more finer movements. And there was depression by some people with the results of the ATTRACT trial.
But when you look at the five year results from the CaVenT trial, there was some evidence to suggest that actually, as you get further out, there may be some benefit. If you look at this summation analysis, and I completely accept this is related to the leg,
again, there may be some benefit from the CDT. Now, this is a case of mine. Now I wonder if any of you can tell me how many stages may have been involved from going from the right, to having a ballonplasty in the vein. Pick a number, anywhere between five and ten.
The answer is you have numerous checks of the thrombolysis, you may have a venoplasty, you might have a first rib excision. You may then have occlusion and then realize this before you go on and do the first rib. So all I'm suggesting to you that this is not
a cheap treatment to offer patients treatment to the upper limb. Then we looked forward to some help from the guidelines. Well we look at the American guidelines and give or take, I think the answer is we probably shouldn't be doing it and that we should be only offering anticoagulation.
So do the Brits help? Well actually if you look at the Brits, it sort of says well, you can think a bit about doing decompression, but really if I was standing up in a court of law, I really wouldn't want much support from this guideline
that I had done the right thing. And then the International Society of Thrombolysis and Hemostasis really says well, you can do a little bit of this that thoracic outlet syndrome may be a risk factor. But give or take, surgeries still are a little bit dubious.
So, really there's one good review out there, and this is the review of Vasquez that basically looked at 146 articles, and they found some data on just under 1300 patients. And they postulated and chose some evidence to suggest that there was some evidence
that first rib excision and thrombolysis reduce PTS, and that anticoagulation alone was not enough for the majority of the patients. Very difficult to work out how you selected which patients you should or should not intervene on. Now, I'm sure everybody is rather sick and tired
of me talking about money, and I accept it doesn't really apply here. But money is actually quite important. Five interventions to prevent something that may not happen and at worst may be just a few collateral veins across the chest.
So ladies and gentlemen, I would want you to think very hard, is it actually cost-effective to be offering all patients presenting with an early auxiliary vein thrombosis thrombolysis, and then subsequently first rib excision? These are some of the truths, I think the answer is
it does seem to work. You do need to recognize and make the diagnosis. Usually delayed thrombolysis doesn't work, but there are lots of questions that are unanswered. And how would you defend what you have done in a court of law?
Somebody has a stroke, you then do the first rib, they get a large hemothorax, and they then die because there had been too much TPA on board. Yes, give it some thought. So ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid I haven't actually answered the question,
but I think you need to give it careful consideration, what are the indications and merits? Thank you very much.
Thanks very much, Tom. I'll be talking about thermal ablation on anticoagula is it safe and effective? I have no disclosures. As we know, extensive review of both RF and laser
ablation procedures have demonstrated excellent treatment effectiveness and durability in each modality, but there is less data regarding treatment effectiveness and durability for those procedures in patients who are also on systemic anticoagulation. As we know, there's multiple studies have been done
over the past 10 years, with which we're all most familiar showing a percent of the durable ablation, both modalities from 87% to 95% at two to five years. There's less data on those on the anticoagulation undergoing thermal ablation.
The largest study with any long-term follow up was by Sharifi in 2011, and that was 88 patients and follow-up at one year. Both RF and the EVLA had 100% durable ablation with minimal bleeding complications. The other studies were all smaller groups
or for very much shorter follow-up. In 2017, a very large study came out, looking at the EVLA and RF using 375 subjects undergoing with anticoagulation. But it was only a 30-day follow-up, but it did show a 30% durable ablation
at that short time interval. Our objective was to evaluate efficacy, durability, and safety of RF and EVLA, the GSV and the SSV to treat symptomatic reflux in patients on therapeutic anticoagulation, and this group is with warfarin.
The data was collected from NYU, single-center. Patients who had undergone RF or laser ablation between 2011 and 2013. Ninety-two vessels of patients on warfarin at the time of endothermal ablation were selected for study. That's the largest to date with some long-term follow-up.
And this group was compared to a matched group of 124 control patients. Devices used were the ClosureFast catheter and the NeverTouch kits by Angiodynamics. Technical details, standard IFU for the catheters. Tumescent anesthetic.
And fiber tips were kept about 2.5 centimeters from the SFJ or the SPJ. Vein occlusion was defined as the absence of blood flow by duplex scan along the length of the treated vein. You're all familiar with the devices, so the methods included follow-up, duplex ultrasound
at one week post-procedure, and then six months, and then also at a year. And then annually. Outcomes were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots and log rank tests. The results of the anticoagulation patients, 92,
control, 124, the mean follow-up was 470 days. And you can see that the demographics were rather similar between the two groups. There was some more coronary disease and hypertension in the anticoagulated groups, and that's really not much of a surprise
and some more male patients. Vessels treated, primarily GSV. A smaller amount of SSV in both the anticoagulated and the control groups. Indications for anticoagulation.
About half of the patients were in atrial fibrillation. Another 30% had a remote DVT in the contralateral limb. About 8% had mechanical valves, and 11% were for other reasons. And the results. The persistent vein ablation at 12 months,
the anticoagulation patients was 97%, and the controls was 99%. Persistent vein ablation by treated vessel, on anticoagulation. Didn't matter if it was GSV or SSV. Both had persistent ablation,
and by treatment modality, also did not matter whether it was laser or RF. Both equivalent. If there was antiplatelet therapy in addition to the anticoagulation, again if you added aspirin or Clopidogrel,
also no change. And that was at 12 months. We looked then at persistent vein ablation out at 18 months. It was still at 95% for the controls, and 91% for the anticoagulated patients. Still not statistically significantly different.
At 24 months, 89% in both groups. Although the numbers were smaller at 36 months, there was actually still no statistically significant difference. Interestingly, the anticoagulated group actually had a better persistent closure rate
than the control group. That may just be because the patients that come back at 36 months who didn't have anticoagulation may have been skewed. The ones we actually saw were ones that had a problem. It gets harder to have patients
come back at three months who haven't had an uneventful venous ablation procedure. Complication, no significant hematomas. Three patients had DVTs within 30 days. One anticoagulation patient had a popliteal DVT, and one control patient.
And one control patient had a calf vein DVT. Two EHITs. One GSV treated with laser on anticoagulation noted at six days, and one not on anticoagulation at seven days. Endovenous RF and EVLA can be safely performed
in patients undergoing long-term warfarin therapy. Our experience has demonstrated a similar short- and mid-term durability for RF ablation and laser, and platelet therapy does not appear to impact the closer rates,
which is consistent with the prior studies. And the frequency of vein recanalization following venous ablation procedures while on ACs is not worse compared to controls, and to the expected incidence as described in the literature.
This is the largest study to date with follow-up beyond 30 days with thermal ablation procedures on anticoagulation patients. We continue to look at these patients for even longer term durability. Thanks very much for your attention.
- So, a little more on this theme that we've been talking about the last couple days, of inflow in the post-thrombotic limb. So, the key to maintaining an iliac-vein stent is good inflow and the key vessel seems to be the profunda, as we've been hearing for the last couple of days. This is the anatomy, the three axial vessels in the thigh,
the saphenous plays a very small role in venous return. We're dependent more on the femoral vein and the profunda. And the femoral vein just seems to be more prone to thrombosis and problems, and the profunda's there to salvage. We like to see good axial transformation of the profunda.
If we see this, you can get an IVUS catheter in these vessels from above usually. You can feel pretty confident the inflow's satisfactory. There's been some enthusiasm now to try and improve inflow, as we've been hearing, by interventions on the femoral vein. And you saw this paper earlier,
where these people had iliac-vein stents, and they we're trying to improve inflow either with femoral-vein stenting or femoral-vein angioplasty alone. And very, very high failure rates. All of them were occluded by a year, in both the angioplasty and stent groups.
My experience, I've probably done a handful of femoral-vein stents. This guy been in the practice for a couple, 15 years, post-thrombotic with iliac vein stents and some reason, his PCP discontinued his Warfarin, and the stent went down. So, this is in the office center,
acutely occluded common iliac, external iliac vein stent, and the confluence. You see thrombus in the confluence and in the profunda, which was obviously, discouraging. I got them open with the AngioJet, including his profunda. So, his symptoms of swollen thigh and calf,
and the thigh markedly improved. And he comes back a couple two year later, he's a UPS worker with complaining that he feels great, but the calf's still a problem, can I do anything else. We had a whole discussion on femoral vein intervention and he wanted to give it a shot.
The femoral vein was occluded beforehand. Here's the profunda open in SFA. So, this is prone on table, we got a good popliteal, we got a good profunda. And, you know, is this going to help him at all? But, he wanted to go for it.
This is with IVUS, the femoral vein's pretty much occluded. The popliteal vein's open. And we put a nitinol stent down, and they key is to try and land above your profunda collateral so you don't jail it. So, this is one if the ones that did well.
I got a couple doing well, and the others, not so well. So, this kid, 31 years old, multiple DVTs at such a young age, in both legs. We want to do something. His common iliac was wide open, this was diseased, so we stented this,
he got a little better, not great, he comes back a year later, can you do anything else. We began the whole discussion of femoral vein intervention doesn't work well. This is on the table prone, and just a harbinger of failure, if I can't get into the popliteal vein,
have to use a gastroc, that's a telling sign. So, I went ahead and stented his femoral vein, tried to preserve the collaterals. You can't see the popliteal that well down here, but it looked decent. He showed up with his INR low and occluded,
the whole thing went down. Here's the tail end of the nitinol stent. You can see the popliteal inflow is horrible. I got him open, but you know, it just doesn't look great. So, he went down and stayed down, reoccurring ulcers, and the poor young guy can't do anything.
In this case, again, the theme is we got iliac stents in place, so we can improve inflow. So, she comes in a couple years later, with new inflow disease on duplex and new symptoms. And you think, well you know, we'll just do a little segment of the femoral vein
where there's a tight lesion, maybe it'll help her inflow. With angioplasty alone, you can see the remain pretty tight, so I went ahead and put a stent there. Looked great afterwards, I was encouraged. But one month later, that segment of femoral vein stent went down.
You've heard of, in the early days, when we were doing thoracic aortic aneurysms iliac artery on a stick, well this is a femoral vein on a stick, so be careful. Conclusion, femoral vein stenting fails often and early. Uncharted waters may be a value in selected cases,
and I also want to see the PTS-XS trial results. Thanks.
- Thank you to the moderators, thank you to Dr. Veith for having me. Let's go! So my topic is to kind of introduce the ATTRACT trial, and to talk a little bit about how it affected, at least my practice, when it comes to patients with acute DVT.
I'm on the scientific advisory board for a company that makes IVC filters, and I also advise to BTG, so you guys can ask me about it later if you want. So let's talk about a case. A 50-year-old man presents
from an outside hospital to our center with left lower extremity swelling. And this is what somebody looks like upon presentation. And pulses, motor function, and sensation are actually normal at this point.
And he says to us, "Well, symptoms started "three days ago. "They're about the same since they started," despite being on anticoagulation. And he said, "Listen guys, in the other hospital, "they wouldn't do anything.
"And I want a procedure because I want the clot "out of me." so he's found to have this common femoral vein DVT. And the question is should endovascular clot removal be performed for this patient?
Well the ATTRACT trial set off to try and prevent a complication you obviously all know about, called the post-thrombotic syndrome, which is a spectrum from sort of mild discomfort and a little bit of dyspigmentation and up
to venous ulcerations and quite a lot of morbidity. And in ATTRACT, patients with proximal DVT were randomized to anticoagulation alone or in combination with pharma mechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis.
And the reason I put proximal in quotes is because it wasn't only common sort of femoral vein clots, but also femoral vein clots including the distal femoral vein were included eventually. And so patients with clots were recruited,
and as I said, they were randomized to those two treatments. And what this here shows you is the division into the two groups. Now I know this is a little small, but I'll try and kind of highlight a few things
that are relevant to this talk. So if you just read the abstract of the ATTRACT trial published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, it'll seem to you that the study was a negative study.
The conclusion and the abstract is basically that post-thrombotic syndrome was not prevented by performing these procedures. Definitely post-thrombotic syndrome is still frequent despite treatment. But there was a signal for less severe
post-thrombotic syndrome and for more bleeding. And I was hoping to bring you all, there's an upcoming publication in circulation, hopefully it'll be online, I guess, over the weekend or early next week, talking specifically about patients
with proximal DVT. But you know, I'm speaking now without those slides. So what I can basically show you here, that at 24 months, unfortunately, there was no, well not unfortunately,
but the fact is, it did cross the significance and it was not significant from that standpoint. And what you can see here, is sort of a continuous metric of post-thrombotic syndrome. And here there was a little bit of an advantage
towards reduction of severe post-thrombotic syndrome with the procedure. What it also shows you here in this rectangle, is that were more bleeds, obviously, in the patients who received the more aggressive therapy.
One thing that people don't always talk about is that we treat our patients for two reasons, right? We want to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome but obviously, we want to help them acutely. And so what the study also showed,
was that acute symptoms resolved more quickly in patients who received the more aggressive therapy as opposed to those who did not. Again, at the price of more bleeding. So what happened to this patient? Well you know,
he presented on a Friday, obviously. So we kind of said, "Yeah, we probably are able "to try and do something for you, "but let's wait until Monday." And by Monday, his leg looked like this, with sort of a little bit of bedrest
and continued anticoagulation. So at the end of the day, no procedure was done for this particular patient. What are my take home messages, for whatever that's worth? Well I think intervention for DVT
has several acute indications. Restore arterial flow when phlegmasia is the problem, and reduce acute symptoms. I think intervention for common femoral and more proximal DVT likely does have long-term benefit, and again, just be
on the lookout for that circ paper that's coming out. Intervention for femoral DVT, so more distal DVT, in my opinion, is rarely indicated. And in the absence of phlegmasia, for me, thigh swelling is a good marker for a need
for a procedure, and I owe Dr. Bob Schainfeld that little tidbit. So thank you very much for listening.
- Thank you, Dr. Ouriel, Dr. Lurie. Ladies and gentlemen. Brian, that was a very fair overview of the ATTRACT trial as it was published in the New England Journal, so thank you. And these are my disclosures. So Dr. DeRubertis did a very nice review of this paper
that was published in the New England Journal December 7th of last year. He went over very nicely that it was NIH sponsored, phase III, randomized, controlled, multicenter, 692 patients randomized, anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation plus catheter-based techniques.
Now one thing I want to call your attention to is the fact that patients with deep venous thrombosis, acute deep venous thrombosis, who were eligible for randomization, were stratified before they were randomized into two different groups, iliofemoral DVT or fem-pop DVT.
So in my opinion, these are not subgroups because the randomization of one group had no effect on the randomization of another, so I would argue that these are independent groups. That makes a big difference when you do statistical analyses.
The other important issue that I want to point out is that the outcomes were pre-determined to what we were going to analyze. We had to choose one as a primary endpoint and the others as secondary, but these were pre-determined end points that were up for analysis, not post hoc analyses.
And post-thrombotic syndrome was determined at the time, 12 years ago when we wrote the protocol, to be the primary end point. I would submit that we would not choose that as a primary end point if we wrote the protocol today. Moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome
certainly would be more appropriate. Leg pain, swelling, health-related quality of life, certainly important. This is the outcome, and unfortunately, it did not reach significance. There was no difference between the two groups
and there was an increased risk of bleeding, but this is the outcome that drove opinion about ATTRACT, but we don't really do catheter-directed thrombolysis for fem-pop DVT. Therefore, the results of the iliofemoral patients will be the most meaningful and that paper was written
and that paper has been accepted by circulation. It should be out shortly, but there were 391 iliofemoral DVT patients and the primary outcome was no different than the primary outcome in the overall trial. But are they?
If we had chosen the Venous Clinical Severity Score in place of the Villalta score for analysis of that primary end point, it would've been a positive study. So if we chose a different tool to analyze, our primary end point would've been positive for the iliofemoral DVT patients.
If we look at moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome, a significant difference. Control patients had a 56% increased risk of moderate to severe PTS versus the control patients. If we look at severe post-thrombotic syndrome, control patients had a 72% increased risk
of severe PTS versus control. If we look at the overall severity of the Villalta score in PTS, we can see that there is a significant difference favoring percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis. When we look at pain, the patient's pain was significantly reduced in the PCDT patients compared to control.
We look at edema, significant reduction in edema at day 10 and day 30 in patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis compared to control. Disease-specific quality of life significantly favored patients who had PCDT compared to control. So we look at moderate to severe, severe, pain,
quality of life. There was a price to pay. Major bleeding was increased, but the P-value was no different. I will not argue that patients are not at increased risk. They are at increased risk for bleeding,
but this is an historically low bleeding rate for catheter-directed thrombolysis and there were no intracranial bleeds. No difference in recurrent deep venous thrombosis. No difference in mortality at 24 months between the two groups.
So in conclusion, the primary end point, reduction of any PTS defined by a Villalta score of 5 or more, no difference, but an item that has not reached the level of discussion that we will need to consider is that 14% of our patients had a normal Villalta score coming into the study.
It's impossible to improve upon that, but there is a significant reduction in any PTS if you use the Venous Clinical Severity Score, reduction of moderate and severe post-thrombotic syndrome, reduction of pain and swelling, and improved disease-specific quality of life compared to controls.
And I think these are the meaningful end points that patients appreciate and these are the points of discussion that will be covered in the article in circulation that will be published very soon. Thank you for your attention.
- [Nicos] Thanks so much. Good afternoon everybody. I have no disclosures. Getting falsely high velocities because of contralateral tight stenosis or occlusion, our case in one third of the people under this condition, high blood pressure, tumor fed by the carotid, local inflammation, and rarely by arteriovenous fistula or malformation.
Here you see a classic example, the common carotid, on the right side is occluded, also the internal carotid is occluded, and here you're getting really high velocity, it's 340, but if you visually look at the vessel, the vessel is pretty wide open. So it's very easy to see this discordance
between the diameter and the velocity. For occasions like this I'm going to show you with the ultrasound or other techniques, planimetric evaluation and if I don't go in trials, hopefully we can present next year. Another condition is to do the stenosis on the stent.
Typically the error here is if you measure the velocity outside the stent, inside the stent, basically it's different material with elastic vessel, and this can basically bring your ratio higher up. Ideally, when possible, you use the intra-stent ratio and this will give you a more accurate result.
Another mistake that is being done is that you can confuse the external with the internal, particularly also we found out that only one-third of the people internalized the external carotid, but here you should not make this mistake because you can see the branches obviously, but really, statistically speaking, if you take 100
consecutively occluded carotids, by statistical chance 99% of the time or more it will be not be an issue, that's common sense. And of course here I have internalization of the external, let's not confuse there too, but here we don't have any
stenosis, really we have increased velocity of the external because a type three carotid body tumor, let's not confuse this from this issue. Another thing which is a common mistake people say, because the velocity is above the levels we put, you see it's 148 and 47, this will make you with a grand criteria
having a 50% stenosis, but it's also the thing here is just tortuosity, and usually on the outer curve of a vessel or in a tube the velocity is higher. Then it can have also a kink, which can produce the a mild kink like this
on here, it can make the stenosis appear more than 50% when actually the vessel does have a major issue. This he point I want to make with the FMD is consistently chemical gradual shift, because the endostatin velocity is higher
than people having a similar degree of stenosis. Fistula is very rare, some of our over-diligent residents sometimes they can connect the jugular vein with roke last year because of this. Now, falsely low velocities because of proximal stenosis of
the Common Carotid or Brachiocephalic Artery, low blood pressure, low cardiac output, valve stenosis efficiency, stroke, and distal ICA stenosis or occlusion, and ICA recanalization. Here you see in a person with a real tight stenosis, basically the velocity is very low,
you don't have a super high velocity. Here's a person with an occlusion of the Common Carotid, but then the Internal Carotid is open, it flooded vessels from the external to the internal, and that presses a really tight stenosis of the external or the internal, but the velocities are low just because
the Common Carotid is occluded. Here is a phenomenon we did with a university partner in 2011, you see a recanalized Carotid has this kind of diameter, which goes all the way to the brain and a velocity really low but a stenosis really tight. In a person with a Distal dissection, you have low velocity
because basically you have high resistance to outflow and that's why the velocities are low. Here is an occlusion of the Brachiocephalic artery and you see all the phenomena, so earlier like the Common Carotid, same thing with the Takayasu's Arteritis, and one way I want to finish
this slide is what you should do basically when the velocity must reduce: planimetric evaluation. I'll give you the preview of this idea, which is supported by intracarotid triplanar arteriography. If the diameter of the internal isn't two millimeters, then it's 95% possible the value for stenosis,
regardless of the size of the Internal Carotid. So you either use the ICAs, right, then you're for sure a good value, it's a simple measurement independent of everything. Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Content and materials on Medlantis are provided for educational purposes only, and are intended for use by medical professionals, not to be used self-diagnosis or self-treatment. It is not intended as, nor should it be, a substitute for independent professional medical care. Medical practitioners must make their own independent assessment before suggesting a diagnosis or recommending or instituting a course of treatment. The content and materials on Medlantis should not in any way be seen as a replacement for consultation with colleagues or other sources, or as a substitute for conventional training and study.