- Thank you Dr. Asher. What an honor it is to be up here with Dr. Veith and Dr. Asher towards the end. You guys are leading by example being at the end of the meetings. So, thank you for allowing me to be up and talking about something
that not a lot of vascular surgeons have experience with, including me. I have no disclosures. On your left, I have listed some of the types of diseases that we most commonly see in the vertebral artery, and there are quite a lot.
And on the right, the standard types of treatment that we pursue in vascular surgery or as a vascular specialist. And often, in the vertebral artery, if we are going to pursue treatment, it's the endovascular route.
But I'll talk a little bit about open surgery. The clinical presentation is often vague. And the things I wanted to point out here in this long list are things like alternating paresthesias, dysphagia, or perioral numbness may be something in the history to look for
that you may not be thinking about when you're thinking about vertebral basilar disease. The anatomy looks straightforward in this picture, with the four segments, as you can see. It gets a little more complicated with just the arterial system,
but then when you start looking at all these structures, that you have to get out of of the way to get to the vertebral artery, it actually can be a difficult operation, particularly even in the V1 segment. The V1 typically is atherosclerotic disease.
V2 is often compression, via osteophyte or musculo-tendon structures. And V3 and V4, at the top, are typically from a dissection injury from sort of stretch or trauma injury. The pathophysiology isn't that well understood.
You have varying anatomy. It's very difficult to access this artery. Symptoms can be difficult to read, and treatment outcomes are not as reliable. But I'm going to take you through a very quick path through history here in the description
of the V1 segment exposure by Dr. Rentschler from 1958. And I love these pictures. Here is a transverse incision over the sternocleidomastoid, just above the clavicular head on the right side. And once you get the sternoclavicular head divided, you can see the longus colli muscle there.
Anteromedial is the carotid. Of course, you surround that with a Penrose drain. And then once you do that, you can separate your longus colli, and deep to that, the vertebral artery just easily slips right up, so you can do your transposition.
It's not quite that easy. I've done one of these operations, and it was difficult finding t e. And, again, here is on the opposite side, you can see the transposition in this cartoon.
Dr. Berguer is the world's expert, and a lot of this open surgical work comes out of the University of Michigan. Here is a study looking at 369 consecutive extracranial vertebral artery reconstructions. You can see the demographics of clinical presentation.
And note that about 34% of patients are presenting with hemispheric symptoms, with 60% in the vertebral basilar distribution. 300 of these reconstructions were for atherosclerosis. And the outcomes were pretty good. Before 1991, there wasn't really a protocol in place
in assessing and doing these procedures. And you can see the stroke and death rates of 4.1 and 3.2% respectively. And then the outcomes after 1991 are considerably better with a five year patency rate of 80%. So, in summary, vertebral artery disease is,
I think if you review this, is somewhat under diagnosed. Revascularization is a viable option. Most often, it's endovascular. But if you have endo-hostility, then an open, particularly for the V1 segment, may be a better option.
And this requires people with good operative experience. Thank you very much.
- Thank you (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- Thank you 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.
- Good morning. I'd like to thank Dr. Veith and Symposium for my opportunity to speak. I have no disclosures. So the in Endovascular Surgery, there is decrease open surgical bypass. But, bypass is still required for many patients with PAD.
Autologous vein is preferred for increase patency lower infection rate. And, Traditional Open Vein Harvest does require lengthy incisions. In 1996 cardiac surgery reported Endoscopic Vein Harvest. So the early prospective randomized trial
in the cardiac literature, did report wound complications from Open Vein Harvest to be as high as 19-20%, and decreased down to 4% with Endoscopic Vein Harvest. Lopes et al, initially, reported increase risk of 12-18 month graft failure and increased three year mortality.
But, there were many small studies that show no effect on patency and decreased wound complications. So, in 2005, Endoscopic Vein Harvest was recommended as standard of care in cardiac surgical patients. So what about our field? The advantages of Open Vein Harvest,
we all know how to do it. There's no learning curve. It's performed under direct visualization. Side branches are ligated with suture and divided sharply. Long term patency of the bypass is established. Disadvantages of the Open Vein Harvest,
large wound or many skip wounds has an increased morbidity. PAD patients have an increased risk for wound complications compared to the cardiac patients as high as 22-44%. The poor healing can be due to ischemia, diabetes, renal failure, and other comorbid conditions.
These can include hematoma, dehiscense, infection, and increased length of stay. So the advantages of Endoscopic Vein Harvest, is that there's no long incisions, they can be performed via one or two small incisions. Limiting the size of an incision
decreases wound complications. It's the standard of care in cardiac surgery, and there's an overall lower morbidity. The disadvantages of is that there's a learning curve. Electro-cautery is used to divide the branches, you need longer vein compared to cardiac surgery.
There's concern about inferior primary patency, and there are variable wound complications reported. So recent PAD data, there, in 2014, a review of the Society of Vascular Surgery registry, of 5000 patients, showed that continuous Open Vein Harvest
was performed 49% of the time and a Endo Vein Harvest about 13% of the time. The primary patency was 70%, for Continuous versus just under 59% for Endoscopic, and that was significant. Endoscopic Vein Harvest was found to be an independent risk factor for a lower one year
primary patency, in the study. And, the length of stay due to wounds was not significantly different. So, systematic review of Endoscopic Vein Harvest data in the lower extremity bypass from '96 to 2013 did show that this technique may reduce
primary patency with no change in wound complications. Reasons for decreased primary patency, inexperienced operator, increased electrocautery injury to the vein. Increase in vein manipulation, you can't do the no touch technique,
like you could do with an Open Harvest. You need a longer conduit. So, I do believe there's a roll for this, in the vascular surgeon's armamentarium. I would recommend, how I use it in my practices is, I'm fairly inexperienced with Endoscopic Vein Harvest,
so I do work with the cardiac PA's. With increased percutaneous procedures, my practice has seen decreased Saphenous Vein Bypasses, so, I've less volume to master the technique. If the PA is not available, or the conduit is small, I recommend an Open Vein Harvest.
The PA can decrease the labor required during these cases. So, it's sometimes nice to have help with these long cases. Close surveillance follow up with Non-Invasive Arterial Imaging is mandatory every three months for the first year at least. Thank you.
- Good morning everybody. Here are my disclosures. So, upper extremity access is an important adjunct for some of the complex endovascular work that we do. It's necessary for chimney approaches, it's necessary for fenestrated at times. Intermittently for TEVAR, and for
what I like to call FEVARCh which is when you combine fenestrated repair with a chimney apporach for thoracoabdominals here in the U.S. Where we're more limited with the devices that we have available in our institutions for most of us. This shows you for a TEVAR with a patient
with an aortic occlusion through a right infracrevicular approach, we're able to place a conduit and then a 22-french dryseal sheath in order to place a TEVAR in a patient with a penetrating ulcer that had ruptured, and had an occluded aorta.
In addition, you can use this for complex techniques in the ascending aorta. Here you see a patient who had a prior heart transplant, developed a pseudoaneurysm in his suture line. We come in through a left axillary approach with our stiff wire.
We have a diagnostic catheter through the femoral. We're able to place a couple cuffs in an off-label fashion to treat this with a technically good result. For FEVARCh, as I mentioned, it's a good combination for a fenestrated repair.
Here you have a type IV thoraco fenestrated in place with a chimney in the left renal, we get additional seal zone up above the celiac this way. Here you see the vessels cannulated. And then with a nice type IV repaired in endovascular fashion, using a combination of techniques.
But the questions always arise. Which side? Which vessel? What's the stroke risk? How can we try to be as conscientious as possible to minimize those risks? Excuse me. So, anecdotally the right side has been less safe,
or concerned that it causes more troubles, but we feel like it's easier to work from the right side. Sorry. When you look at the image intensifier as it's coming in from the patient's left, we can all be together on the patient's right. We don't have to work underneath the image intensifier,
and felt like right was a better approach. So, can we minimize stroke risk for either side, but can we minimize stroke risk in general? So, what we typically do is tuck both arms, makes lateral imaging a lot easier to do rather than having an arm out.
Our anesthesiologist, although we try not to help them too much, but it actually makes it easier for them to have both arms available. When we look at which vessel is the best to use to try to do these techniques, we felt that the subclavian artery is a big challenge,
just the way it is above the clavicle, to be able to get multiple devices through there. We usually feel that the brachial artery's too small. Especially if you're going to place more than one sheath. So we like to call, at our institution, the Goldilocks phenomenon for those of you
who know that story, and the axillary artery is just right. And that's the one that we use. When we use only one or two sheaths we just do a direct puncture. Usually through a previously placed pledgeted stitch. It's a fairly easy exposure just through the pec major.
Split that muscle then divide the pec minor, and can get there relatively easily. This is what that looks like. You can see after a sheath's been removed, a pledgeted suture has been tied down and we get good hemostasis this way.
If we're going to use more than two sheaths, we prefer an axillary conduit, and here you see that approach. We use the self-sealing graft. Whenever I have more than two sheaths in, I always label the sheaths because
I can't remember what's in what vessel. So, you can see yes, I made there, I have another one labeled right renal, just so I can remember which sheath is in which vessel. We always navigate the arch first now. So we get all of our sheaths across the arch
before we selective catheterize the visceral vessels. We think this partly helps minimize that risk. Obviously, any arch manipulation is a concern, but if we can get everything done at once and then we can focus on the visceral segment. We feel like that's a better approach and seems
to be better for what we've done in our experience. So here's our results over the past five-ish years or so. Almost 400 aortic interventions total, with 72 of them requiring some sort of upper extremity access for different procedures. One for placement of zone zero device, which I showed you,
sac embolization, and two for imaging. We have these number of patients, and then all these chimney grafts that have been placed in different vessels. Here's the patients with different number of branches. Our access you can see here, with the majority
being done through right axillary approach. The technical success was high, mortality rate was reasonable in this group of patients. With the strokes being listed there. One rupture, which is treated with a covered stent. The strokes, two were ischemic,
one hemorrhagic, and one mixed. When you compare the group to our initial group, more women, longer hospital stay, more of the patients had prior aortic interventions, and the mortality rate was higher. So in conclusion, we think that
this is technically feasible to do. That right side is just as safe as left side, and that potentially the right side is better for type III arches. Thank you very much.
- 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 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.
- 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 very much, so my disclosures, I'm one of the co-PIs for national registry for ANARI. And clearly venous clot is different, requires different solutions for the arterial system. So this is a device that was built ground up to work in the venous system. And here's a case presentation of a 53 year old male,
with a history of spondylolisthesis had a lumbar inner body fusion, he had an anterior approach and corpectomy with application of an inner body cage. And you can see these devices here. And notably he had application of local bone graft and bone powder
and this is part of what happened to this patient. About seven days later he came in with significant left leg swelling and venous duplex showed clot right here, and this extended all the way down to the tibial vessels. And if you look at the CT
you can see extravasation of that bone powder and material obstructing the left iliac vein. And had severe leg swelling so the orthopedic people didn't want us to use TPA in this patient so we considered a mechanical solution. And so at this day and age I think goals of intervention
should be to maximize clot removal of course and minimize bleeding risk and reduce the treatment or infusion time and go to single session therapy whenever possible. Our ICUs are full all the time and so putting a lytic patient in there
reduces our ability to get other patients in. (mouse clicks So this is the ClotTriever thrombectomy device. It has a sheath that is a 13 French sheath and they're developing a 16 French, that opens up with a funnel
after it's inserted into the poplitiel. So the funnel is in the lower femoral vein and this helps funnel clot in when it's pulled down. The catheter has this coring element that abuts the vein wall and carves the thrombus off in a collecting bag
that extends up above to allow the thrombus to go into the bag as you pull it down. So you access the popliteal vein, cross the thrombosed segments with standard techniques and you need to then put an exchange length wire up into the SVC
or even out into the subclavian vein for stability. And then the catheter's inserted above the clot and is gradually pulled down, sort of milking that stuff off of the wall and into the bag that is then taken down to the funnel and out of the leg.
So this is the patient we had, we had thrombus in the femoral and up into the IVC. Extensive, you can see the hardware here. And it was very obstructed right at that segment where it was, had the bone material pushing on the vein it was quite difficult to get through there
but finally we did and we ballooned that to open a channel up large enough to accommodate ClotTriever catheter. We then did multiple passes and we extracted a large amount of thrombus. Some looking like typically acute stuff
and then some more dense material that may have been a few days worth of build up on the wall there. We then stinted with an 18 by 90 across the obstructed segment and this was our completion run.
It's not perfect but it looks like a pretty good channel going through. This is the hardware not obstruction at that level. Hospital course, the patient had significant improvement in their swelling by post-op day one. Was discharged on compression and anti-coagulation.
He returned about two months ago for his three month follow-up and really had very minimal symptoms in the left leg. Venous duplex showed that the left common femoral was partially compressible but did have phasic flow and the stent appeared to be open through it's course.
So of course this is an anecdote, this is early in the experience with this catheter. There have been numerous improvements made to ease the use of it and do it in fewer steps. And so we're starting a ClotTriever outcomes registry
to enroll up to 500 patients to begin to define outcomes with this device. It does offer the promise of single session therapy without lytic administration and we'll see how it performs and which patients it works best in through the registry.
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.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Good Morning. Thank you very much Dr. Veith, it is an honor and I'm very happy to share some data for the first time at this most important meeting in vascular medicine. And I do it in - oops, that's the end of my talk, how do I go to the --
- [Technician] Left button, left, left. - Okay. So, what we heard on Tuesday were some opinions, of course opinions are very important in the medical field, we heard some hypothesis.
But what I think is critical for the decision-making physician is always the facts. And I would like to discuss some facts in relation to CGuard and the state of the field of carotid revascularization today. One of the most important facts for me,
is that treating symptomatic patients is nothing to be proud of, this is not a strength, this is the failure of the system. Unfortunately today we do continue to receive patients on optimum medical therapy
in the ongoing studies, including the paradigm study that I will discuss in more detail. So if you want to dismiss large level scale level one evidence, I think what you should be able to provide methodologically is another piece of large level one scale evidence.
The third fact is conventional carotid stents do have a problem, we heard about this from Dr. Amor. This is the problem of carotid excess of minor strokes, say in the CREST study. The fact # 4 is that Endarterectomy excludes the problem of the carotid block from the equation
so carotid stents should also be able to exclude the plaque, and yes there is a way to do it one of the ways to do it is the MicroNet covered embolic prevention stent system. And there is intravascular evidence from imaging we'll hear more about it later
that yes it can do this effectively but, also there is evidence from now more that 3 studies with magnetic resonance imaging that show the the incidence of ipslateral embolization is very low with this system. The quantity of the material is very low
and also the post procedural emoblisuent issue is practically eliminated. And this is some examples of intervascular imaging just note here that one of the differences between different systems is that, MicroNet can adapt to simple prolapse
even if it were to occur, making this plaque prolapse protected. Fact # 6 that I think is also very important is that the CGUARD system allows routine endovascular reconstruction of the carotid bifurcation and here is what I mean
as a routine CEA-like effect of endovascular procedure you can minimize residual stenosis by using larger balloons and larger pressure's than we would've used with conventional carotid stent and of course there is not one patient that this can be systematically achieved with different types of plaques
different types of protection systems and different patient morphologies Fact # 7 is that the level of procedural risk is the critical factor in decision making lets take asymptomatic carotid stenosis How does a thinking physician decide between
pharmacotherapy and intervention versus isolated pharmacotherapy. The critical factor is the risk of procedure. Part of the misunderstandings is the fact that we talk often of different populations This contemporary data the the vascular patients
are different from people that we see in the street Of coarse this is what we would like to have this is what we do not have, but we can apply and have been applying some of the plaque risk criteria Fact # 8 is that with the CGUARD system
you can achieve, systematically complication level of 1%, peri procedurally and in 30 days There is accumulating evidence from more than 10 critical studies. I would like to mention, Paradigm and Paradigm in-stent study because
this what we have been involved in. Our first 100 patient at 0.9% now in nearly 300 patients, the event rate is 1.2% and not only this is peri procedural and that by 30 days this low event rate. But also this is sustained through out
now up to 3 years This is our results at 36 months you can see note here, very normal also in-stent velocities so no signal of in-stent re stenosis, no more healing no more ISR signal. The outcome Difference
between the different stent types it is important to understand this will be driven by including high risk blocks and high risk patients I want to share with you this example you see a thrombus containing
a lesion so this patient is not a patient to be treated with a filter. This is not a patient to be treated with a conventional carotid stent but yes the patient can be treated endovascularly using MicroNet covered embolic prevention stent and this is
the final result. You can see that the thrombus is trapped behind the stent MicroNet and Final Fact there's more than that and this is the data that I am showing you for the first time today, there are unmet needs on other vascular territories
and CGUARD is perfectly fit, to meet some of those need. This is an example of a Thrombus containing a lesion in the iliac. This is the procedural result on your right, six months follow up angiogram. This is a subclavian with a lot of material here
again you can preform full endoovascular reconstruction look at the precession` of the osteo placement This is another iliac artery, you can see again endovascular reconstruction with normal 6 month follow up. This is another nasty iliac, again the result, acute result
and result in six months. This is another type of the problem a young man presented with non st, acute myocardial infarction you can see this VS grapht here has a very large diameter. It's not
fees able to address the native coronary issue here So this patient requires treatment, how to this patient: the reference diameter is 7.5 I treated this patient with overlapping CGUARD's This is the angio at 3 months , and this is the follow up at 6 months again
look at the precision of the osteo placement of the device ,it does behave like a balloon, expandable. Extending that respect, this highly calcific lesion. This is the problem with of new atherosclerosis in-stent re stenosis is wrongly perceived as
the proliferation of atheroscleroses tissue with conventional stents this can be the growth of the atherosclerotic plaque. This is the subclavian, this is an example of the carotid, the precise stent, 10 years down the line, symptomatic lesion here
This is not re stenosis this is in-stent re stenosis treated with CGUARD and I want to show you the final result at 2 years. I want to thank you for your attention. Say that also, there is the issue of aneurism that can be effectively addressed , Thank you
- 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.
- 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, 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.
- Good morning, thank you, Dr. Veith, for the invitation. My disclosures. So, renal artery anomalies, fairly rare. Renal ectopia and fusion, leading to horseshoe kidneys or pelvic kidneys, are fairly rare, in less than one percent of the population. Renal transplants, that is patients with existing
renal transplants who develop aneurysms, clearly these are patients who are 10 to 20 or more years beyond their initial transplantation, or maybe an increasing number of patients that are developing aneurysms and are treated. All of these involve a renal artery origin that is
near the aortic bifurcation or into the iliac arteries, making potential repair options limited. So this is a personal, clinical series, over an eight year span, when I was at the University of South Florida & Tampa, that's 18 patients, nine renal transplants, six congenital
pelvic kidneys, three horseshoe kidneys, with varied aorto-iliac aneurysmal pathologies, it leaves half of these patients have iliac artery pathologies on top of their aortic aneurysms, or in place of the making repair options fairly difficult. Over half of the patients had renal insufficiency
and renal protective maneuvers were used in all patients in this trial with those measures listed on the slide. All of these were elective cases, all were technically successful, with a fair amount of followup afterward. The reconstruction priorities or goals of the operation are to maintain blood flow to that atypical kidney,
except in circumstances where there were multiple renal arteries, and then a small accessory renal artery would be covered with a potential endovascular solution, and to exclude the aneurysms with adequate fixation lengths. So, in this experience, we were able, I was able to treat eight of the 18 patients with a fairly straightforward
endovascular solution, aorto-biiliac or aorto-aortic endografts. There were four patients all requiring open reconstructions without any obvious endovascular or hybrid options, but I'd like to focus on these hybrid options, several of these, an endohybrid approach using aorto-iliac
endografts, cross femoral bypass in some form of iliac embolization with an attempt to try to maintain flow to hypogastric arteries and maintain antegrade flow into that pelvic atypical renal artery, and a open hybrid approach where a renal artery can be transposed, and endografting a solution can be utilized.
The overall outcomes, fairly poor survival of these patients with a 50% survival at approximately two years, but there were no aortic related mortalities, all the renal artery reconstructions were patented last followup by Duplex or CT imaging. No aneurysms ruptures or aortic reinterventions or open
conversions were needed. So, focus specifically in a treatment algorithm, here in this complex group of patients, I think if the atypical renal artery comes off distal aorta, you have several treatment options. Most of these are going to be open, but if it is a small
accessory with multiple renal arteries, such as in certain cases of horseshoe kidneys, you may be able to get away with an endovascular approach with coverage of those small accessory arteries, an open hybrid approach which we utilized in a single case in the series with open transposition through a limited
incision from the distal aorta down to the distal iliac, and then actually a fenestrated endovascular repair of his complex aneurysm. Finally, an open approach, where direct aorto-ilio-femoral reconstruction with a bypass and reimplantation of that renal artery was done,
but in the patients with atypical renals off the iliac segment, I think you utilizing these endohybrid options can come up with some creative solutions, and utilize, if there is some common iliac occlusive disease or aneurysmal disease, you can maintain antegrade flow into these renal arteries from the pelvis
and utilize cross femoral bypass and contralateral occlusions. So, good options with AUIs, with an endohybrid approach in these difficult patients. Thank you.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- Thank you for asking me to speak. Thank you Dr Veith. I have no disclosures. I'm going to start with a quick case again of a 70 year old female presented with right lower extremity rest pain and non-healing wound at the right first toe
and left lower extremity claudication. She had non-palpable femoral and distal pulses, her ABIs were calcified but she had decreased wave forms. Prior anterior gram showed the following extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease due to the small size we went ahead and did a CT scan and confirmed.
She had a very small aorta measuring 14 millimeters in outer diameter and circumferential calcium of her aorta as well as proximal common iliac arteries. Due to this we treated her with a right common femoral artery cutdown and an antegrade approach to her SFA occlusion with a stent.
We then converted the sheath to a retrograde approach, place a percutaneous left common femoral artery access and then placed an Endologix AFX device with a 23 millimeter main body at the aortic bifurcation. We then ballooned both the aorta and iliac arteries and then placed bilateral balloon expandable
kissing iliac stents to stent the outflow. Here is our pre, intra, and post operative films. She did well. Her rest pain resolved, her first toe amputation healed, we followed her for about 10 months. She also has an AV access and had a left arterial steel
on a left upper extremity so last week I was able to undergo repeat arteriogram and this is at 10 months out. We can see that he stent remains open with good flow and no evidence of in stent stenosis. There's very little literature about using endografts for occlusive disease.
Van Haren looked at 10 patients with TASC-D lesions that were felt to be high risk for aorta bifem using the Endologix AFX device. And noted 100% technical success rate. Eight patients did require additional stent placements. There was 100% resolution of the symptoms
with improved ABIs bilaterally. At 40 months follow up there's a primary patency rate of 80% and secondary of 100% with one acute limb occlusion. Zander et all, using the Excluder prothesis, looked at 14 high risk patients for aorta bifem with TASC-C and D lesions of the aorta.
Similarly they noted 100% technical success. Nine patients required additional stenting, all patients had resolution of their symptoms and improvement of their ABIs. At 62 months follow up they noted a primary patency rate of 85% and secondary of 100
with two acute limb occlusions. The indications for this procedure in general are symptomatic patient with a TASC C or D lesion that's felt to either be a high operative risk for aorta bifem or have a significantly calcified aorta where clamping would be difficult as we saw in our patient.
These patients are usually being considered for axillary bifemoral bypass. Some technical tips. Access can be done percutaneously through a cutdown. I do recommend a cutdown if there's femoral disease so you can preform a femoral endarterectomy and
profundaplasty at the same time. Brachial access is also an alternative option. Due to the small size and disease vessels, graft placement may be difficult and may require predilation with either the endograft sheath dilator or high-pressure balloon.
In calcified vessels you may need to place covered stents in order to pass the graft to avoid rupture. Due to the poor radial force of endografts, the graft must be ballooned after placement with either an aortic occlusion balloon but usually high-pressure balloons are needed.
It usually also needs to be reinforced the outflow with either self-expanding or balloon expandable stents to prevent limb occlusion. Some precautions. If the vessels are calcified and tortuous again there may be difficult graft delivery.
In patients with occluded vessels standard techniques for crossing can be used, however will require pre-dilation before endograft positioning. If you have a sub intimal cannulation this does put the vessel at risk for rupture during
balloon dilation. Small aortic diameters may occlude limbs particularly using modular devices. And most importantly, the outflow must be optimized using stents distally if needed in the iliac arteries, but even more importantly, assuring that you've
treated the femoral artery and outflow to the profunda. Despite these good results, endograft use for occlusive disease is off label use and therefor not reimbursed. In comparison to open stents, endograft use is expensive and may not be cost effective. There's no current studies looking
into the cost/benefit ratio. Thank you.
- [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.
- 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.
- 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, 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 very much and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invite. Here's my disclosures, clearly relevant to this talk. So we know that after EVAR, it's around the 20% aortic complication rate after five years in treating type one and three Endoleaks prevents subsequent
secondary aortic rupture. Surveillance after EVAR is therefore mandatory. But it's possible that device-specific outcomes and surveillance protocols may improve the durability of EVAR over time. You're all familiar with this graph for 15 year results
in terms of re-intervention from the EVAR-1 trials. Whether you look at all cause and all re-interventions or life threatening re-interventions, at any time point, EVAR fares worse than open repair. But we know that the risk of re-intervention is different
in different patients. And if you combine pre-operative risk factors in terms of demographics and morphology, things are happening during the operations such as the use of adjuncts,
or having to treat intro-operative endoleak, and what happens to the aortic sac post-operatively, you can come up with a risk-prediction tool for how patients fare in the longer term. So the LEAR model was developed on the Engage Registry and validated on some post-market registries,
PAS, IDE, and the trials in France. And this gives a predictive risk model. Essentially, this combines patients into a low risk group that would have standard surveillance, and a higher risk group, that would have a surveillance plus
or enhanced surveillanced model. And you get individual patient-specific risk profiles. This is a patient with around a seven centimeter aneurysm at the time of repair that shows sac shrinkage over the first year and a half, post-operatively. And you can see that there's really a very low risk
of re-intervention out to five years. These little arrow bars up here. For a patient that has good pre-operative morphology and whose aneurysm shrinks out to a year, they're going to have a very low risk of re-intervention. This patient, conversely, had a smaller aneurysm,
but it grew from the time of the operation, and out to two and a half years, it's about a centimeter increase in the sac. And they're going to have a much higher risk of re-intervention and probably don't need the same level of surveillance as the first patient.
and probably need a much higher rate of surveillance. So not only can we have individualized predictors of risk for patients, but this is the regulatory aspect to it as well.
Multiple scenario testing can be undertaken. And these are improved not only with the pre-operative data, but as you've seen with one-year data, and this can tie in with IFU development and also for advising policy such as NICE, which you'll have heard a lot about during the conference.
So this is just one example. If you take a patient with a sixty-five millimeter aneurysm, eighteen millimeter iliac, and the suprarenal angle at sixty degrees. If you breach two or more of these factors in red, we have the pre-operative prediction.
Around 20% of cases will be in the high risk group. The high risk patients have about a 50-55% freedom from device for related problems at five years. And the low risk group, so if you don't breach those groups, 75% chance of freedom from intervention.
In the green, if you then add in a stent at one year, you can see that still around 20% of patients remain in the high risk group. But in the low risk group, you now have 85% of patients won't need a re-intervention at five years,
and less of a movement in the high risk group. So this can clearly inform IFU. And here you see the Kaplan-Meier curves, those same groups based pre-operatively, and at one year. In conclusion, LEAR can provide
a device specific estimation of EVAR outcome out to five years. It can be based on pre-operative variables alone by one year. Duplex surveillance helps predict risk. It's clearly of regulatory interest in the outcomes of EVAR.
And an E-portal is being developed for dissemination. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, 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.
- 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.
- Good afternoon, Dr. Veith, organizer. Thank you very much for the kind invitation. I have nothing to disclose. In the United States, the most common cause of mortality after one year of age is trauma. So, thankfully the pediatric vascular trauma
is only a very small minority, and it happens in less that 1% of all the pediatric traumas. But, when it happens it contributes significantly to the mortality. In most developed countries, the iatrogenic
arterial injuries are the most common type of vascular injuries that you have in non-iatrogenic arterial injuries, however are more common in war zone area. And it's very complex injuries that these children suffer from.
In a recent study that we published using the national trauma data bank, the mortality rate was about 7.9% of the children who suffer from vascular injuries. And the most common mechanism of injury were firearm and motor vehicle accidents. In the US, the most common type of injury is the blunt type
of injury. As far as the risk factors for mortality, you can see some of them that are significantly affecting mortality, but one of them is the mechanism of injury, blunt versus penetrating and the penetrating is the risk factor for
mortality. As far as the anatomical and physiological consideration for treatment, they are very similar to adults. Their injury can cause disruption all the way to a spasm, or obstruction of the vessel and for vasiospasm and minimal disruption, conservative therapy is usually adequate.
Sometimes you can use papevrin or nitroglycerin. Of significant concern in children is traumatic AV fissure that needs to be repaired as soon as possible. For hard signs, when you diagnose these things, of course when there is a bleeding, there is no question that you need to go repair.
When there are no hard signs, especially in the blunt type of injuries, we depend both on physical exams and diagnostic tools. AVI in children is actually not very useful, so instead of that investigators are just using what is called an Injured Extremity Index, which you measure one leg
versus the other, and if there is also less than 0.88 or less than 0.90, depending on the age of the children, is considered abnormal. Pulse Oximetry, the Duplex Ultrasound, CTA are all very helpful. Angiography is actually quite risky in these children,
and should be avoided. Surgical exploration, of course, when it's needed can give very good results. As far as the management, well they are very similar to adults, in the sense that you need to expose the artery, control the bleeding, an then restore circulation to the
end organ. And some of the adjuncts that are using in adult trauma can be useful, such as use of temporary shunts, that you can use a pediatric feeding tube, heparin, if there are no contraindications, liberal use of fasciotomy and in the vascular technique that my partner, Dr. Singh will be
talking about. Perhaps the most common cause of PVI in young children in developed countries are iatrogenic injuries and most of the time they are minimal injuries. But in ECMO cannulation, 20-50% are injuries due to
ECMO have been reported in both femoral or carotid injuries. So, in the centers are they are doing it because of the concern about limb ischemia, as well as cognitive issues. They routinely repair the ECMO cannulation site.
For non-iatrogenic types, if is very common in the children that are above six years of age. Again, you follow the same principal as adult, except that these arteries are severely spastic and interposition graft must accommodate both axial and radial growths of these arteries, as well as the limb that it's been
repaired in. Primary repair sometimes requires interrupted sutures and Dr. Bismuth is going to be talking about some of that. Contralateral greater saphenous vein is a reasonable option, but this patient needs to be followed very, very closely.
The most common type of injury is upper extremity and Dr. McCurdy is going to be talking about this. Blunt arterial injury to the brachial artery is very common. It can cause ischemic contracture and sometimes amputation.
In the children that they have no pulse, is if there are signs of neurosensory deficit and extremity is cold, exploration is indicated, but if the extremity is pulseless, pink hand expectant treatment is reasonable. As far as the injuries, the most common, the deadliest injuries are related to the truncal injuries and the
mechanism severity of this injury dictates the treatment. Blunt aortic injuries are actually quite uncommon and endovascular options are limited. This is an example of one that was done by Dr Veith and you can see the arrow when the stent was placed and then moved.
So these children, the long-term results of endovascular option is unknown. So in summary, you basically follow many tenets of adult vascular trauma. Special consideration for repair has to do with the fact that you need to accommodate longitudinal
and radial growth and also endovascular options are limited. Ultimately, you need a collaborative effort of many specialists in taking care of these children. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Content and materials on Medlantis are provided for educational purposes only, and are intended for use by medical professionals, not to be used self-diagnosis or self-treatment. It is not intended as, nor should it be, a substitute for independent professional medical care. Medical practitioners must make their own independent assessment before suggesting a diagnosis or recommending or instituting a course of treatment. The content and materials on Medlantis should not in any way be seen as a replacement for consultation with colleagues or other sources, or as a substitute for conventional training and study.