- Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for the opportunity to present at this great meeting. I have nothing to disclose. Since Dr. DeBakey published the first paper 60 years ago, the surgical importance of deep femoral artery has been well investigated and documented.
It can be used as a reliable inflow for low extremity bypass in certain circumstances. To revascularize the disease, the deep femoral artery can improve rest pain, prevent or delay the amputation, and help to heal amputation stump.
So, in this slide, the group patient that they used deep femoral artery as a inflow for infrainguinal bypass. And 10-year limb salvage was achieved in over 90% of patients. So, different techniques and configurations
of deep femoral artery angioplasty have been well described, and we've been using this in a daily basis. So, there's really not much new to discuss about this. Next couple minutes, I'd like to focus on endovascular invention 'cause I lot I think is still unclear.
Dr. Bath did a systemic review, which included 20 articles. Nearly total 900 limbs were treated with balloon angioplasty with or without the stenting. At two years, the primary patency was greater than 70%. And as you can see here, limb salvage at two years, close to, or is over 98% with very low re-intervention rate.
So, those great outcomes was based on combined common femoral and deep femoral intervention. So what about isolated deep femoral artery percutaneous intervention? Does that work or not? So, this study include 15 patient
who were high risk to have open surgery, underwent isolated percutaneous deep femoral artery intervention. As you can see, at three years, limb salvage was greater than 95%. The study also showed isolated percutaneous transluminal
angioplasty of deep femoral artery can convert ischemic rest pain to claudication. It can also help heal the stump wound to prevent hip disarticulation. Here's one of my patient. As you can see, tes-tee-lee-shun with near
or total occlusion of proximal deep femoral artery presented with extreme low-extremity rest pain. We did a balloon angioplasty. And her ABI was increased from 0.8 to 0.53, and rest pain disappeared. Another patient transferred from outside the facility
was not healing stump wound on the left side with significant disease as you can see based on the angiogram. We did a hybrid procedure including stenting of the iliac artery and the open angioplasty of common femoral artery and the profunda femoral artery.
Significantly improved the perfusion to the stump and healed wound. The indications for isolated or combined deep femoral artery revascularization. For those patient presented with disabling claudication or rest pain with a proximal
or treatable deep femoral artery stenosis greater than 50% if their SFA or femoral popliteal artery disease is unsuitable for open or endovascular treatment, they're a high risk for open surgery. And had the previous history of multiple groin exploration, groin wound complications with seroma or a fungal infection
or had a muscle flap coverage, et cetera. And that this patient should go to have intervascular intervention. Or patient had a failed femoral pop or femoral-distal bypass like this patient had, and we should treat this patient.
So in summary, open profundaplasty remains the gold standard treatment. Isolated endovascular deep femoral artery intervention is sufficient for rest pain. May not be good enough for major wound healing, but it will help heal the amputation stump
to prevent hip disarticulation. Thank you for much for your attention.
- Thank you and thanks Craig, it's fun to have these debates with good colleagues, thoughtful colleagues. These are my disclosures for the talk. But pry my most important disclosure is I work in academic center with a dedicated Limb Preservation Center, very tertiary practice. And I perform both open and endovascular surgery
and actually my current lower extremity practice is probably about 60 to 65 percent endovascular so, I do both of these procedures. We already saw this slide about how the increase in endovascular intervention has grown. But, I would caution you to look a little more closely
at this outpace of decline in bypass surgery by more than three to one. I don't think this is an epidemic, I think it's a little bit of this, and a little bit of this. Everything looks like a nail when you only have a hammer
or a hammer when you only have a nail. So, what should we really be doing today? We should be trying to select the best thing for the right patient at the right time. And it really comes down to starting not with the lesion, but with the patient.
Start with assessing the patient's risk, what's their perioperative risk, what's their long-term survival, what are their goals for care? And then look at the limb itself, because not all limbs are the same.
There are minor ulcers, there's extensive and severe rest pain and there are large areas of tissue loss. And the WIfI system is good for that. And then let's look at the anatomy last. And when we're looking at it from the standpoint of what all the options are, endovascular we're looking
at what's the likelihood not just of technical success, but of hemodynamic gain and sustained patency for as long as a patient needs it. With bypass, we also have to look at other things. What kind of vein do they have, or what kind of target do they have?
And I think the bottom line here is in today's practice, it's kind of silly to say endo first for all patients, it's certainly not surgery first for all patients because they have complementary roles in contemporary practice. Well what's happening in the world out there,
this is the German CRITISCH registry, I'll just point out 12 hundred patients recently published only a couple of years ago, 24 percent of patients get bypass first. And if you look at who they are, not surprisingly they are the patients
with long occlusions and complex anatomy. They are out there, in fact most of these patients have multi-segment disease, as Craig pointed out. Here's some contemporary data that you haven't seen yet because it's in press, but this is VQI data looking at 2003 to 2017.
I'll point out just in the last 2013 years, still, if you looked at unique patients, not procedures, one-third of the patients are getting a bypass first. And if you define risk groups considering what might be a low risk patient as a three percent mortality and survival greater than 70 percent,
and a high risk patient, you can put these patients into buckets and in fact, of all the patients getting lower extremity revascularization and VQI today, 80 percent of them would be called low risk based on this definition. So, most patients are not high risk patients
who don't have long-term survival. In fact, this is current VQI data. If you're a low risk patient in that cohort, your five year survival actually is over 70 percent. So there's a lot of these patients actually today with better CLO medical therapy that are actually
living longer and are not that high risk. We talked about the BASIL trial already, and he pointed out how the early results were similar, but what we learned also with BASIL, that if you've got a bypass as a secondary procedure, or if you got a bypass with a prosthetic,
you simply did not do as well. That doesn't mean that the initial endovascular revascularization caused the bypass failure, but it means that secondary bypass surgery does not work as well. And when Dr. Bradbury looked at this data
over a longer period of time now going over many more years, there's a consistent inferior outcome to the patients who had their bypass after failed angioplasty in comparison to bypass as the initial strategy. This is not an isolated finding. When we looked in the VSGNE data over a,
more than 3000 patients at the impact of restenosis on subsequent treatment failure, we found that whether patients had a failed previous PVI or bypass, their secondary bypass outcomes were inferior, and the inferiority continued to get worse with time.
These bypasses just don't perform as well. Unfortunately, if we only do bypass after endo has failed, this is what all the results are going to start to look like. So let's be a little bit smarter. Now what about patency?
I think we, even today in the endovascular world, we realize patency is important. After all, that's why we're doing drug elution. Most, but not all patients with advanced limb ischemia will recrudesce their symptoms when their revascularization fails.
I think we all know that. Most CLTI patients have multi-segment disease. I don't want to sit up here and be a high school or elementary school math teacher, but here's the reality. If you look at it above the lesion, you say I'm going to get 70 percent patency there, and you look at
the tibial lesion, you say I'm going to get 50 percent patency there, what do you think your patency is for the whole leg? It's 35 percent folks, it's the product of the two. That is the reality pretty often. Patients with more advanced limb presentations,
such as WIfI stage do not tolerate these failures. They tolerate them poorly. They go on to amputation pretty fast. And patient survival, as I've already shown you has improved. Now, what the all endo-all the time
camp does and doesn't say. He already showed us, many datasets suggest the downstream outcomes are roughly equivalent but, these are not the same patients, we are not operating on the same patients you are doing endo on.
If I told you the results are the same for PCI and CABG without showing you anatomy, you would laugh me off the stage right? So, this is really not an equivalent argument. Endo can be repeated with minimal morbidity, but patients suffer.
Their limb status deteriorates, they come in the hospital often, and they continue to decline in the outcomes of these secondary procedures. CLTI patients are too frail for surgery, I just showed you that's really not true for many patients.
There is really unfortunately, an economic incentive here. Because there is unfortunately, no incentive for durable success. I hate to bring that up, but that's the reality. Now just quickly, some results. This is a large Japanese series
where they were performing endovascular interventions only for advanced limb ischemia. And basically what you can see as you go across the WIfI stages here from stage one to stage four, when you get to these stage four patients, the wound healing rate's only 44 percent,
limb salvage rate drops to 80 percent, repeat EVT rate is encroaching 50 percent. These patients really are not doing well with endovascular intervention. And we found that in our own series too, it's relatively small numbers and not randomized.
But if we look at the stage 4 limbs with bypass versus endo, when these patients failed at revascularization, and they may not have been bypass candidates, but they didn't do well, they went on to amputation very quickly.
So the ESC guidelines that just came out really sort of line up with what I'm telling you. You'll see bypass first. If you have long occlusions in an available vein, is actually currently the favorite approach, with level 1A recommendation.
So in summary, this is how I currently approach it. You look at all these factors, some people should get endo first, but there's still about 20 or 30 percent that I think should get bypass. Some people should go on to amputation earlier, is the bottom line, and I'll go right to the bottom line.
If you don't have access to a skilled open bypass surgeon, you're probably not at a center of excellence, go find one.
- I'll address a recipe for functional and financial success with smoking cessation for our tobacco addicted patients. We're all very acutely aware of the financial, physical and psychological devastation of tobacco. For our vascular patients it's the most important modifiable risk factor.
Most vascular patients have a high level of initial smoking, it's characterized by failed efforts, and there really are very rare evidence-based cessation programs in place. This was confirmed recently by a publication, American Heart or the PORTRAIT Trial.
I said to myself, "well if I wanted to do counseling "I should have been a psychologist "but I want to be a surgeon, I like to operate." And operating vascular surgery we do, at the middle point of my career
it felt like a revolving door. The right carotid, the left carotid, the left fem-pop, the right fem-pop. And a little more senior in my career as I started the restenosis I felt like I was doomed to the myth of Sisyphus where I just
have to keep pushing that rock up to the top of the hill, only to have it roll down again. I submit to you that if all we do is operate for our patients, our field will be disrupted the same way our cardiac surgical colleagues
have been disrupted. A few years ago, Medicare and many private insurances assigned a payment to smoking cessation counseling, that a ICD10 diagnosis needs to be linked to a tobacco disorder, like vascular disease. Their time based codes for intermed and extensive--
the 99406 is 3-10 minutes, the 99407 is greater than 10 minutes. Now, if you link that to Medicare dollars, it's pretty meager, at $38 per RVU, that's $9 and $19 at additional, respectively. Say your hospital employ at $50 an RVU,
that ups a bit to $12 and $25, respectively. And that's how before you read the Medicare guidelines they say that you have to document that a patient is mentally competent, it needs to be done by a physician or Advanced Care Provider.
You get two attempts per year, four sessions per attempt, or eight sessions per year. About this point I felt like I was reading out of this book instead of the Medicare guidelines. But there is a recipe, and I think it's an important recipe. What we do is put take-away literature
printed ahead of time, in all the patients' rooms, including our online resources, we have the prescriptions and pads pre-printed, and then we have the templates of electronic documentation so we're able to claim the payment for the work that we do do.
We point out to our patients the benefit of smoking cessation, we rely heavily on the CDC website for resources, and the pharmacotherapy really boils down to three:
you need to be careful that you don't double up on your patients who are smoking. Zyban is mor it's basically an extended-release antidepressant and it works on the craving related chemicals in the brain.
It reduces withdrawal symptoms and cravings. You need to start it a couple weeks in advance. You have to be careful with drinkers or cirrhotics, people who have seizures or prior head injuries, and anyone with a psychiatric history. Chantix is the most successful,
it interferes with the nicotine receptors, it lessens the pleasure, and reduces withdrawal symptoms. You also need to start this in advance of cessation efforts. It has GI, headache, sleep disorders, seizures, mood changes, and it got a black-box warning for
suicidal ideations and suicide. Now, at the Harvard School of Business, professor Christensen pointed out that if all we do is operate, we'll be at risk to be disrupted, and he's done business analysis, so he's successful and he's got collabs, such as
Borders, Detroit Auto, stock brokers, and travel agents, and I submit vascular surgeries on that list. He points out that high achievers are the most vulnerable that's because all we do is focus on the highest ROI, that would be that all we do is operate. So how can we avoid being devoured by the next disruptor,
whether it's a cardiologist, new technology, or an overbearing hospital administrator? And he describes this as he evaluates healthcare by saying "What we need to do is focus on the job to be done." We need to say "What does a patient need from us?", not frame them with our attributes.
So we should say they hire us to fix their broken blood vessels, and we should do this whether it's a scalpel, prolene, a stent, a statin, or Chantix. I have (mumbles), but I submit that if we answer what the patient needs, and not what we do for them
that will leave us in a position of leadership where we can make important contributions for our patients.
- Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. So thirty day mortality following unselected non-cardiac surgery in patients 45 years and older has been reported to be as high as 1.9%. And in such patients we know that postoperative troponin elevation has
a very strong correlation with 30-day mortality. Considering that there are millions of major surgical procedures performed, it's clear that this equates to a significant health problem. And therefore, the accurate identification of patients at risk of complications
and morbidity offers many advantages. First, both the patient and the physician can perform an appropriate risk-benefit analysis based on the expected surgical benefit in relation to surgical risk. And surgery can then be declined,
deferred, or modified to maximize the patient's benefit. Secondly, pre-operative identification of high-risk patients allows physicians to direct their efforts towards those who might really benefit from additional interventions. And finally, postoperative management,
monitoring and potential therapies can be individualized according to predicted risk. So there's a lot of data on this and I'll try to go through the data on predictive biomarkers in different groups of vascular surgery patients. This study published in the "American Heart Journal"
in 2018 measured troponin levels in a prospective blinded fashion in 1000 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Major cardiac complications occurred overall in 11% but in 24% of the patients who were having vascular surgery procedures.
You can see here that among vascular surgery patients there was a really high prevalence of elevated troponin levels preoperatively. And again, if you look here at the morbidity in vascular surgery patients 24% had major cardiac complications,
the majority of these were myocardial infarctions. Among patients undergoing vascular surgery, preoperative troponin elevation was an independent predictor of cardiac complications with an odds ratio of 1.5, and there was an increased accuracy of this parameter
in vascular surgery as opposed to non-vascular surgery patients. So what about patients undergoing open vascular surgery procedures? This is a prospective study of 455 patients and elevated preoperative troponin level
and a perioperative increase were both independently associated with MACE. You can see here these patients were undergoing a variety of open procedures including aortic, carotid, and peripheral arterial. And you can see here that in any way you look at this,
both the preoperative troponin, the postoperative troponin, the absolute change, and the relative change were all highly associated with MACE. You could add the troponin levels to the RCRI a clinical risk stratification tool and know that this increased the accuracy.
And this is additionally shown here in these receiver operator curves. So this study concluded that a combination of the RCRI with troponin levels can improve the predictive accuracy and therefore allow for better patient management.
This doesn't just happen in open-vascular surgery patients. This is a study that studied troponin levels in acute limb ischaemia patients undergoing endovascular therapy. 254 patients all treated with endovascular intervention
with a 3.9% mortality and a 5.1% amputation rate. Patients who died or required amputation more frequently presented with elevated troponin levels. And the relationship between troponin and worse in-hospital outcome remains significant even when controlling for other factors.
In-hospital death or amputation again and amputation free survival were highly correlated with preoperative troponin levels. You can see here 16.9% in patients with elevated troponins versus 6% in others. And the cardiac troponin level
had a high hazard ratio for predicting worse in-hospital outcomes. This is a study of troponins just in CLI patients with a similar design the measurement of troponin on admission again was a significant independent predictor
of survival with a hazard ratio of 4.2. You can see here that the majority of deaths that did occur were in fact cardiac, and troponin levels correlated highly with both cardiac specific and all-cause mortality. The value of the troponin test was maintained
even when controlling for other risk factors. And these authors felt that the realistic awareness of likely long term prognosis of vascular surgery patients is invaluable when planning suitability for either surgical or endovascular intervention.
And finally, we even have data on the value of preoperative troponin in patients undergoing major amputation. This was a study in which 10 of 44 patients had a non-fatal MI or died from a cardiac cause following amputation.
A rise in the preoperative troponin level was associated with a very poor outcome and was the only significant predictor of postoperative cardiac events. As you can see in this slide. This clearly may be a "Pandora's box".
We really don't know who should have preoperative troponins. What is the cost effectiveness in screening everybody? And in patients with elevated troponin levels, what exactly do we do? Do we cancel surgery, defer it, or change our plan?
However, certainly as vascular surgeons with our high-risk patient population we believe in risk stratification tools. And the RCRI is routinely used as a clinical risk stratification tool. Adding preoperative troponin levels to the RCRI
clearly increases its accuracy in the prediction of patients who will have perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality. And you can see here that the preoperative troponin level had one of the highest independent hazard ratios at 5.4. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to present and I'd like to thank the program committee and Doctor Veith. I have no disclosures. So Traumatic Limb Ischemia is uncommon. Demtriades looked at this with the national trauma database and found that it only occurred in about one point six
percent of patients. And the majority, or 51 percent, are penetrating injuries. These are often managed by the trauma surgeons at tertiary centers. But with the change in training paradigms, with general surgeons not doing as much vascular procedures
and open vascular surgery not being done as much by many of the trauma surgeons. Vascular surgeons are being called upon to do this, more and more often. The objective of our study is to describe a contemporary series of patients with acute limb ischemia
secondary to trauma that were managed by the vascular surgeon. In identified factors that were accossiated with limb salvage and functional outcomes. We did a retrospective review of our institution over a three year period and looked at several factors,
including the preoperative imaging the level of aclusion, limb salvage, and functional limb outcomes. We identified 68 patients in our study and the majority of these patients had moderate ISS scores and Rutherford Class two ischemia. 53 percent were from an outside hospital
and 62 percent had blunt injury, while 38 percent suffered penetrating injury. If you look at the mechanism again, the majority were motor vehicle accidents for the blunt and gunshot wounds and stab wounds for the penetrating injuries.
Median ages would be expected as fairly young with at 36 and 46 and the majority of these people are males. As is the cases with most trauma series. 58 percent were transferred from an upper, from another hospital in the upper extremity series and 51 percent in the lower extremity series.
With a median time of transfer about three hours. The median time to the operating room was about four and a half hours in this patient population. And most of these patients did receive some kind of preoperative imaging, either a CAT scan with 55 percent of the upper extremity
and 68 in the lower extremity. And the Rutherford classification of ischemia was, generally, two B and below. We looked at the location and the majority in the lower extremity were the Femoropopliteal region and in the upper extremity where the Axillary
and Brachial artery region. So, looking at the number of operations these patients underwent, and the upper extremity and lower extremity both of them underwent a median number of three operations and 84 percent of the patients upper extremity injuries went an open procedure
and 69 percent in the lower extremity. So, open procedures are the modality of choice for repair of these injuries. 58 percent of the lower extremities went on to have Fasciotomies, as well. In some of the details, the open repair
was a dominant treatment as stated. Shunts were only utilized in two of our patients, with Fasciotomies only occurring in 25 percent 58 percent of the lower extremity injuries. And we think about some of the details, we had eight patients who underwent Fasciotomies
during the first operation with dead muscle encountered in three of those patients. Three patients underwent a delayed Fasciotomy with dead muscle encountered in one of those patients. Limb salvagery overall is 94 percent in the upper extremity and 78 percent in the lower extremity.
And again, with the amputation patients, we had 12 patients that underwent an amputation, one primary amputation. The overall limb salvage was 94 percent for upper extremity and 78 percent for lower extremity. The predictors or amputation of functional limb,
in a functional limb where the number was a Rutherford Classification and the number of procedures these patients undergo. The length of stay was 11 days, 25 percent were discharged to a skilled nursing facility and follow up occurred in 59 percent of the patients, as the case
with many of the trauma type studies. When you think about functional deficits, the patients that had no functional deficits in the upper extremity were about 57 percent and the lower extremity 68 percent. But major deficits occurred in one third of the patients
with an upper extremity injury versus six percent. Whereas amputation occurs much more frequently in the lower extremity versus the upper extremity. So, Traumatic Acute Limb Ischemia is uncommon outside of trauma centers, vascular surgeons are extremely well equipped
to deal with this, majority of extremities can be salvaged, transfer times to a tertiary center may explain some of the correlation with limb salvage, and rehabilitation and follow up can be difficult in this patient population. Again, we only had 59 percent follow up, you know,
in the literature it's around 60 and 66 percent in this patient population. It can be managed with very high rates as limb salvage by vascular surgeons. So I think that we can do this and we do it quite well. Limb salvage doesn't equate to functional outcomes,
particularly in the upper extremity. And in the future, I think that we need to probably get better about the follow up and identify some patient centered functional status and quality of life questionnaries post salvage, to see truly what the outcome is and the functional status
is of these patients. Thank you very much. (applause)
- Thanks Dr. Weaver. Thank you Dr. Reed for the invitation, once again, to this great meeting. These are my disclosures. So, open surgical repair of descending aortic arch disease still carries some significant morbidity and mortality.
And obviously TEVAR as we have mentioned in many of the presentations has become the treatment of choice for appropriate thoracic lesions, but still has some significant limitations of seal in the aortic arch and more techniques are being developed to address that.
Right now, we also need to cover the left subclavian artery and encroach or cover the left common carotid artery for optimal seal, if that's the area that we're trying to address. So zone 2, which is the one that's,
it is most commonly used as seal for the aortic arch requires accurate device deployment to maximize the seal and really avoid ultimately, coverage of the left common carotid artery and have to address it as an emergency. Seal, in many of these cases is not maximized
due to the concern of occlusion of the left common carotid artery and many of the devices are deployed without obtaining maximum seal in that particular area. Failure of accurate deployment often leads to a type IA endoleak or inadvertent coverage
of the left common carotid artery which can become a significant problem. The most common hybrid procedures in this group of patients include the use of TEVAR, a carotid-subclavian reconstruction and left common carotid artery stenting,
which is hopefully mostly planned, but many of the times, especially when you're starting, it may be completely unplanned. The left common carotid chimney has been increasingly used to obtain a better seal
in this particular group of patients with challenging arches, but there's still significant concerns, including patients having super-vascular complications, stroke, Type A retrograde dissections and a persistent Type IA endoleak
which can be very challenging to be able to correct. There's limited data to discuss this specific topic, but some of the recent publications included a series of 11 to 13 years of treatment with a variety of chimneys.
And these publications suggest that the left common carotid chimneys are the most commonly used chimneys in the aortic arch, being used 76% to 89% of the time in these series. We can also look at these and the technical success
is very good. Mortality's very low. The stroke rate is quite variable depending on the series and chimney patency's very good. But we still have a relatively high persistent
Type IA endoleak on these procedures. So what can we do to try to improve the results that we have? And some of these techniques are clearly applicable for elective or emergency procedures. In the elective setting,
an open left carotid access and subclavian access can be obtained via a supraclavicular approach. And then a subclavian transposition or a carotid-subclavian bypass can be performed in preparation for the endovascular repair. Following that reconstruction,
retrograde access to left common carotid artery can be very helpful with a 7 French sheath and this can be used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes at the same time. The 7 French sheath can easily accommodate most of the available covered and uncovered
balloon expandable stents if the situation arises that it's necessary. Alignment of the TEVAR is critical with maximum seal and accurate placement of the TEVAR at this location is paramount to be able to have a good result.
At that point, the left common carotid artery chimney can be deployed under control of the left common carotid artery. To avoid any embolization, the carotid can be flushed, primary repaired, and the subclavian can be addressed
if there is concern of a persistent retrograde leak with embolization with a plug or other devices. The order can be changed for the procedure to be able to be done emergently as it is in this 46 year old policeman with hypertension and a ruptured thoracic aneurism.
The patient had the left common carotid access first, the device deployed appropriately, and the carotid-subclavian bypass performed in a more elective fashion after the rupture had been addressed. So, in conclusion, carotid chimney's and TEVAR
combination is a frequently used to obtain additional seal on the aortic arch, with pretty good results. Early retrograde left common carotid access allows safe TEVAR deployment with maximum seal,
and the procedure can be safely performed with low morbidity and mortality if we select the patients appropriately. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much, Frank, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no disclosure. Standard carotid endarterectomy patch-plasty and eversion remain the gold standard of treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic patient with significant stenosis. One important lesson we learn in the last 50 years
of trial and tribulation is the majority of perioperative and post-perioperative stroke are related to technical imperfection rather than clamping ischemia. And so the importance of the technical accuracy of doing the endarterectomy. In ideal world the endarterectomy shouldn't be (mumbling).
It should contain embolic material. Shouldn't be too thin. While this is feasible in the majority of the patient, we know that when in clinical practice some patient with long plaque or transmural lesion, or when we're operating a lesion post-radiation,
it could be very challenging. Carotid bypass, very popular in the '80s, has been advocated as an alternative of carotid endarterectomy, and it doesn't matter if you use a vein or a PTFE graft. The result are quite durable. (mumbling) showing this in 198 consecutive cases
that the patency, primary patency rate was 97.9% in 10 years, so is quite a durable procedure. Nowadays we are treating carotid lesion with stinting, and the stinting has been also advocated as a complementary treatment, but not for a bail out, but immediately after a completion study where it
was unsatisfactory. Gore hybrid graft has been introduced in the market five years ago, and it was the natural evolution of the vortec technique that (mumbling) published a few years before, and it's a technique of a non-suture anastomosis.
And this basically a heparin-bounded bypass with the Nitinol section then expand. At King's we are very busy at the center, but we did 40 bypass for bail out procedure. The technique with the Gore hybrid graft is quite stressful where the constrained natural stint is inserted
inside internal carotid artery. It's got the same size of a (mumbling) shunt, and then the plumbing line is pulled, and than anastomosis is done. The proximal anastomosis is performed in the usual fashion with six (mumbling), and the (mumbling) was reimplanted
selectively. This one is what look like in the real life the patient with the personal degradation, the carotid hybrid bypass inserted and the external carotid artery were implanted. Initially we very, very enthusiastic, so we did the first cases with excellent result.
In total since November 19, 2014 we perform 19 procedure. All the patient would follow up with duplex scan and the CT angiogram post operation. During the follow up four cases block. The last two were really the two very high degree stenosis. And the common denominator was that all the patients
stop one of the dual anti-platelet treatment. They were stenosis wise around 40%, but only 13% the significant one. This one is one of the patient that developed significant stenosis after two years, and you can see in the typical position at the end of the stint.
This one is another patient who develop a quite high stenosis at proximal end. Our patency rate is much lower than the one report by Rico. So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the carotid endarterectomy remain still the gold standard,
and (mumbling) carotid is usually an afterthought. Carotid bypass is a durable procedure. It should be in the repertoire of every vascular surgeon undertaking carotid endarterectomy. Gore hybrid was a promising technology because unfortunate it's been just not produced by Gore anymore,
and unfortunately it carried quite high rate of restenosis that probably we should start to treat it in the future. Thank you very much for your attention.
- 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.
- I just like the title 'cuz I think we're in chaos anyway. Chaos management theory. Alright, unfortunately I have nothing to disclose, it really upsets me. I wish I had a laundry list to give you. Gettin' checks from everybody, it would be great. Let's start off with this chaos, what has been published.
Again "Ul Haq et al" is a paper from Hopkins. Bleomycin foam treatment of malformations, a promising agent. And they had 20 patients, 21 Bleomycin procedures. (mumbles) sclerosants in a few other patients, 40% complication rate, 30% minor, 10% major.
On a per procedure basis it was a 29% with about 7% major. All patients had decrease in symptoms. But to say "I use Bleomycin" or "I use X" because a complication (mumbles) is nonsense, you're mentally masturbating. It ain't going to be that way, you're going to have complications.
Alright, the use of Bleomycin should be reserved for locations where post-procedure swelling would be dangerous. Well they used it, and one patient required intubation for four days and another patient 15 days. So, it can happen with any agent.
So I don't know why that statement was made. "Hassan et al", noninvasive management of hemangiomas and vascular malformations using Bleomycin again, this handles the plastic surgery a few years ago. 71% effectiveness rate, 29% failure rate,
14% complication rate, 5 major ulcerations. Ulcerations happen with any agent. You're not going to escape that by saying, "Oh, well I'm not going to use alcohol because (mumbles)." No you're going to get it anyway. You all in the literature.
"Sainsbury", intra-lesional Bleomycin injection for vascular birthmarks five year experience again, 2011. 82% effectiveness, 17.3 for failure. Compli- severe blistering, ulcers, swelling, infections, recurrences. Okay, everybody's reporting it.
"Bai et al" sclerotherapy for lymphatic, oral and facial region, 2009. 43% effectiveness, but they found if they used it with surgery they had a higher effectiveness rate. Good. But again that's their effectiveness.
"Young et al", Bleomycin A5 cervico-facial vascular surgery, 2011. 81% effectiveness rate 19% failure for macrocystic. 37% failure from microcystic disease. Complications: ulcerations, hematoma, bleeding, fevers, soft tissue atrophy.
"Zhang et al." Now this is a study. They're goin' head-to-head alcohol versus Bleo. Oh, isn't that a nice thing to do. Huh, funny how that can happen sometimes. There's another paper out of Canada
that doesn't matter, there's 17 pages and there's no statistical significance for that. 138 patients, you got a lot of statistics. "Zhang et al", 138 children. 71 of 75 patients, which is 95% of that serie, were either cured,
markedly effective, or effective, with alcohol. In the Bleo group 41 of 63, that is 65% of the patients, had effective treatment. That means no cures, no markedly effective, just effective. That's their head-to-head comparison. Difference between Ethanol and
the Bleo group again was statistically significant. Ethanol at 75 patients of 14 cases skin necrosis. Bleo group at 63 patients of 5 cases skin necrosis. And in that group they stated it is statistically superior to Bleo. 95 versus 60, that's a big deal.
Again, cured, disappearance post-treatment without recurrence. Markedly effective, meant that greater than 80% was ablated. Effective means about less that 80% reduction but improved. Ineffective, no change. That was their criterion on that paper.
Again, 30 cases, superficial VMs effective rate was 95% in the Ethanol group and the deep group 94%. Okay. What was in the Bleo group? 68% superficial, 56% of deep group. So that's a statistical significance
of failure, between the two agents, comparing head-to-head in anatomic areas. Ethanol VM papers, let's go on to that, we're goin' to do other stuff. "Lee et al", advanced management, 2003, midterm results. 399 procedures in 87 patients,
95% significant or complete ablation, 12.4% complication. "Johnson et al", Kansas. University of Kansas med center, 2002. 100% success rate in tongues. One patient had a massive tongue and had breathing difficulties prior to treatment
remained intubated 5 days and then uneventfully discharged, that was their only complication. "Su et al", ethanol sclerotherapy, face and neck. Again, these are complex anatomies with complex issues of cranial nerves as well as airway control. 2010, 56 of 60 procedures, 90%, four minimal residual,
no skin necrosis, no nerve injuries. "Orlando", outpatient percutaneous treatment, low doses under local anesthesia. This is a very interesting paper out of Brazil. They did 'em under IV sedation, just a little bit by little bit.
They said they had trouble gettin' general so they had to figure another way. Smart, I like people thinkin' things out. Who here doesn't have a problem with anesthesia? Gettin' 'em not to quit before two o'clock? (laughs)
Alright, used local only 39 patients extremity VMs, main symptoms of pain. Cure or significant improvement in 94%. One ulcer, 3 transient paresthesias. "Lee et al", sclerotherapy craniofacial again, 2009. 87 patients, 75% were reductions.
71 of 87 excellent outcomes. One patient transient, tongue decreased sensation. One transient facial nerve palsy, no skin injuries. "Vogelzang" is a very important paper of a single center. Is that author- anybody here? Again, they did VMs and AVMs in this series
and then a per patient complication rate is 13.3, in AMVs 9.7 per patient, but I think what also is important is to do things with regards to procedures. And they listed both. So we'll just, it's about time to quit. This is our embolization series.
And neck, upper extremity, all the anatomies. And we're about a 10 to three ratio with regards to VM/LMs to AVMs in numbers. I think everybody's pretty much like that, a third of their practice. Again, our minor complications are that.
Major complications are these. Summary, what we found in the literature is that Ethanol publications state its efficacy rate routinely at 90 to 100%. And all other second tier sclerosants are 60 to 80%. So I think that's the take home message.
- 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.
- Thanks Frank, for inviting me again. We know very well that CAS and CEA are, and will remain, emboli-generating. This is an algorithm in which we can see the microembolic profile during unprotected carotid stenting. But I am a vascular surgeon, oriented to an endovascular approach, and I believe strongly
in carotid artery stenting renaissance, when we use tips, tricks and new devices. So the real difference between the two procedures are between 0 and 30 days, and this is demonstrated by the result of 10 year by CREST and by ACT 1. So, but the procedure must be protected.
Because as the Kastrup metanalisys said, the unprotected procedure are three, four-fold increase for cerebral protection embolic. And these are the recommendations from European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association, regarding
the use of embolic protection devices. But what kind of embolic protection device? We know very well that the cerebral distal protection have some strengths and some weaknesses. And the same is for the cerebral proximal protection with the strengths and weaknesses.
So, but this is rarely used, both in the rest of Europe and in Italy. But what about dissent? We are four studies with only prospective, including a population cohort larger than 100 patients. From Italy, from Germany, from Piotr Michalik,
from Poland, again from Italy. As these are the results that are near with the rod centered stent, with very satisfactory results. With very low rate of... This is the CLEAR-ROAD study, with very low rate of complication.
This is a total of 556 patients who underwent stenting with the new generation of stent. This is the incidence of adverse events at 30 days. So, how we can apply the benefit to our procedures with OCT? And OCT demonstrated the safety of new stent design. And why I use OCT in carotids?
With two main issues. A high definition of carotid plaque, and the correct interaction between plaque and stent. With the high definition of carotid dark in order to identify the plaque type. The degree and area of stenosis,
the presence of ulceration, and the thrombus. I study the interaction between plaque and stent. In order to study the stent apposition, the stent malapposition, the fibrous cap rupture, and the plaque micro-prolaps. So this data I published last year on
EuroIntervention, with the conclusion that in relation to the slice-based analysis, we have the correct comparison with conventional stents, and the incidence of plaque prolapse was absolutely lower. So in conclusion, why I strongly believe in a reinvigoration of carotid stenting?
For the use of better embolic protection device. For the use of newer mesh covered stents, and definitively, OCT proves it as shown. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you very much and I would like to thank Dr. Veit for the kind invitation, this is really great meeting. Those are my disclosures. Percutaneous EVAR has been first reported in the late 1990's. However, for many reasons it has not been embraced
by the vascular community, despite the fact that it has been shown that the procedure can be done under local anesthesia and it decreases OR time, time to ambulation, wound complication and length of stay. There are three landmark papers which actually change this trend and make PEVAR more popular.
All of these three papers concluded that failure or observed failure of PEVAR are observed and addressed in the OR which is a key issue. And there was no late failures. Another paper which is really very prominent
is a prospective randomize study that's reported by Endologix and published in 2014. Which revealed that PEVAR closure of the arteriotomy is not inferior to open cut down. Basically, this paper also made it possible for the FDA to approve the device, the ProGlide device,
for closure of large bore arteriotomies, up to 26 in the arterial system and 29 in the venous system. We introduced percutaneous access first policy in our institution 2012. And recently we analyzed our results of 272 elective EVAR performed during the 2012 to 2016.
And we attempted PEVAR in 206 cases. And were successful in 92% of cases. But the question was what happened with the patient that failed PEVAR? And what we found that was significantly higher thrombosis, vessel thrombosis,
as well as blood loss, more than 500 cc in the failed PEVAR group. Similarly, there was longer operative time and post-operative length of stay was significantly longer. However, in this relatively small group of patients who we scheduled for cut-down due to different reasons,
we found that actually there was no difference between the PEVAR and the cut-down, failed PEVAR and cut-down in the terms of blood loss, thrombosis of the vessel, operative time and post-operative length of stay. So what are the predictors of ProGlide failure?
Small vessel calcification, particularly anterior wall calcification, prior cut-down and scarring of the groin, high femoral bifurcation and use of large bore sheaths, as well as morbid obesity. So how can we avoid failures?
I think that the key issue is access. So we recommend that all access now or we demand from our fellow that when we're going to do the operation with them, cut-down during fluoroscopy on the ultra-sound guidance, using micropuncture kits and access angiogram is actually mandatory.
But what happened when there is a lack of hemostasis once we've deployed two PEVARs? Number one, we try not to use more than three ProGlide on each side. Once the three ProGlide failed we use the angioseal. There's a new technique that we can have body wire
and deployed angioseal and still have an access. We also developed a technique that we pack the access site routinely with gelfoam and thrombin. And also we use so-called pull and clamp technique, shown here. Basically what it is, we pull the string of the ProGlide
and clamp it on the skin level. This is actually a very very very good technique. So in conclusion, PEVAR first approach strategy successful in more than 90% of cases, reduced operative time and postoperative length of stay, the failure occurred more commonly when the PEVAR
was completed outside of IFU, and there was no differences in outcome between failed PEVAR and planned femoral cut-down. Thank you.
- Thank you very much. It's an hono ou to the committee for the invitation. So, I'll be discussing activity recommendations for our patients after cervical artery dissection. I have no relevant disclosures.
And extracranial cervical artery dissection is an imaging diagnosis as we know with a variety of presentations. You can see on the far left the intimal flap and double lumen in the left vertebral artery
on both coronal and axial imaging, a pseudoaneurysm of the internal carotid artery, aneurysmal degeneration in an older dissection, and an area of long, smooth narrowing followed by normal artery, and finally a flame-tipped occlusion.
Now, this affects our younger patients with really opposity of atherosclerotic risk factors. So, cervical artery dissection accounts for up to 25% of stroke in patients under the age of 45. And, other than hypertension, it's not associated with any cardiovascular risk factors.
There is a male predominance, although women with dissections seem to present about five years younger. And there is an indication that there may be a systemic ateriopathy contributing to this in our patients, and I'll show you some brief data regarding that.
So, in studies that have looked at vessel redundancy, including loops, coils, and in the video image, an S curve on carotid duplex. Patients with cervical artery dissection have a much higher proportion of these findings, up to three to four times more than
age and sex matched controls. They also have findings on histology of the temporal artery when biopsied. So one study did this and these patients had abnormal capillary formation as well as extravasation of blood cells between the median adventitia
of the superficial temporal artery. And there is an association with FMD and a shared genetic polymorphism indicating that there may be shared pathophysiology for these conditions. But in addition, a lot of patients report minor trauma around the time or event of cervical artery dissection.
So this data from CADISP, and up to 40% of cases had minor trauma related to their dissection, including chiropractic neck manipulation, extreme head movements, or stretching, weight lifting, and sports-related injuries. Thankfully, the majority of patients do very well after
they have a dissection event, but a big area of concern for the patient and their provider is their risk for recurrence. That's highest around the original event, about 2% within the first month, and thereafter, it's stable at 1% per year,
although recurrent pain can linger for many years. So what can we tell our patients in terms of reducing their risk for a recurrent event? Well, most of the methods are around reducing any sort of impulse, stress, or pressure on the arteries, both intrinsically and extrinsically,
including blood pressure control. I advise my patients to avoid heavy lifting, and by that I mean more than 30 pounds, and intense valsalva or isometric exercise. So shown here is a photo of the original World's Strongest Man lifting four
adult-sized males in addition to weights, but there's been studies in the physiology literature with healthy, younger males in their 20s, and they're asked to do a double-leg press, or even arm-curls, and with this exercise and repetitions, they can get mean systolic pressures,
or mean pressures up into the 300s, as well as heart rate into the 170s. I also tell my patients to avoid any chiropractic neck manipulation or deep tissue massage of the neck, as well as high G-force activities like a roller coaster.
There are some case reports of cervical artery dissection related to this. And then finally, what can they do about cardio? A lot of these patients are very anxious, they're concerned about re-incorporating exercise after they've been through something like this,
so I try to give them some kind of guidelines and parameters that they can follow when they re institute exercise, not unlike cardiac rehabilitation. So initially, I tell them "You can do light walking, but if you don't feel well,
or something's hurting, neck pain, headache, don't push it." Thereafter, they can intensify to a heart rate maximum of 70-75% of their maximum predicted heart rate, and that's somewhere between months zero and three, and then afterwards when they're feeling near normal,
I give them an absolute limit of 90% of their maximum predicted heart rate. And I advise all of my patients to avoid extreme exercise like Orange Theory, maybe even extreme cycling classes, marathons, et cetera. Thank you.
- 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.
- I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for this kind invitation and the committee as well. So these are my disclosures, there's none. So for a quick background regarding closure devices. Vascular closure devices have been around
for almost 20 years, various types. Manual compression in most studies have always been shown to be superior to vascular closure devices mainly because there's been no ideal device that's been innovated to be able
to handle all sorts of anatomies, which include calcified vessels, soft plaque, etc. So in this particular talk we wanted to look at to two particular devices. One is the Vascade vascular closure device
made by Cardiva and the other is the CELT arterial closure device made by Vasorum in Ireland. Both these devices are somewhat similar in that they both use a disc. The Vascade has a nitinol disc
as you can see here that's used out here to adhere to the interior common femoral artery wall. And then once tension is applied, a series of steps is involved to deploy the collagen plug
directly on to the artery which then allows it to expand over a period of time. The CELT is similar in that it also uses a stainless steel disc as you can see here. Requires tension up against the interior wall of the common femoral artery.
Nice and tight and then you screw on the top end of the device on to the interior wall of the artery creating a nice little cylinder that compresses both walls of artery. As far as comparability is concerned between the two devices you can see
here that they're both extravascular, one's nitinol, one's stainless steel. One uses a collagen material, the other uses an external clip in a spindle-type fashion. Both require about, anywhere between three to seven minutes of pressure
to essentially stop the tract ooze. But the key differences between the two devices, is the amount of time it takes for patients to ambulate. So the ambulation time is two hours roughly for Vascade, whereas for a CELT device
it's anywhere from being immediate off the table at the cath lab room to about 20 minutes. The data for Vascade was essentially showing the RESPECT trial which I'll summarize here, With 420 patients that was a randomized trial
to other manual compression or the device itself. The mean points of this is that the hemostasis time was about three minutes versus 21 minutes for manual compression. And time to ambulation was about 3.2 hours versus 5.7 hours.
No major complications were encountered. There were 1.1% of minor complications in the Vascade versus 7% in the manual compression arm. This was actually the first trial that showed that a actual closure devices
had better results than manual compression. The main limitations in the trial didn't involved complex femoral anatomy and renal insufficiency patients which were excluded. The CELT ACD trial involved 207 patients that were randomized to CELT or to manual
compression at five centers. Time to hemostasis was anywhere between zero minutes on average versus eight minutes in the manual compression arm. There was one complication assessed at 30 days and that was a distal embolization that occurred
early on after the deployment with a successfully retrieved percutaneously with a snare. So complication rate in this particular trial was 0.7% versus 0% for manual compression. So what are some pros and cons with the Vascade device?
Well you can see the list of pros there. The thing to keep in mind is that it is extravascular, it is absorbable, it's safe, low pain tolerance with this and the restick is definitely possible. As far as the cons are involved.
The conventional bedrest time is anywhere between two to three hours. It is a passive closure device and it can create some scarring when surgical exploration is necessary on surgical dissections.
The key thing also is you can not visualize the plug after deployment. The pros and cons of the CELT ACD device. You can see is the key is the instant definitive closure that's achieved with this particular device, especially in
calcified arteries as well. Very easy to visualize under fluoroscopy and ultrasound. It can be used in both antegrade and retrograde approaches. The key cons are that it's a permanent implant.
So it's like a star closed devised, little piece of stainless steel that sits behind. There's a small learning curve with the device. And of course there's a little bit of discomfort associated with the cinching under the (mumbles) tissue.
So we looked at our own experience with both devices at the Christie Clinic. We looked at Vascade with approximately 300 consecutive patients and we assessed their time to hemostasis, their time to ambulation,
and their time to discharge, as well as the device success and minor and major complications. And the key things to go over here is that the time to hemostasis was about 4.7 minutes for Vascade, at 2.1 hours for ambulation, and roughly an average
of 2.4 hours for discharge. The device success was 99.3% with a minor complication rate of .02% which we have four hematomas and two device failures requiring manual compression. The CELT ACD device we also similarly did
a non-randomized perspective single center trial assessing the same factors and assessing the patients at seven days. We had 400 consecutive patients enrolled. And you can see we did 232 retrograde. We did a little bit something different
with this one, we did we 168 antegrade but we also did direct punctures to the SFA both at the proximal and the mid-segments of the SFA. And the time to hemostasis in this particular situation was 3.8 minutes,
ambulation was 18.3 minutes, and discharge was at 38.4 minutes. We did have two minor complications. One of which was a mal-deployment of the device requiring manual compression. And the second one was a major complication
which was an embolization of the device immediately after deployment which was done successfully snared through an eighth front sheath. So in conclusion both devices are safe and effective and used for both
antegrade and retrograde access. They're definitely comparable when it comes, from the standpoint of both devices (mumbles) manual compression and they're definitely really cost effective in that they definitely do increase the
throughput in the cath lab allowing us to be able to move patients through our cath lab in a relatively quick fashion. Thank you for your attention.
- Thanks Fieres. Thank you very much for attending this session and Frank for the invitation. These are my disclosures. We have recently presented the outcomes of the first 250 patients included in this prospective IDE at the AATS meeting in this hotel a few months ago.
In this study, there was no in-hospital mortality, there was one 30-day death. This was a death from a patient that had intracranial hemorrhage from the spinal drain placement that eventually was dismissed to palliative care
and died on postoperative day 22. You also note that there are three patients with paraplegia in this study, one of which actually had a epidural hematoma that was led to various significant and flacid paralysis. That prompted us to review the literature
and alter our outcomes with spinal drainage. This review, which includes over 4700 patients shows that the average rate of complications is 10%, some of those are relatively moderate or minor, but you can see a rate of intracranial hemorrhage of 1.5% and spinal hematoma of 1% in this large review,
which is essentially a retrospective review. We have then audited our IDE patients, 293 consecutive patients treated since 2013. We looked at all their spinal drains, so there were 240 placement of drains in 187 patients. You can see that some of these were first stage procedures
and then the majority of them were the index fenestrated branch procedure and some, a minority were Temporary Aneurysm Sac Perfusions. Our rate of complication was identical to the review, 10% and I want to point out some of the more important complications.
You can see here that intracranial hypotension occurred in 6% of the patients, that included three patients, or 2%, with intracranial hemorrhage and nine patients, or 5%, with severe headache that prolonged hospital stay and required blood patch for management.
There were also six patients with spinal hematomas for a overall rate of 3%, including the patient that I'll further discuss later. And one death, which was attributed to the spinal drain. When we looked at the intracranial hypotension in these 12 patients, you can see
the median duration of headache was four days, it required narcotics in seven patients, blood patch in five patients. All these patients had prolonged hospital stay, in one case, the prolongation of hospital stay was of 10 days.
Intracranial hemorrhage in three patients, including the patient that I already discussed. This patient had a severe intracranial hemorrhage which led to a deep coma. The patient was basically elected by the family to be managed with palliative care.
This patient end up expiring on postoperative day 21. There were other two patients with intracranial hemorrhage, one remote, I don't think that that was necessarily related to the spinal drain, nonetheless we had it on this review. These are some of the CT heads of the patients that had intracranial hemorrhage,
including the patient that passed away, which is outlined in the far left of your slide. Six patients had spinal hematoma, one of these patients was a patient, a young patient treated for chronic dissection. Patient evolved exceptionally well, moving the legs,
drain was removed on postoperative day two. As the patient is standed out of the bed, felt weakness in the legs, we then imaged the spine. You can see here, very severe spinal hematoma. Neurosurgery was consulted, decided to evacuate, the patient woke up with flacid paralysis
which has not recovered. There were two other patients with, another patient with paraplegia which was treated conservatively and improved to paraparesis and continues to improve and two other patients with paraparesis.
That prompted changes in our protocol. We eliminated spinal drains for Extent IVs, we eliminated for chronic dissection, in first stages, on any first stage, and most of the Extent IIIs, we also changed our protocol of drainage
from the routine drainage of a 10 centimeters of water for 15 minutes of the hours to a maximum of 20 mL to a drainage that's now guided by Near Infrared Spectroscopy, changes or symptoms. This is our protocol and I'll illustrate how we used this in one patient.
This is a patient that actually had this actual, exact anatomy. You can see the arch was very difficult, the celiac axis was patent and provided collateral flow an occluded SMA. The right renal artery was chronically occluded.
As we were doing this case the patient experienced severe changes in MEP despite the fact we had flow to the legs, we immediately stopped the procedure with still flow to the aneurysm sac. The patient develops pancreatitis, requires dialysis
and recovers after a few days in the ICU with no neurological change. Then I completed the repair doing a subcostal incision elongating the celiac axis and retrograde axis to this graft to complete the branch was very difficult to from the arm
and the patient recovered with no injury. So, in conclusion, spinal drainage is potentially dangerous even lethal and should be carefully weighted against the potential benefits. I think that our protocol now uses routine drainage for Extent I and IIs,
although I still think there is room for a prospective randomized trial even on this group and selective drainage for Extent IIIs and no drainage for Extent IVs. We use NIRS liberally to guide drainage and we use temporary sac perfusion
in those that have changes in neuromonitoring. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. These are my disclosure. Open repair is the gold standard for patient with arch disease, and the gupta perioperative risk called the mortality and major morbidity remain not negligible.
Hybrid approach has only slightly improved these outcomes, while other off-the-shelf solution need to be tested on larger samples and over the long run. In this scenario, the vascular repair would double in the branch devices as emerging, as a tentative option with promising results,
despite addressing a more complex patient population. The aim of this multi-center retrospective registry is to assess early and midterm results after endovascular aortic arch repair. using the single model of doubling the branch stent graft in patient to fit for open surgery.
All patient are treated in Italy, with this technique. We're included in this registry for a total of 24 male patient, fit for open surgery. And meeting morphological criteria for double branch devices.
This was the indication for treatment and break-down by center, and these were the main end points. You can see here some operative details. Actually, this was theo only patient that did not require the LSA
re-revascularization before the endovascular procedure, because the left tibial artery rising directly from the aortic arch was reattached on the left common carotid artery. You can see here the large window in the superior aspect of the stent graft
accepting the two 13 millimeter in the branches, that are catheterized from right common carotid artery and left common carotid artery respectively. Other important feature of this kind of stent graft is the lock stent system, as you can see, with rounded barbs inside
the tunnels to prevent limb disconnection. All but one patient achieved technical success. And two of the three major strokes, and two retrograde dissection were the cause of the four early death.
No patient had any type one or three endoleak. One patient required transient dialysis and four early secondary procedure were needed for ascending aorta replacement and cervical bleeding. At the mean follow-up of 18 months,
one patient died from non-aortic cause and one patient had non-arch related major stroke. No new onset type one or three endoleak was detected, and those on standard vessel remained patent. No patient had the renal function iteration or secondary procedure,
while the majority of patients reported significant sac shrinkage. Excluding from the analysis the first six patients as part of a learning curve, in-hospital mortality, major stroke and retrograde dissection rate significant decrease to 11%, 11% and 5.67%.
Operative techniques significantly evolve during study period, as confirmed by the higher use of custom-made limb for super-aortic stenting and the higher use of common carotid arteries
as the access vessels for this extension. In addition, fluoroscopy time, and contrast median's significantly decrease during study period. We learned that stroke and retrograde dissection are the main causes of operative mortality.
Of course, we can reduce stroke rate by patient selection excluding from this technique all those patient with the Shaggy Aorta Supra or diseased aortic vessel, and also by the introduction and more recent experience of some technical points like sequentIal clamping of common carotid arteries
or the gas flushing with the CO2. We can also prevent the retrograde dissection, again with patient selection, according to the availability of a healthy sealing zone, but in our series, 6 of the 24 patients
presented an ascending aorta larger than 40 millimeter. And on of this required 48-millimeter proximal size custom-made stent graft. This resulted in two retrograde dissection, but on the other hand, the availability on this platform of a so large proximal-sized,
customized stent graft able to seal often so large ascending aorta may decrease the incidence of type I endoleak up to zero, and this may make sense in order to give a chance of repair to patients that we otherwise rejected for clinical or morphological reasons.
So in conclusion, endovascular arch repair with double branch devices is a feasible approach that enrich the armamentarium for vascular research. And there are many aspects that may limit or preclude the widespread use of this technology
with subsequent difficulty in drawing strong conclusion. Operative mortality and major complication rates suffer the effect of a learning curve, while mid-term results of survival are more than promising. I thank you for your attention.
- 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 Professor Veith. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present on behalf of my chief the results of the IRONGUARD 2 study. A study on the use of the C-Guard mesh covered stent in carotid artery stenting. The IRONGUARD 1 study performed in Italy,
enrolled 200 patients to the technical success of 100%. No major cardiovascular event. Those good results were maintained at one year followup, because we had no major neurologic adverse event, no stent thrombosis, and no external carotid occlusion. This is why we decided to continue to collect data
on this experience on the use of C-Guard stent in a new registry called the IRONGUARD 2. And up to August 2018, we recruited 342 patients in 15 Italian centers. Demographic of patients were a common demographic of at-risk carotid patients.
And 50 out of 342 patients were symptomatic, with 36 carotid with TIA and 14 with minor stroke. Stenosis percentage mean was 84%, and the high-risk carotid plaque composition was observed in 28% of patients, and respectively, the majority of patients presented
this homogenous composition. All aortic arch morphologies were enrolled into the study, as you can see here. And one third of enrolled patients presented significant supra-aortic vessel tortuosity. So this was no commerce registry.
Almost in all cases a transfemoral approach was chosen, while also brachial and transcervical approach were reported. And the Embolic Protection Device was used in 99.7% of patients, with a proximal occlusion device in 50 patients.
Pre-dilatation was used in 89 patients, and looking at results at 24 hours we reported five TIAs and one minor stroke, with a combined incidence rate of 1.75%. We had no myocardial infection, and no death. But we had two external carotid occlusion.
At one month, we had data available on 255 patients, with two additional neurological events, one more TIA and one more minor stroke, but we had no stent thrombosis. At one month, the cumulative results rate were a minor stroke rate of 0.58%,
and the TIA rate of 1.72%, with a cumulative neurological event rate of 2.33%. At one year, results were available on 57 patients, with one new major event, it was a myocardial infarction. And unfortunately, we had two deaths, one from suicide. To conclude, this is an ongoing trial with ongoing analysis,
and so we are still recruiting patients. I want to thank on behalf of my chief all the collaborators of this registry. I want to invite you to join us next May in Rome, thank you.
- So PAD affects five million adults in the United States today, and we know the US population is aging. And 15 to 20% of folks 70 years and older have claudication, a minority of these progress to CLI, and the impact on lifestyle is often minimized, as demonstrated in decreased quality of life scores
in these patients. Now with active tobacco use, there is acceleration of disease towards claudication, and there are higher rates of amputation, MI, and death. But prior to open or endo intervention, the SVS Guidelines recommend supervised exercise,
medical therapy with statins, beta blockers, antiantiplatelets, and Cilostazol, and an aggressive multidisciplinary approach to smoking cessation, which should last no less than six months. But what if a patient can't stop smoking?
We've all had these patients. Should patients with lifestyle limiting claudication be denied open surgical or endo-revascularization? So let's look at the open literature. A meta-analysis performed in 2005 of 29 eligible studies. The results were that bypass graft failure
was three times that in smokers versus nonsmokers. There was a dose response relationship in smoking cessation prior to or after bypass, equalized patencies. A more recent study, published in JVS in September, queried the VSGNE, 1789 lower extremity bypasses, 971 were nonsmokers, 818 were smokers,
and what they found was that primary patency at two years was 48% in smokers, versus 61% in nonsmokers, and when they propensity matched these patients, there was even a greater difference. 10 year survival was also decreased. And in another article,
published in August of this year in JVS, again a VSGNE study, over 2,000 patients, almost 3,000 patients with lower extremity bypass for claudication. The results looked at MALE, amputation-free survival, limb loss, death, major limb events or death,
and they found that current smoking was a significant predictor of major adverse limb events, and major adverse limb events or death. But do active smokers have worse outcomes after endovascular interventions? So, let's look at the literature again.
And there is none. The only paper I could find was a Markov decision analysis, in which compared revascularization in active smokers to medical management, this was a retrospective study, and their results demonstrated better quality of life in smokers after revascularization versus medical therapy.
The quality of life was similar, after revascularization in nonsmokers and smokers, and there was no increase in amputation rates up to 36 months. Also, 26% of the folks that were revascularized, quit tobacco use after their quality of life was improved.
So we decided to do a small study at my hospital. The outcome of endovascular interventions in active smokers with lifestyle limiting claudication versus nonsmokers. This was retrospective. 138 total patients with endovascular intervention for claudication, 47 were current tobacco users,
91 were never or former smokers. The primary endpoints were reintervention, secondary endpoints, surgical bypass, limb loss, MI, stroke and death. And here you can see, as in most studies, the smokers were a younger population,
and anticoagulation, in our patient population, was more common. As far as comorbidities, they were more common, as in most studies, in the nonsmoking group. And in a mean followup of 3.6 years for both groups, there was no statistically significant difference
between the two groups for any of the outcome measures. So in conclusion, active smokers with lifestyle limiting claudication, we would advocate, of course, smoking cessation. Outcomes with respect to reintervention, surgical bypass and limb loss appear to be equivalent in these two groups.
We feel that these patients should not be denied endovascular intervention, and improved quality of life after intervention may result in an increase in smoking cessation in this patient population. Limitations are obvious, this was a very small study,
and retrospective, and we are actually extending this study to look at several hundred additional patients. So I thank you for your attention.
- First of all I'd like to thank the organizers for inviting me to give this presentation. These are my disclosures. I'm going to divide this presentation into three main parts. I will initially make the case that at the present time we are providing relatively poor value in ESRD and Vascular Access Care.
I'll then submit to you that one way to address this issue is through Patient Centered Device Innovation and then I'll tell you a little bit about some regulatory initiatives in this area. If you define value as being outcomes over cost
then I would argue that in vascular access we actually provide very poor value in that we have pretty bad outcomes and in order to achieve these bad outcomes we actually spend a huge amount of money at about 1.5 billion dollars per year and these is no talk at all
in the construct before you about quality of life. How can we break this cycle of a lack of innovation resulting in poor quality and outcomes and a high cost burden? I would submit to you that one way that we may be able to break the cycle
is through patient centered innovations. Patient centered innovation, whether it's discovery or process of care innovation, is basically innovation that targets the issues that are important to patients, not necessarily the issues that are important to physicians,
or payors, or regulators, or to industry. The reason that this is important is that the things that are relevant and critical to patients are often very different from the things that are important to the other stakeholder groups that I mention. If you look at hemodialysis for example
the things that are important to a patient on hemodialysis are ability to travel, and dialysis free time, and not feeling washed out post dialysis. On the other hand, if you're an nephrologist as I am, the things that are important to me are survival, and hospitalization, and being a nephrologist
I completely obsess about blood pressure which is really not something that patients are that worried or bother about. The next question is, of course, how do we develop therapies that address the issues that are important to patients? I got this slide from Frank Hurst at the FDA.
It basically makes the point that we need to have patient input at every point in the product development process, from initial ideation, to clinical trial design, to patient preferences, to patient centered outcomes. The FDA actually has a number of programs
in this area, one example is their Patient Focused Drug Development Initiative which allows the FDA to speak with patients and patient groups in different therapeutic areas. Closer to home, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium is extremely interested in Patient Preferences
and in a Risk-Benefit analysis. Within the kidney health initiative, which is a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and the FDA, we are also very interested in patient preferences for renal devices, and the background for this is
that an individual patient's tolerance for risk actually varies tremendously. Patients on home hemodialysis, for example, may be happy to sacrifice some degree of safety with regard to, say, vascular access, in order for an improved
or a more independent quality of life. But if you're a regulator there needs to be a way that you can get insight in to how patients perceive the risk/benefit ratio so that it can be incorporated into the regulatory pathway, and at least at the present time
the tools for this do not exist. The Kidney Health Initiative hosted an extremely successful patient preference workshop in the Baltimore area a couple of years ago. We asked three main questions: how can patients assist in the development
of a new medical device? How can they ensure the success of future clinical trials? And how can they help with the decision to make a new device available? The proceedings of this workshop have been published, and I'm really not going to go into details there.
I'm going to share with you a video that was made to try and attract patients to this webinar, and I think it really epitomizes the importance of patient centered innovation. - Hello, I'm CeCe, a fellow kidney disease patient. For 33 years I've done dialysis, both hemo and PD.
I had a transplant for 10 years and as you can imagine too many pills, shots, and accesses to mention. As kidney patients you and I both know that a few things in life are not optional. Strength, courage,
persistence, and determination. No matter what life throws at us, we try to stay balanced, maintain our routine, and remain positive. But let's face it, we are often in a holding pattern. Kidney disease treatments have not
changed much over the years. The options for patients like us have largely remained the same for many years. You want to help change that? We need you. Each day we're asked to share our lives with our treatment. But now, let's share our voice, ideas, opinions.
From patients like us, they matter. Key people are realizing our voices matter too. Here's what I found out. The Food and Drug Administration, often known as the FDA, is looking for patients living with kidney disease like you and me, to provide input
on how potential treatments of the future could look. Picture a big table. Around it are dialysis caregivers, researchers, doctors, nurses, and companies providing new products and treatments. They want us and our families to sit beside them
and have a seat at this table. We'll work together to bring potential new treatment options, safe and effective ones, and ones that patients like you and me want and need. Imagine the future of your treatment. What does it look like?
How does it improve your day-to-day life? This future doesn't have to remain just a dream. Join me and other patients to contribute our thoughts and make our ideas a possible reality. - The driving force and also the voice behind that video was the lady on the right, Celeste Lee.
She was a dialysis patient for over 30 years, she was a member of the KHI board of directors, and Celeste died a year and a half ago, she basically withdrew from dialysis because of bone disease from the 30 years of dialysis. I really think that her death
should be a charge for all of us really to try and develop therapies that target the things that are important to patients. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here today. I'd really like to thank Dr. Veith, once again, for this opportunity. It's always an honor to be here. I have no disclosures. Heel ulceration is certainly challenging,
particularly when the patients have peripheral vascular disease. These patients suffer from significant morbidity and mortality and its real economic burden to society. The peripheral vascular disease patients
have fivefold and increased risk of ulceration, and diabetics in particular have neuropathy and microvascular disease, which sets them up as well for failure. There are many difficulties, particularly poor patient compliance
with offloading, malnutrition, and limitations of the bony coverage of that location. Here you can see the heel anatomy. The heel, in and of itself, while standing or with ambulation,
has tightly packed adipose compartments that provide shock absorption during gait initiation. There is some limitation to the blood supply since the lateral aspect of the heel is supplied by the perforating branches
of the peroneal artery, and the heel pad is supplied by the posterior tibial artery branches. The heel is intolerant of ischemia, particularly posteriorly. They lack subcutaneous tissue.
It's an end-arterial plexus, and they succumb to pressure, friction, and shear forces. Dorsal aspect of the posterior heel, you can see here, lacks abundant fat compartments. It's poorly vascularized,
and the skin is tightly bound to underlying deep fascia. When we see these patients, we need to asses whether or not the depth extends to bone. Doing the probe to bone test
using X-ray, CT, or MRI can be very helpful. If we see an abcess, it needs to be drained. Debride necrotic tissue. Use of broad spectrum antibiotics until you have an appropriate culture
and can narrow the spectrum is the way to go. Assess the degree of vascular disease with noninvasive testing, and once you know that you need to intervene, you can move forward with angiography. Revascularization is really operator dependent.
You can choose an endovascular or open route. The bottom line is the goal is inline flow to the foot. We prefer direct revascularization to the respective angiosome if possible, rather than indirect. Calcanectomy can be utilized,
and you can actually go by angiosome boundaries to determine your incisions. The surgical incision can include excision of the ulcer, a posterior or posteromedial approach, a hockey stick, or even a plantar based incision. This is an example of a posterior heel ulcer
that I recently managed with ulcer excision, flap development, partial calcanectomy, and use of bi-layered wound matrix, as well as wound VAC. After three weeks, then this patient underwent skin grafting,
and is in the route to heal. The challenge also is offloading these patients, whether you use a total contact cast or a knee roller or some other modality, even a wheelchair. A lot of times it's hard to get them to be compliant.
Optimizing nutrition is also critical, and use of adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy has been shown to be effective in some cases. Bone and tendon coverage can be performed with bi-layered wound matrix. Use of other skin grafting,
bi-layered living cell therapy, or other adjuncts such as allograft amniotic membrane have been utilized and are very effective. There's some other modalities listed here that I won't go into. This is a case of an 81 year old
with osteomyelitis, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes mellitus. You can see that the patient has multi-level occlusive disease, and the patient's toe brachial index is less than .1. Fortunately, I was able to revascularize this patient,
although an indirect revascularization route. His TBI improved to .61. He underwent a partial calcanectomy, application of a wound VAC. We applied bi-layer wound matrix, and then he had a skin graft,
and even when part of the skin graft sloughed, he underwent bi-layer living cell therapy, which helped heal this wound. He did very well. This is a 69 year old with renal failure, high risk patient, diabetes, neuropathy,
peripheral vascular disease. He was optimized medically, yet still failed to heal. He then underwent revascularization. It got infected. He required operative treatment,
partial calcanectomy, and partial closure. Over a number of months, he did finally heal. Resection of the Achilles tendon had also been required. Here you can see he's healed finally. Overall, function and mobility can be maintained,
and these patients can ambulate without much difficulty. In conclusion, managing this, ischemic ulcers are challenging. I've mentioned that there's marginal blood supply, difficulties with offloading, malnutrition, neuropathy, and arterial insufficiency.
I would advocate that partial or total calcanectomy is an option, with or without Achilles tendon resection, in the presence of osteomyelitis, and one needs to consider revascularization early on and consider a distal target, preferentially in the angiosome distribution
of the posterior tibial or peroneal vessels. Healing and walking can be maintained with resection of the Achilles tendon and partial resection of the os calcis. Thank you so much. (audience applauding)
- So Beyond Vascular procedures, I guess we've conquered all the vascular procedures, now we're going to conquer the world, so let me take a little bit of time to say that these are my conflicts, while doing that, I think it's important that we encourage people to access the hybrid rooms,
It's much more important that the tar-verse done in the Hybrid Room, rather than moving on to the CAT labs, so we have some idea basically of what's going on. That certainly compresses the Hybrid Room availability, but you can't argue for more resources
if the Hybrid Room is running half-empty for example, the only way you get it is by opening this up and so things like laser lead extractions or tar-verse are predominantly still done basically in our hybrid rooms, and we try to make access for them. I don't need to go through this,
you've now think that Doctor Shirttail made a convincing argument for 3D imaging and 3D acquisition. I think the fundamental next revolution in surgery, Every subspecialty is the availability of 3D imaging in the operating room.
We have lead the way in that in vascular surgery, but you think how this could revolutionize urology, general surgery, neurosurgery, and so I think it's very important that we battle for imaging control. Don't give your administration the idea that
you're going to settle for a C-arm, that's the beginning of the end if you do that, this okay to augment use C-arms to augment your practice, but if you're a finishing fellow, you make sure you go to a place that's going to give you access to full hybrid room,
otherwise, you are the subservient imagers compared to radiologists and cardiologists. We need that access to this high quality room. And the new buzzword you're going to hear about is Multi Modality Imaging Suites, this combination of imaging suites that are
being put together, top left deserves with MR, we think MR is the cardiovascular imaging modality of the future, there's a whole group at NIH working at MR Guided Interventions which we're interested in, and the bottom right is the CT-scan in a hybrid op
in a hybrid room, this is actually from MD Anderson. And I think this is actually the Trauma Room of the future, makes no sense to me to take a patient from an emergency room to a CT scanner to an and-jure suite to an operator it's the most dangerous thing we do
with a trauma patient and I think this is actually a position statement from the Trauma Society we're involved in, talk about how important it is to co-localize this imaging, and I think the trauma room of the future is going to be an and-jure suite
down with a CT scanner built into it, and you need to be flexible. Now, the Empire Strikes Back in terms of cloud-based fusion in that Siemans actually just released a portable C-arm that does cone-beam CT. C-arm's basically a rapidly improving,
and I think a lot of these things are going to be available to you at reduced cost. So let me move on and basically just show a couple of examples. What you learn are techniques, then what you do is look for applications to apply this, and so we've been doing
translumbar embolization using fusion and imaging guidance, and this is a case of one of my partners, he'd done an ascending repair, and the patient came back three weeks later and said he had sudden-onset chest pain and the CT-scan showed that there was a
sutured line dehiscence which is a little alarming. I tried to embolize that endovascular, could not get to that tiny little orifice, and so we decided to watch it, it got worse, and bigger, over the course of a week, so clearly we had to go ahead and basically and fix this,
and we opted to use this, using a new guidance system and going directly parasternal. You can do fusion of blood vessels or bones, you can do it off anything you can see on flu-roid, here we actually fused off the sternal wires and this allows you to see if there's
respiratory motion, you can measure in the workstation the depth really to the target was almost four and a half centimeters straight back from the second sternal wire and that allowed us really using this image guidance system when you set up what's called the bullseye view,
you look straight down the barrel of a needle, and then the laser turns on and the undersurface of the hybrid room shows you where to stick the needle. This is something that we'd refined from doing localization of lung nodules
and I'll show you that next. And so this is the system using the C-star, we use the breast, and the localization needle, and we can actually basically advance that straight into that cavity, and you can see once you get in it,
we confirmed it by injecting into it, you can see the pseudo-aneurism, you can see the immediate stain of hematoma and then we simply embolize that directly. This is probably safer than going endovascular because that little neck protects about
the embolization from actually taking place, and you can see what the complete snan-ja-gram actually looked like, we had a pig tail in the aura so we could co-linearly check what was going on and we used docto-gramming make sure we don't have embolization.
This patient now basically about three months follow-up and this is a nice way to completely dissolve by avoiding really doing this. Let me give you another example, this actually one came from our transplant surgeon he wanted to put in a vas,
he said this patient is really sick, so well, by definition they're usually pretty sick, they say we need to make a small incision and target this and so what we did was we scanned the vas, that's the hardware device you're looking at here. These have to be
oriented with the inlet nozzle looking directly into the orifice of the mitro wall, and so we scanned the heart with, what you see is what you get with these devices, they're not deformed, we take a cell phone and implant it in your chest,
still going to look like a cell phone. And so what we did, image fusion was then used with two completely different data sets, it mimicking the procedure, and we lined this up basically with a mitro valve, we then used that same imaging guidance system
I was showing you, made a little incision really doing onto the apex of the heart, and to the eur-aph for the return cannula, and this is basically what it looked like, and you can actually check the efficacy of this by scanning the patient post operatively
and see whether or not you executed on this basically the same way, and so this was all basically developed basing off Lung Nodule Localization Techniques with that we've kind of fairly extensively published, use with men can base one of our thoracic surgeons
so I'd encourage you to look at other opportunities by which you can help other specialties, 'cause I think this 3D imaging is going to transform what our capabilities actually are. Thank you very much indeed for your attention.
- Yes, thank you, this is the talk about the combination of atherectomy and DCB for treating calcified lesions in below-the-knee arteries. As we've heard from Fabrizio Fanelli, we know that calcium is really an issue in our daily practice, especially when we use DCB. As circumferential calcium increases,
the efficacy of DCP decreases, late lumen loss increases, and primary patency decreases. This has been shown also for a longer term follow up by Gunnar Tepe, and retrospective analysis of 91 patients that as calcium increases,
late lumen loss increases at 6 months. The severity of lesion calcification was a single independent predictor of late lumen loss outcome after DCB treatment. We have a lot of below-the-knee studies out there with really different results.
But anyway, we have in the meantime, one study which has positive results about DCB trials, so I guess all these usage will become broader in below-the-knee treatment, and then we have to trust calcium. This is the Peripheral Orbital Atherectomy System
which I do not have to explain here in the United States. This has a unique mode of action, changing compliance using Centrifugal Force and is 360 degree crown contact is designed to create a smooth, concentric lumen
and allows constant blood flow and particulate flushing during orbit. You do not need a filter to use this atherectomy system which is very comfortable, especially in below-the-knee arteries because the particulates are so small
and there is not an issue of distal embolization. Calcified plaque modification alters local drug delivery and this has been shown by cadaver study. You see on the left hand side, the untreated vessel and the drug uptake in the circumstance of an untreated vessel.
And this is the drug uptake of a calcified cadaver vessel after orbital atherectomy treatment and drug coated balloon applied. So the Optimize-BTK study was Optimal Orbital Atherectomy plus DCB verse DCB Alone in below-the knee arteries.
Pilot study, non-powered, prospective one to one randomization. Only calcified lesions below the knee. And we used as a comparative Lutonix Drug Coated Balloon. We had 65 patients were planned.
The number of available patients should be 50. We figured out the inclusion criteria. Only lesions below the knee, and we figured out the calcium. We had the Cts come before and they had to confirm the distribution of the calcium.
They had to be a length of calcium of more than 25% of the total lesion length or more than two centimeters in total length. And the target lesion length could be up to 20 centimeters. Late lumen loss, the primary outcome measures were late lumen loss patency of the target lesion
freedom from major adverse event and freedom from clinically driven TLR follow up and freedom from unplanned, unavoidable major amputation. The enrollment have been completed in May 2018. We have enrolled 66 patients. 32 of the Orbital Atherectomy plus DCB
and 34 did DCB. This study has been conducted in Australia and Germany, so I hope we will be able to present the data next year. Just to conclude, calcified lesions may reduce the efficacy of DCBs by blocking uptake into the vessel wall. Preclinical data suggest that Orbital Atherectomy treatment
to calcified plaques trended in greater drug permeability and the Optimize trial is designed to test this hypothesis and we will be happy to present six month data next year. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- Well, thank you Frank and Enrico for the privilege of the podium and it's the diehards here right now. (laughs) So my only disclosure, this is based on start up biotech company that we have formed and novel technology really it's just a year old
but I'm going to take you very briefly through history very quickly. Hippocrates in 420 B.C. described stroke for the first time as apoplexy, someone be struck down by violence. And if you look at the history of stroke,
and trying to advance here. Let me see if there's a keyboard. - [Woman] Wait, wait, wait, wait. - [Man] No, there's no keyboard. - [Woman] It has to be opposite you. - [Man] Left, left now.
- Yeah, thank you. Are we good? (laughs) So it's not until the 80s that really risk factors for stroke therapy were identified, particularly hypertension, blood pressure control,
and so on and so forth. And as we go, could you advance for me please? Thank you, it's not until the 90s that we know about the randomized carotid trials, and advance next slide please, really '96 the era of tPA that was
revolutionary for acute stroke therapy. In the early 2000s, stroke centers, like the one that we have in the South East Louisiana and New Orleans really help to coordinate specialists treating stroke. Next slide please.
In 2015, the very famous HERMES trial, the compilation of five trials for mechanical thrombectomy of intracranial middle and anterior cerebral described the patients that could benefit and we will go on into details, but the great benefit, the number needed to treat
was really five to get an effect. Next slide. This year, "wake up" strokes, the extension of the timeline was extended to 24 hours, increase in potentially the number of patients that could be treated with this technology.
Next please. And the question is really how can one preserve the penumbra further to treat the many many patients that are still not offered mechanical thrombectomy and even the ones that are, to get a much better outcome because not everyone
returns to a normal function. Next, so the future I think is going to be delivery of a potent neuroprotection strategy to the penumbra through the stroke to be able to preserve function and recover the penumbra from ongoing death.
Next slide. So that's really the history of stroke. Advance to the next please. Here what you can see, this is a patient of mine that came in with an acute carotid occlusion that we did an emergency carotid endarterectomy
with an neuro interventionalist after passage of aspiration catheter, you can see opening of the middle cerebral M1 and M2 branches. The difference now compared to five, eight, 10 years ago is that now we have catheters in the middle cerebral artery,
the anterior cerebral artery. After tPA and thrombectomy for the super-selective, delivery of a potent neuroprotective agent and by being able to deliver it super-selectively, bioavailability issues can be resolved, systemic side effects could be minimized.
Of course, it's important to remember that penumbra is really tissue at risk, that's progression towards infarction. And everybody is really different as to when this occurs. And it's truly all based on collaterals.
So "Time is brain" that we hear over and over again, at this meeting there were a lot of talks about "Time is brain" is really incorrect. It's really "Collaterals are brain" and the penumbra is really completely based on what God gives us when we're born, which is really
how good are the collaterals. So the question is how can the penumbra be preserved after further mechanical thrombectomy? And I think that the solution is going to be with potent neuroprotection delivery to the penumbra. These are two papers that we published in late 2017
in Nature, in science journals Scientific Reports and Science Advances by our group demonstrating a novel class of molecules that are potent neuroprotective molecules, and we will go into details, but we can discuss it if there's interest, but that's just one candidate.
Because after all, when we imaged the penumbra in acute stroke centers, again, it's all about collaterals and I'll give you an example. The top panel is a patient that comes in with a good collaterals, this is a M1 branch occlusion. In these three phases which are taken at
five second intervals, this patient is probably going to be offered therapy. The patients that come in with intermediate or poor collaterals may or may not receive therapy, or this patient may be a no-go. And you could think that if neuroprotection delivery
to the penumbra is able to be done, that these patients may be offered therapy which they currently are not. And even this patient that's offered therapy, might then leave with a moderate disability, may have a much better functional
independence upon discharge. When one queries active clinical trials, there's nothing on intra arterial delivery of a potent neuroprotection following thrombectomy. These are two trials, an IV infusion, peripheral infusion, and one on just verapamil to prevent vasospasm.
So there's a large large need for delivery of a potent neuroprotection following thrombectomy. In conclusion, we're in the door now where we can do mechanical thrombectomy for intracranial thrombus, obviously concomitant to what we do in the carotid bifurcation is rare,
but those patients do present. There's still a large number of patients that are still not actively treated, some estimate 50 to 60% with typical mechanical thrombectomy. And one can speculate how ideally delivery of a potent neuroprotection to this area could
help treat 50, 60% of patients that are being denied currently, and even those that are being treated could have a much better recovery. I'd like to thank you, Frank for the meeting, and to Jackie for the great organization.
- 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.
- Thank you. I have two talks because Dr. Gaverde, I understand, is not well, so we- - [Man] Thank you very much. - We just merged the two talks. All right, it's a little joke. For today's talk we used fusion technology
to merge two talks on fusion technology. Hopefully the rest of the talk will be a little better than that. (laughs) I think we all know from doing endovascular aortic interventions
that you can be fooled by the 2D image and here's a real life view of how that can be an issue. I don't think I need to convince anyone in this room that 3D fusion imaging is essential for complex aortic work. Studies have clearly shown it decreases radiation,
it decreases fluoro time, and decreases contrast use, and I'll just point out that these data are derived from the standard mechanical based systems. And I'll be talking about a cloud-based system that's an alternative that has some advantages. So these traditional mechanical based 3D fusion images,
as I mentioned, do have some limitations. First of all, most of them require manual registration which can be cumbersome and time consuming. Think one big issue is the hardware based tracking system that they use. So they track the table rather than the patient
and certainly, as the table moves, and you move against the table, the patient is going to move relative to the table, and those images become unreliable. And then finally, the holy grail of all 3D fusion imaging is the distortion of pre-operative anatomy
by the wires and hardware that are introduced during the course of your procedure. And one thing I'd like to discuss is the possibility that deep machine learning might lead to a solution to these issues. How does 3D fusion, image-based 3D fusion work?
Well, you start, of course with your pre-operative CT dataset and then you create digitally reconstructed radiographs, which are derived from the pre-op CTA and these are images that resemble the fluoro image. And then tracking is done based on the identification
of two or more vertebral bodies and an automated algorithm matches the most appropriate DRR to the live fluoro image. Sounds like a lot of gobbledygook but let me explain how that works. So here is the AI machine learning,
matching what it recognizes as the vertebral bodies from the pre-operative CT scan to the fluoro image. And again, you get the CT plus the fluoro and then you can see the overlay with the green. And here's another version of that or view of that.
You can see the AI machine learning, identifying the vertebral bodies and then on your right you can see the fusion image. So just, once again, the AI recognizes the bony anatomy and it's going to register the CT with the fluoro image. It tracks the patient, not the table.
And the other thing that's really important is that it recognizes the postural change that the patient undergoes between the posture during the CT scan, versus the posture on the OR table usually, or often, under general anesthesia. And here is an image of the final overlay.
And you can see the visceral and renal arteries with orange circles to identify them. You can remove those, you can remove any of those if you like. This is the workflow. First thing you do is to upload the CT scan to the cloud.
Then, when you're ready to perform the procedure, that is downloaded onto the medical grade PC that's in your OR next to your fluoro screen, and as soon as you just step on the fluoro pedal, the CYDAR overlay appears next to your, or on top of your fluoro image,
next to your regular live fluoro image. And every time you move the table, the computer learning recognizes that the images change, and in a couple of seconds, it replaces with a new overlay based on the obliquity or table position that you have. There are some additional advantages
to cloud-based technology over mechanical technology. First of all, of course, or hardware type technology. Excuse me. You can upgrade it in real time as opposed to needing intermittent hardware upgrades. Works with any fluoro equipment, including a C-arm,
so you don't have to match your 3D imaging to the brand of your fluoro imaging. And there's enhanced accuracy compared to mechanical registration systems as imaging. So what are the clinical applications that this can be utilized for?
Fluoroscopy guided endovascular procedures in the lower thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, so that includes EVAR and FEVAR, mid distal TEVAR. At present, we do need two vertebral bodies and that does limit the use in TEVAR. And then angioplasty stenting and embolization
of common iliac, proximal external and proximal internal iliac artery. Anything where you can acquire a vertebral body image. So here, just a couple of examples of some additional non EVAR/FEVAR/TEVAR applications. This is, these are some cases
of internal iliac embolization, aortoiliac occlusion crossing, standard EVAR, complex EVAR. And I think then, that the final thing that I'd like to talk about is the use with C-arm, which is think is really, extremely important.
Has the potential to make a very big difference. All of us in our larger OR suites, know that we are short on hybrid availability, and yet it's difficult to get our institutions to build us another hybrid room. But if you could use a high quality 3D fusion imaging
with a high quality C-arm, you really expand your endovascular capability within the operating room in a much less expensive way. And then if you look at another set of circumstances where people don't have a hybrid room at all, but do want to be able to offer standard EVAR
to their patients, and perhaps maybe even basic FEVAR, if there is such a thing, and we could use good quality imaging to do that in the absence of an actual hybrid room. That would be extremely valuable to be able to extend good quality care
to patients in under-served areas. So I just was mentioning that we can use this and Tara Mastracci was talking yesterday about how happy she is with her new room where she has the use of CYDAR and an excellent C-arm and she feels that she is able to essentially run two rooms,
two hybrid rooms at once, using the full hybrid room and the C-arm hybrid room. Here's just one case of Dr. Goverde's. A vascular case that he did on a mobile C-arm with aortoiliac occlusive disease and he places kissing stents
using a CYDAR EV and a C-arm. And he used five mils of iodinated contrast. So let's talk about a little bit of data. This is out of Blain Demorell and Tara Mastrachi's group. And this is use of fusion technology in EVAR. And what they found was that the use of fusion imaging
reduced air kerma and DSA runs in standard EVAR. We also looked at our experience recently in EVAR and FEVAR and we compared our results. Pre-availability of image based fusion CT and post image based fusion CT. And just to clarify,
we did have the mechanical product that Phillip's offers, but we abandoned it after using it a half dozen times. So it's really no image fusion versus image fusion to be completely fair. We excluded patients that were urgent/emergent, parallel endographs, and IBEs.
And we looked at radiation exposure, contrast use, fluoro time, and procedure time. The demographics in the two groups were identical. We saw a statistically significant decrease in radiation dose using image based fusion CT. Statistically a significant reduction in fluoro time.
A reduction in contrast volume that looks significant, but was not. I'm guessing because of numbers. And a significantly different reduction in procedure time. So, in conclusion, image based 3D fusion CT decreases radiation exposure, fluoro time,
and procedure time. It does enable 3D overlays in all X-Ray sets, including mobile C-arm, expanding our capabilities for endovascular work. And image based 3D fusion CT has the potential to reduce costs
and improve clinical outcomes. 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.
- Thank you, Larry, thank you, Tony. Nice to be known as a fixture. I have no relevant disclosures, except that I have a trophy. And that's important, but also that Prabir Roy-Chaudhury, who's in this picture, was the genesis of some of the thoughts that I'm going to deliver here about predicting renal failure,
so I do want to credit him with bringing that to the vascular access space. You know, following on Soren's talk about access guidelines, we're dealing with pretty old guidelines, but if you look at the 2006 version, you know, just the height--
The things that a surgeon might read in his office. CKD four, patients there, you want a timely referral, you want them evaluated for placement of permanent access. The term "if necessary" is included in those guidelines, that's sometimes forgotten about.
And, of course, veins should be protected. We already heard a little bit about that, and so out our hospital, with our new dialysis patients, we usually try to butcher both antecubital veins at the same time. And then, before we send them to surgery
after they've been vein-marked, we use that vein to put in their preoperative IV, so that's our vascular access management program at Christiana Care. - [Male Speaker] That's why we mark it for you, Teddy. (laughing)
- So, you know, the other guideline is patients should have a functional permanent access at the initiation of dialysis therapy, and that means we need a crystal ball. How do we know this? A fistula should be placed at least six months
before anticipated start of dialysis, or a graft three to six weeks. Anybody who tells you they actually know that is lying, you can't tell, there's no validated means of predicting this. You hear clinical judgment, you can look at
all sorts of things. You cannot really make that projection. Now there is one interesting study by Tangri, and this is what Premier brought to our attention last year at CIDA, where this Canadian researcher and his team developed a model for predicting
progression of chronic kidney disease, not specifically for access purposes, but for others. They looked at a large number of patients in Canada, followed them through chronic kidney disease to ESRD, and they came up with a model. If you look at a simple model that uses age, sex,
estimated GFR from MDRD equation and albuminuria to predict when that patient might develop end stage renal disease, and there's now nice calculators. This is a wonderful thing, I keep it on my phone, this Qx Calculate, I would recommend you do the same,
and you can put those answers to the questions, in this app, and it'll give you the answer you're looking for. So for instance, here's a case, a 75-year-old woman, CKD stage four, her creatinine's 2.7, not very impressive,
eGFR's 18. Her urine protein is 1200 milligrams per gram, that's important, this is kind of one of the major variables that impacts on this. So she's referred appropriately at that stage to a surgeon for arteriovenous access,
and he finds that she really has no veins that he feels are suitable for a fistula, so an appropriate referral was made. Now at that time, if you'd put her into this equation with those variables, 1200, female, 75-year-old, 18 GFR, at two years, her risk of ESRD is about 30%,
and at five years about 66%, 67%. So, you know, how do you use those numbers in deciding if she needs an access? Well, you might say... A rational person might say perhaps that patient should get a fistula,
or at least be put in line for it. Well, this well-intentioned surgeon providing customer service put in a graft, which then ended up with some steal requiring a DRIL, which then still had steal, required banding, and then a few months, a year later
was thrombosed and abandoned because she didn't need it. And I saw her for the first time in October 2018, at which time her creatinine is up to 3.6, her eGFR's down to 12, her protein is a little higher, 2600, so now she has a two-year risk of 62%, and a five-year risk of 95%,
considerably more than when this ill-advised craft was created. So what do you do with this patient now? I don't have the answer to that, but you can use this information at least to help flavor your thought process,
and what if you could bend the curve? What if you treated this patient appropriately with ACE inhibitors and other methods to get the protein down? Well, you can almost half her two-year risk of renal failure with medical management.
So these considerations I think are important to the team, surgeon, nurses, nephrologists, etc., who are planning that vascular access with the patient. When to do and what to do. And then, you know, it's kind of old-fashioned to look at the trajectory.
We used to look at one over creatinine, we can look at eGFR now, and she's on a trajectory that looks suspicious for progression, so you can factor that into your thought process as well. And then I think this is the other very important concept, I think I've spoken about this here before,
is that there's no absolute need for dialysis unless you do bilateral nephrectomies. Patients can be managed medically for quite a while, and the manifestations of uremia dealt with quite safely and effectively, and you can see that over the years, the number of patients
in this top brown pattern that have been started on dialysis with a GFR of greater than 15 has fallen, or at least, stopped rising because we've recognized that there's no advantage, and there may be disadvantages to starting patients too early.
So if your nephrologist is telling I've got to start this patient now because he or she needs dialysis, unless they had bilateral nephrectomies that may or may not be true. Another case,
64-year-old male, CKD stage four, creatinine about four, eGFR 15, 800 milligrams of proteinuria, referred to a vascular access surgeon for AV access. Interesting note, previous central lines, or AICD, healthy guy otherwise.
So in April 2017 he had a left wrist fistula done, I think that was a very appropriate referral and a very appropriate operation by this surgeon. At that time his two-year risk was 49, 50%, his five-year risk 88%. It's a pretty good idea, I think, to get a wrist fistula
in that patient. Once again, this is not validated for that purpose. I can't point you to a study that says by using this you can make well-informed predictions about when to do vascular access, but I do think it helps to flavor the judgment on this.
Also, I saw him for the first time last month, and his left arm is like this. Amazing, that has never had a catheter or anything, so I did his central venogram, and this is his anatomy. I could find absolutely no evidence of a connection between the left subclavian and the superior vena cava,
I couldn't cross it. Incidentally, this was done with less than 20 CCs of dye of trying to open this occlusion or find a way through, which was unsuccessful. You can see all the edema in his arm. So what do you do with this guy now?
Well, up, go back. Here's his trajectory of CKD four from the time his fistula is done to the time I'm seeing him now, he's been pretty flat. And his proteinuria's actually dropped
with medical management. He's only got 103 milligrams per gram of proteinuria now, and his two-year risk is now 23%, his five-year risk is 56%, so I said back to the surgeon we ligate this damn thing, because we can't really do much to fix it,
and we're going to wait and see when it's closer to time to needing dialysis. I'm not going to subject this guy to a right-arm fistula with that trajectory of renal disease over the past two years. So combining that trajectory with these predictive numbers,
and improved medical care for proteinuria I think is a good strategy. So what do you do, you're weighing factors for timing too early, you've got a burden of fistula failure, interventions you need to use to maintain costs, morbidity, complications,
steal, neuropathy that you could avoid versus too late and disadvantages of initiating hemodialysis without a permanent access. And lastly, I'm going to just finish with some blasphemy. I think the risk of starting dialysis with a catheter is vastly overstated.
If you look at old data and patient selection issues, and catheter maintenance issues, I think... It's not such an unreasonable thing to start a patient with a catheter. We do it all the time and they usually live.
And even CMS gives us a 90-day grace period on our QIP penalties, so... If you establish a surgeon and access plan, I think you're good to go. So who monitors access maturation? I don't know, somebody who knows what they're doing.
If you look at all the people involved, I know some of these individuals who are absolute crackerjack experts, and some are clueless. It has nothing to do with their age, their gender, their training, their field. It's just a matter of whether they understand
what makes a good fistula. You don't have to be a genius, you just can't be clueless. This is not a mature usable fistula, I know that when I see it. 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.