- Thank you very much. After these beautiful two presentations a 4D ultrasound, it might look very old-fashioned to you. These are my disclosures. Last year, I presented on 4D ultrasound and the way how it can assess wall stress. Now, we know that from a biomechanical point,
it's clear that an aneurysm will rupture when the mechanical stress exceeds the local strength. So, it's important to know something about the state of the aortic wall, the mechanical properties and the stress that's all combined in the wall.
And that could be a better predictor for growth and potential rupture of the aneurysm. It has been performed peak wall stress analysis, using finite element analysis based on CT scan. Now, there has been a test looking at CT scans with and without rupture and given indication
what wall stress could predict in growth and rupture. Unfortunately, there has been no longitudinal studies to validate this system because of the limitations in radiation and nephrotoxic contrast. So, we thought that we could overcome these problems and building the possibilities for longitudinal studies
to do this similar assessment using ultrasound. As you can see here in this diagram in CT scan, mechanical properties and the wall thickness is fixed data based on the literature. Whereas with 3D ultrasound, you can get these mechanical properties from patient-specific imaging
that could give a more patient-specific mechanical AA model. We're still performing a longitudinal study. We started almost four years ago. We're following 320 patients, and every time when they come in surveillance, we perform a 3D ultrasound. I presented last year that we are able to,
with 3D ultrasound, we get adequate anatomy and the geometry is comparable to CT scan, and we get adequate wall stressors and mechanical parameters if we compare it with CT scan. Now, there are still some limitations in 3D ultrasound and that's the limited field of view and the cumbersome procedure and time-consuming procedures
to perform all the segmentation. So last year, we worked on increased field of view and automatic segmentation. As you can see, this is a single image where the aneurysm fits perfectly well in the field of view. But, when the aneurysm is larger, it will not fit
in a single view and you need multi-perspective imaging with multiple images that should be fused and so create one image in all. First, we perform the segmentation of the proximal and distal segment, and that's a segmentation algorithm that is
based on a well-established active deformable contour that was published in 1988 by Kass. Now, this is actually what we're doing. We're taking the proximal segment of the aneurysm. We're taking the distal segment. We perform the segmentation based on the algorithms,
and when we have the two images, we do a registration, sort of a merging of these imaging, first based on the central line. And then afterwards, there is an optimalisation of these images so that they finally perfectly fit on each other.
Once we've done that, we merge these data and we get the merged ultrasound data of a much larger field of view. And after that, we perform the final segmentation, as you can see here. By doing that, we have an increased field of view and we have an automatic segmentation system
that makes the procedure's analysis much and much less time-consuming. We validate it with CT scan and you can see that on the geometry, we have on the single assessment and the multi assessments, we have good similarity images. We also performed a verification on wall stress
and you can see that with these merged images, compared to CT scan, we get very good wall stress assessment compared to CT scan. Now, this is our view to the future. We believe that in a couple of years, we have all the algorithms aligned so that we can perform
a 3D ultrasound of the aorta, and we can see that based on the mechanical parameters that aneurysm is safe, or is maybe at risk, or as you see, when it's red, there is indication for surgery. This is where we want to go.
I give you a short sneak preview that we performed. We started the analysis of a longitudinal study and we're looking at if we could predict growth and rupture. As you can see on the left side, you see that we're looking at the wall stresses. There is no increase in wall stress in the patient
before the aneurysm ruptures. On the other side, there is a clear change in the stiffness of the aneurysm before it ruptures. So, it might be that wall stress is not a predictor for growth and rupture, but that mechanical parameters, like aneurysm stiffness, is a much better predictor.
But we hope to present on that more solid data next year. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- Thank you very much and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invite. Here's my disclosures, clearly relevant to this talk. So we know that after EVAR, it's around the 20% aortic complication rate after five years in treating type one and three Endoleaks prevents subsequent
secondary aortic rupture. Surveillance after EVAR is therefore mandatory. But it's possible that device-specific outcomes and surveillance protocols may improve the durability of EVAR over time. You're all familiar with this graph for 15 year results
in terms of re-intervention from the EVAR-1 trials. Whether you look at all cause and all re-interventions or life threatening re-interventions, at any time point, EVAR fares worse than open repair. But we know that the risk of re-intervention is different
in different patients. And if you combine pre-operative risk factors in terms of demographics and morphology, things are happening during the operations such as the use of adjuncts,
or having to treat intro-operative endoleak, and what happens to the aortic sac post-operatively, you can come up with a risk-prediction tool for how patients fare in the longer term. So the LEAR model was developed on the Engage Registry and validated on some post-market registries,
PAS, IDE, and the trials in France. And this gives a predictive risk model. Essentially, this combines patients into a low risk group that would have standard surveillance, and a higher risk group, that would have a surveillance plus
or enhanced surveillanced model. And you get individual patient-specific risk profiles. This is a patient with around a seven centimeter aneurysm at the time of repair that shows sac shrinkage over the first year and a half, post-operatively. And you can see that there's really a very low risk
of re-intervention out to five years. These little arrow bars up here. For a patient that has good pre-operative morphology and whose aneurysm shrinks out to a year, they're going to have a very low risk of re-intervention. This patient, conversely, had a smaller aneurysm,
but it grew from the time of the operation, and out to two and a half years, it's about a centimeter increase in the sac. And they're going to have a much higher risk of re-intervention and probably don't need the same level of surveillance as the first patient.
and probably need a much higher rate of surveillance. So not only can we have individualized predictors of risk for patients, but this is the regulatory aspect to it as well.
Multiple scenario testing can be undertaken. And these are improved not only with the pre-operative data, but as you've seen with one-year data, and this can tie in with IFU development and also for advising policy such as NICE, which you'll have heard a lot about during the conference.
So this is just one example. If you take a patient with a sixty-five millimeter aneurysm, eighteen millimeter iliac, and the suprarenal angle at sixty degrees. If you breach two or more of these factors in red, we have the pre-operative prediction.
Around 20% of cases will be in the high risk group. The high risk patients have about a 50-55% freedom from device for related problems at five years. And the low risk group, so if you don't breach those groups, 75% chance of freedom from intervention.
In the green, if you then add in a stent at one year, you can see that still around 20% of patients remain in the high risk group. But in the low risk group, you now have 85% of patients won't need a re-intervention at five years,
and less of a movement in the high risk group. So this can clearly inform IFU. And here you see the Kaplan-Meier curves, those same groups based pre-operatively, and at one year. In conclusion, LEAR can provide
a device specific estimation of EVAR outcome out to five years. It can be based on pre-operative variables alone by one year. Duplex surveillance helps predict risk. It's clearly of regulatory interest in the outcomes of EVAR.
And an E-portal is being developed for dissemination. Thank you very much.
- Thank you. 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.
- [Speaker] Good morning everybody thanks for attending the session and again thanks for the invitation. These are my disclosures. I will start by illustrating one of the cases where we did not use cone beam CT and evidently there were numerous mistakes on this
from planning to conducting the case. But we didn't notice on the completion of geography in folding of the stent which was very clearly apparent on the first CT scan. Fortunately we were able to revise this and have a good outcome.
That certainly led to unnecessary re intervention. We have looked at over the years our usage of fusion and cone beam and as you can see for fenestrated cases, pretty much this was incorporated routinely in our practice in the later part of the experience.
When we looked at the study of the patients that didn't have the cone beam CT, eight percent had re intervention from a technical problem that was potentially avoidable and on the group that had cone beam CT, eight percent had findings that were immediately revised with no
re interventions that were potentially avoidable. This is the concept of our GE Discovery System with fusion and the ability to do cone beam CT. Our protocol includes two spins. First we do one without contrast to evaluate calcification and other artifacts and also to generate a rotational DSA.
That can be also analyzed on axial coronal with a 3D reconstruction. Which essentially evaluates the segment that was treated, whether it was the arch on the arch branch on a thoracoabdominal or aortoiliac segment.
We have recently conducted a prospective non-randomized study that was presented at the Vascular Annual Meeting by Dr. Tenario. On this study, we looked at findings that were to prompt an immediate re intervention that is either a type one
or a type 3 endoleak or a severe stent compression. This was a prospective study so we could be judged for being over cautious but 25% of the procedures had 52 positive findings. That included most often a stent compression or kink in 17% a type one or three endoleak
in 9% or a minority with dissection and thrombus. Evidently not all this triggered an immediate revision, but 16% we elected to treat because we thought it was potentially going to lead to a bad complication. Here is a case where on the completion selective angiography
of the SMA this apparently looks very good without any lesions. However on the cone beam CT, you can see on the axial view a dissection flap. We immediately re catheterized the SMA. You note here there is abrupt stop of the SMA.
We were unable to catheterize this with a blood wire. That led to a conversion where after proximal control we opened the SMA. There was a dissection flap which was excised using balloon control in the stent as proximal control.
We placed a patch and we got a good result with no complications. But considerably, if this patient was missed in the OR and found hours after the procedure he would have major mesenteric ischemia. On this study, DSA alone would have missed
positive findings in 34 of the 43 procedures, or 79% of the procedures that had positive findings including 21 of the 28 that triggered immediate revision. There were only four procedures. 2% had additional findings on the CT
that were not detectable by either the DSA or cone beam CT. And those were usually in the femoro puncture. For example one of the patients had a femoro puncture occlusion that was noted immediately by the femoro pulse.
The DSA accounts for approximately 20% of our total radiation dose. However, it allows us to eliminate CT post operatively which was done as part of this protocol, and therefore the amount of radiation exposed for the patient
was decreased by 55-65% in addition to the cost containment of avoiding this first CT scan in our prospective protocol. In conclusion cone beam CT has allowed immediate assessment to identify technical problems that are not easily detectable by DSA.
These immediate revisions may avoid unnecessary re interventions. What to do if you don't have it? You have to be aware that this procedure that are complex, they are bound to have some technical mistakes. You have to have incredible attention to detail.
Evidently the procedures can be done, but you would have to have a low threshold to revise. For example a flared stent if the dilator of the relic gleam or the dilator of you bifurcated devise encroach the stent during parts of the procedure. Thank you very much.
- Thank you for introduction. Thanks to Frank Veith for the kind invitation to present here our really primarily single-center experience on this new technique. This is my disclosure. So what you really want
in the thromboembolic acute events is a quick flow restoration, avoid lytic therapies, and reduce the risk of bleeding. And this can be achieved by surgery. However, causal directed local thrombolysis
is much less invasive and also give us a panoramic view and topographic view that is very useful in these cases. But it takes time and is statistically implied
and increases risk of bleeding. So theoretically percutaneous thrombectomy can accomplish all these tasks including a shorter hospital stay. So among the percutaneous thrombectomy devices the Indigo System is based on a really simple
aspiration mechanism and it has shown high success in ischemic stroke. This is one of my first cases with the Indigo System using a 5 MAX needle intervention
adapted to this condition. And it's very easy to understand how is fast and effective this approach to treat intraprocedural distal embolization avoiding potential dramatic clinical consequences, especially in cases like this,
the only one foot vessel. This is also confirmed by this technical note published in 2015 from an Italian group. More recently, other papers came up. This, for example, tell us that
there has been 85% below-the-knee primary endpoint achievement and 54% in above-the-knee lesions. The TIMI score after VAT significantly higher for BTK lesions and for ATK lesions
a necessity of a concomitant endovascular therapy. And James Benenati has already told us the results of the PRISM trials. Looking into our case data very quickly and very superficially we can summarize that we had 78% full revascularization.
In 42% of cases, we did not perform any lytic therapy or very short lytic therapy within three hours. And in 36% a long lytic therapy was necessary, however within 24 hours. We had also 22% failure
with three surgery necessary and one amputation. I must say that among this group of patients, twenty patients, there were also patients like this with extended thrombosis from the groin to the ankle
and through an antegrade approach, that I strongly recommend whenever possible, we were able to lower the aspiration of the clots also in the vessel, in the tibial vessels, leaving only this region, thrombosis
needed for additional three hour infusion of TPA achieving at the end a beautiful result and the patient was discharged a day after. However not every case had similar brilliant result. This patient went to surgery and he went eventually to amputation.
Why this? And why VAT perform better in BTK than in ATK? Just hypotheses. For ATK we can have unknown underlying chronic pathology. And the mismatch between the vessel and the catheter can be a problem.
In BTK, the thrombus is usually soft and short because it is an acute iatrogenic event. Most importantly is the thrombotic load. If it is light, no short, no lytic or short lytic therapy is necessary. Say if heavy, a longer lytic therapy and a failure,
regardless of the location of the thrombosis, must be expected. So moving to the other topic, venous occlusive thrombosis. This is a paper from a German group. The most exciting, a high success rate
without any adjunctive therapy and nine vessels half of them prosthetic branch. The only caution is about the excessive blood loss as a main potential complication to be checked during and after the procedure. This is a case at my cath lab.
An acute aortic renal thrombosis after a open repair. We were able to find the proximate thrombosis in this flush occlusion to aspirate close to fix the distal stenosis
and the distal stenosis here and to obtain two-thirds of the kidney parenchyma on both sides. And this is another patient presenting with acute mesenteric ischemia from vein thrombosis.
This device can be used also transsympatically. We were able to aspirate thrombi but after initial improvement, the patient condition worsened overnight. And the CT scan showed us a re-thrombosis of the vein. Probably we need to learn more
in the management of these patients especially under the pharmacology point of view. And this is a rapid overview on our out-of-lower-limb case series. We had good results in reimplanted renal artery, renal artery, and the pulmonary artery as well.
But poor results in brachial artery, fistula, and superior mesenteric vein. So in conclusion, this technology is an option for quick thromboembolic treatment. It's very effective for BTK intraprocedural embolic events.
The main advantage is a speeding up the blood flow and reestablishing without prolonged thrombolysis or reducing the dosage of the thrombolysis. Completely cleaning up extensive thromobosed vessels is impossible without local lytic therapies. This must be said very clearly.
Indigo technology is promising and effective for treatment of acute renovisceral artery occlusion and sub massive pulmonary embolism. Thank you for your attention. I apologize for not being able to stay for the discussion
because I have a flight in a few hours. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, first of all, I would like to thank Dr. Veith for the honor of the podium. Fenestrated and branched stent graft are becoming a widespread use in the treatment of thoracoabdominal
and pararenal aortic aneurysms. Nevertheless, the risk of reinterventions during the follow-up of these procedures is not negligible. The Mayo Clinic group has recently proposed this classification for endoleaks
after FEVAR and BEVAR, that takes into account all the potential sources of aneurysm sac reperfusion after stent graft implant. If we look at the published data, the reported reintervention rate ranges between three and 25% of cases.
So this is still an open issue. We started our experience with fenestrated and branched stent grafts in January 2016, with 29 patients treated so far, for thoracoabdominal and pararenal/juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. We report an elective mortality rate of 7.7%.
That is significantly higher in urgent settings. We had two cases of transient paraparesis and both of them recovered, and two cases of complete paraplegia after urgent procedures, and both of them died. This is the surveillance protocol we applied
to the 25 patients that survived the first operation. As you can see here, we used to do a CT scan prior to discharge, and then again at three and 12 months after the intervention, and yearly thereafter, and according to our experience
there is no room for ultrasound examination in the follow-up of these procedures. We report five reinterventions according for 20% of cases. All of them were due to endoleaks and were fixed with bridging stent relining,
or embolization in case of type II, with no complications, no mortality. I'm going to show you a couple of cases from our series. A 66 years old man, a very complex surgical history. In 2005 he underwent open repair of descending thoracic aneurysm.
In 2009, a surgical debranching of visceral vessels followed by TEVAR for a type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In 2016, the implant of a tube fenestrated stent-graft to fix a distal type I endoleak. And two years later the patient was readmitted
for a type II endoleak with aneurysm growth of more than one centimeter. This is the preoperative CT scan, and you see now the type II endoleak that comes from a left gastric artery that independently arises from the aneurysm sac.
This is the endoleak route that starts from a branch of the hepatic artery with retrograde flow into the left gastric artery, and then into the aneurysm sac. We approached this case from below through the fenestration for the SMA and the celiac trunk,
and here on the left side you see the superselective catheterization of the branch of the hepatic artery, and on the right side the microcatheter that has reached the nidus of the endoleak. We then embolized with onyx the endoleak
and the feeding vessel, and this is the nice final result in two different angiographic projections. Another case, a 76 years old man. In 2008, open repair for a AAA and right common iliac aneurysm.
Eight years later, the implant of a T-branch stent graft for a recurrent type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And one year later, the patient was admitted again for a type IIIc endoleak, plus aneurysm of the left common iliac artery. This is the CT scan of this patient.
You will see here the endoleak at the level of the left renal branch here, and the aneurysm of the left common iliac just below the stent graft. We first treated the iliac aneurysm implanting an iliac branched device on the left side,
so preserving the left hypogastric artery. And in the same operation, from a bowl, we catheterized the left renal branch and fixed the endoleak that you see on the left side, with a total stent relining, with a nice final result on the right side.
And this is the CT scan follow-up one year after the reintervention. No endoleak at the level of the left renal branch, and nice exclusion of the left common iliac aneurysm. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the risk of type I endoleak after FEVAR and BEVAR
is very low when the repair is planning with an adequate proximal sealing zone as we heard before from Professor Verhoeven. Much of reinterventions are due to type II and III endoleaks that can be treated by embolization or stent reinforcement. Last, but not least, the strict follow-up program
with CT scan is of paramount importance after these procedures. I thank you very much for your attention.
- The FLEX Scoring Catheter is one of the new tools, which is dedicated to vessel preparation, either as a stent, as a therapy followed by plain balloon angioplasty, or preparing the vessel for drug-eluting balloons and stents. So, the background basically is that
we're more and more tackling chronic total occlusions, and these kind of lesions, they have an increased risk of being calcium-containing, creating dissections, perforations, embolization, and poor luminal gain. And for that purpose, this device, which is more or less
a kind of surgical device, was developed. It's a interventional tool which can be introduced via a six-French sheath. It's an over-the-wire system, running over a 14 or 18 thousandths guide wire. It's common in shaft lengths of
40 centimeters dedicated to AV, fistula treatment and 120 centimeters, and the device is exposed to the vessel wall with three atherotomes, with the indication for femoropopiliteal and AV fistula excess treatment. One size fits all is really the right description
of this device, except having two different shaft lengths, the device itself is coming in one size only. What does it result in? Well, it results in micro-incisions, as you can see it over here, also over here in an OCT image, and the depths of these incisions
is about 0.5 millimeters, the pressure which is applied to the surface is about one atmosphere, independent on the vessel size. So, the idea and the rationale for this device is to facilitate and increase the vessel compliance and to create an controlled environment for angioplasty.
There are, just recently, some specimen analysis performed by CBSET, what you can see over here, marked by arrows, these arrows indicate the FLEX-induced micro-incisions, and you can see that these incisions are really circumferential with controlled,
uniform depths of those incisions into the plaque or the vessel wall. This is a 150 times magnification and you can see these longitudinal micro-incisions, which are very much parallel, it's like using a cutting balloon,
the advantage, however, is that this device can be applied to even longer lesions, the limitation of a cutting balloon is the balloon length of 20 centimeters only. So what are the early results? I can present you the acute outcomes
of 100 patients' sample size, with chronic total femoropopliteal occlusions. We can see that the average lesion length was really significant, 191 millimeters, the range was up to 35 centimeters, and there was moderate to severe calcification
in almost 50% of those cases. The luminal gain post FLEX application was about 31%, and the following balloon opening pressure, which was documented within this registry, was four atmospheres only, which is a signal that really the vessel compliance
is significantly improved, considering the almost 50% of moderate to severe calcification of those lesions. There had been no emboli, there had been no flow-limiting dissections, nevertheless, the provisional stent use was still high with 19%.
This is one of two case examples I would like to share with you. This was an instant re-occlusion of the popliteal artery, 10 centimeters in length, this was passed with an 18 thousandths guide wire, three passes with the FLEX catheter had been performed,
as you can see over here. And this was then, this was the result after FLEX catheter application and this is post additional drug-coated balloon angioplasty, there was no dissection, there was no significant residual stenosis.
Another case example, unfortunately, the video will not run, this was a long distance flush occlusion of the SFA, and you can see the calcium here in the entire length of the lesion, this lesion was treated, again, with the FLEX catheter, here, the video is not running,
this is the final result after DCB application. So, in summary, there's a high degree of technical success in achieving consistent luminal gain post FLEX, there's a low opening balloon pressure, and the re-canalization of CTOs was possible with a low rate, zero rate of significant dissections
and the low provisional stent rate. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- So I'm going to be talking about allografts for peripheral graft infections. This is a femoral artery that's been replaced after a closure device infection and complication, and we've bypassed to the SFA and profunda femoris. These are my disclosures. So peripheral arterial infectious processes,
well the etiology either is primary or secondary. Primary can be from bacteremic states and seeding of ulcerated plaque or thrombus. Secondary reasons for infections can be the vast usage of percutaneous closure devices that really have flooded the market these days.
Prosthetic graft infections after either a bypass or patch in the femoral artery. So early onset infections usually are from break in sterility. Secondary infections can be from either wound breakdowns or late seeding of the prosthetic graft.
The presentation for these patients can be relatively minor such as cellulitis or draining sinus, or much more dramatic, such as sepsis or pseudoaneurysm or mycotic aneurysm. On the CT scan we can see infected mycotic aneurysm after infected closure device and bleeding complications.
The treatment is broad in range. Ligation is obviously one option, but it leads to a very high risk of major limb amputation. So ideally some form of reconstruction, either extra-anatomic through clean planes,
antibiotic graft as we heard from the previous speaker, the use of autologous replacement with deep vein, or we become big proponents of the use of cryopreserved arterial allografts for reconstruction. And much of this stems from our work from about 10 years ago, where we looked
at the use of aortic cryopreserved grafts for aortic graft infections. This was published about 10 years ago but we looked at a small series of patients with aortic infections. You can see the CT scan of an infected stent graft
and associated aneurysm. And then the intraoperative photo after we've resected the stent graft and replaced that segment of the aorta with a cryopreserved aortic segment. So using that as a springboard,
we then decided to look at the outcomes using these types of conduits, arterial conduits, for peripheral arterial reconstructions in contaminated or infected surgical fields. So retrospective review at our tertiary care center, we looked at roughly 60 patients over a 15-year period
and excluded any aortic-based reconstructions. So these are all peripheral reconstructions. Mean follow-up was 28 months. As you would expect, the distribution of treatment zones were primarily in the lower extremities, so 51 cases.
As you can see, there's a list of all the different types of cases that we treated. But then there were a few upper extremity visceral and then carotid. I've shown this slide before at this meeting in the past, with a carotid patch infection
that was treated after it had a blow-out, and it's obviously a infected aneurysm, and this was treated with resection and a cryopreserved arterial segment. Looking at our outcomes, the 30-day outcome showed a mortality rate of 9%.
The 30-day conduit-related complication rate was surprisingly low at 14%. We had four patients that had bleeding complications, four patients with recurrent infectious complications. All eight of those patients required a return back to the operating room for correction.
The late conduit-related complication rate was only 16%. As listed here, you can see there's only one case of reinfection, three cases of graft thrombosis, surprisingly only one major limb amputation, two pseudoaneurysms and one late bleeding complication.
And graphically depicted, you can see here, this area here is looking at the less than 30 days, this is primarily when the complications occur. When you get to six months, fewer complications, and then beyond six months, the primary complications that we would see are either thrombosis of the graft
or the development of late pseudoaneurysms, again relatively low. So in summary, I think peripheral arterial infectious complications can be treated with a cryopreserved arterial allografts. The advantage is it's a single stage operation,
maintains in-line flow, there's a low incidence of repeat infection. I think it's also important to mention that the majority of these patients had adjunctive muscle flap coverage to cover the large soft tissue defect
at the time of the operation. So I think that this is a valuable alternative conduit in a setting of peripheral arterial infections. Thank you.
- Thank you, Dr. Ouriel, Dr. Lurie. Ladies and gentlemen. Brian, that was a very fair overview of the ATTRACT trial as it was published in the New England Journal, so thank you. And these are my disclosures. So Dr. DeRubertis did a very nice review of this paper
that was published in the New England Journal December 7th of last year. He went over very nicely that it was NIH sponsored, phase III, randomized, controlled, multicenter, 692 patients randomized, anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation plus catheter-based techniques.
Now one thing I want to call your attention to is the fact that patients with deep venous thrombosis, acute deep venous thrombosis, who were eligible for randomization, were stratified before they were randomized into two different groups, iliofemoral DVT or fem-pop DVT.
So in my opinion, these are not subgroups because the randomization of one group had no effect on the randomization of another, so I would argue that these are independent groups. That makes a big difference when you do statistical analyses.
The other important issue that I want to point out is that the outcomes were pre-determined to what we were going to analyze. We had to choose one as a primary endpoint and the others as secondary, but these were pre-determined end points that were up for analysis, not post hoc analyses.
And post-thrombotic syndrome was determined at the time, 12 years ago when we wrote the protocol, to be the primary end point. I would submit that we would not choose that as a primary end point if we wrote the protocol today. Moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome
certainly would be more appropriate. Leg pain, swelling, health-related quality of life, certainly important. This is the outcome, and unfortunately, it did not reach significance. There was no difference between the two groups
and there was an increased risk of bleeding, but this is the outcome that drove opinion about ATTRACT, but we don't really do catheter-directed thrombolysis for fem-pop DVT. Therefore, the results of the iliofemoral patients will be the most meaningful and that paper was written
and that paper has been accepted by circulation. It should be out shortly, but there were 391 iliofemoral DVT patients and the primary outcome was no different than the primary outcome in the overall trial. But are they?
If we had chosen the Venous Clinical Severity Score in place of the Villalta score for analysis of that primary end point, it would've been a positive study. So if we chose a different tool to analyze, our primary end point would've been positive for the iliofemoral DVT patients.
If we look at moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome, a significant difference. Control patients had a 56% increased risk of moderate to severe PTS versus the control patients. If we look at severe post-thrombotic syndrome, control patients had a 72% increased risk
of severe PTS versus control. If we look at the overall severity of the Villalta score in PTS, we can see that there is a significant difference favoring percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis. When we look at pain, the patient's pain was significantly reduced in the PCDT patients compared to control.
We look at edema, significant reduction in edema at day 10 and day 30 in patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis compared to control. Disease-specific quality of life significantly favored patients who had PCDT compared to control. So we look at moderate to severe, severe, pain,
quality of life. There was a price to pay. Major bleeding was increased, but the P-value was no different. I will not argue that patients are not at increased risk. They are at increased risk for bleeding,
but this is an historically low bleeding rate for catheter-directed thrombolysis and there were no intracranial bleeds. No difference in recurrent deep venous thrombosis. No difference in mortality at 24 months between the two groups.
So in conclusion, the primary end point, reduction of any PTS defined by a Villalta score of 5 or more, no difference, but an item that has not reached the level of discussion that we will need to consider is that 14% of our patients had a normal Villalta score coming into the study.
It's impossible to improve upon that, but there is a significant reduction in any PTS if you use the Venous Clinical Severity Score, reduction of moderate and severe post-thrombotic syndrome, reduction of pain and swelling, and improved disease-specific quality of life compared to controls.
And I think these are the meaningful end points that patients appreciate and these are the points of discussion that will be covered in the article in circulation that will be published very soon. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you, thanks for the opportunity to present. I have no disclosures. So, we all know that wounds are becoming more prevalent in our population, about 5% of the patient population has these non-healing wounds at a very significant economic cost, and it's a really high chance of lower extremity amputation
in these patients compared to other populations. The five-year survival following amputation from a foot ulcer is about 50%, which is actually a rate that's worse than most cancer, so this is a really significant problem. Now, even more significant than just a non-healing wound
is a wound that has both a venous and an arterial component to it. These patients are about at five to seven times the risk of getting an amputation, the end patients with either isolated venous disease or isolated PAD. It's important because the venous insufficiency component
brings about a lot more inflammation, and as we know, this is associated with either superficial or deep reflux, a history of DVT or incompetent perforators, but this adds an increasing complexity to these ulcers that refuse to heal.
So, it's estimated now about 15% of these ulcers are more of a mixed etiology, we define these as anyone who has some component of PAD, meaning an ABI of under point nine, and either superficial or deep reflux or a DVT on duplex ultrasound.
So we're going to talk for just a second about how do we treat these. Do we revascularize them first, do we do compression therapy? It has been shown in many, many studies, as with most things, that a multi-disciplinary approach
will improve the outcome of these patients, and the first step in any algorithm for these patients involves removing necrotic and infected tissue, dressings, if compression is feasible, based on the PAD level, you want to go ahead and do this secondary, if it's not, then you need to revascularize first,
and I'm going to show you our algorithm at Michigan that's based on summa the data. But remember that if the wounds fail to heal despite all of this, revascularization is a good option. So, based on the data, the algorithm that we typically use is if an ABI is less than point five
or a toe pressure is under 50, you want to revascularize first, I'll talk for a minute about the data of percutaneous versus open in these patients, but these are the patients you want to avoid compression in as a first line therapy.
If you have more moderate PAD, like in the point five to point eight range, you want to consider compression at the normal 40 millimeters of mercury, but you may need to modify it. It's actually been shown that that 40 millimeter of mercury
compression actually will increase flow to those wounds, so, contrary to what had previously been thought. So, revascularization, the data's pretty much equivocal right now, for these patients with these mixed ulcers, of whether you want to do endovascular or open. In diabetics, I think the data strongly favors
doing an open bypass if they have a good autogenous conduit and a good target, but you have to remember, in these patients, they have so much inflammation in the leg that wound healing from the surgical incisions is going to be significantly more difficult
than in a standard PAD patient, but the data has shown that about 60% of these ulcers heal at one year following revascularization. So, compression therapy, which is the mainstay either after revascularization in the severe PAD group or as a first line in the moderate group,
is really important 'cause it, again, increases blood flow to the wound. They've shown that that 40 millimeters of mercury compression is associated with a significant healing rate if you can do that, you additionally have to be careful, though,
about padding your bony areas, also, as we know, most patients don't actually keep their compression level at that 40, so there are sensors and other wearable technologies that are coming about that help patients with that, keeping in mind too, that the venous disease component
in these patients is really important, it's really important to treat the superficial venous reflux, EVLT is kind of the standard for that, treatment of perforators greater than five, all of that will help.
And I'm not going to go into any details of wound dressings, but there are plenty of new dressings that are available that can be used in conjunction with compression therapy. So, our final algorithm is we have a patient with these mixed arterial venous ulcers, we do woundcare debridement, determine the degree of PAD,
if it's severe, they go down the revascularization pathway, followed by compression, if it's moderate, then they get compression therapy first, possible treatment of venous disease, if it still doesn't heal at about 35 weeks, then you have to consider other things,
like biopsy for cancer, and then also consider revacularization. So, these ulcers are on a rise, they're a common problem, probably we need randomized control trials to figure out the optimal treatment strategies.
- Thank you 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.
- I'm going to take it slightly beyond the standard role for the VBX and use it as we use it now for our fenestrated and branch and chimney grafts. These are my disclosures. You've seen these slides already, but the flexibility of VBX really does give us a significant ability to conform it
to the anatomies that we're dealing with. It's a very trackable stent. It doesn't, you don't have to worry about it coming off the balloon. Flexible as individual stents and in case in a PTFE so you can see it really articulates
between each of these rings of PTFE, or rings of stent and not connected together. I found I can use the smaller grafts, the six millimeter, for parallel grafts then flare them distally into my landing zone to customize it but keep the gutter relatively small
and decrease the instance of gutter leaks. So let's start with a presentation. I know we just had lunch so try and shake it up a little bit here. 72-year-old male that came in, history of a previous end-to-side aortobifemoral bypass graft
and then came in, had bilateral occluded external iliac arteries. I assume that's for the end-to-side anastomosis. I had a history of COPD, coronary artery disease, and peripheral arterial disease, and presented with a pseudoaneurysm
in the proximal juxtarenal graft anastomosis. Here you can see coming down the thing of most concern is both iliacs are occluded, slight kink in the aortofemoral bypass graft, but you see a common iliac coming down to the hypogastric, and that's really the only blood flow to the pelvis.
The aneurysm itself actually extended close to the renal, so we felt we needed to do a fenestrated graft. We came in with a fenestrated graft. Here's the renal vessels here, SMA. And then we actually came in from above in the brachial access and catheterized
the common iliac artery going down through the stenosis into the hypogastric artery. With that we then put a VBX stent graft in there which nicely deployed that, and you can see how we can customize the stent starting with a smaller stent here
and then flaring it more proximal as we move up through the vessel. With that we then came in and did our fenestrated graft. You can see fenestrations. We do use VBX for a good number of our fenestrated grafts and here you can see the tailoring.
You can see where a smaller artery, able to flare it at the level of the fenestration flare more for a good seal. Within the fenestration itself excellent flow to the left. We repeated the procedure on the right. Again, more customizable at the fenestration and going out to the smaller vessel.
And then we came down and actually extended down in a parallel graft down into that VBX to give us that parallel graft perfusion of the pelvis, and thereby we sealed the pseudoaneurysm and maintain tail perfusion of the pelvis and then through the aortofemoral limbs
to both of the common femoral arteries, and that resolved the pseudoaneurysm and maintained perfusion for us. We did a retrospective review of our data from August of 2014 through March of 2018. We had 183 patients who underwent endovascular repair
for a complex aneurysm, 106 which had branch grafts to the renals and the visceral vessels for 238 grafts. When we look at the breakdown here, of those 106, 38 patients' stents involved the use of VBX. This was only limited by the late release of the VBX graft.
And so we had 68 patients who were treated with non-VBX grafts. Their other demographics were very similar. We then look at the use, we were able to use some of the smaller VBXs, as I mentioned, because we can tailor it more distally
so you don't have to put a seven or eight millimeter parallel graft in, and with that we found that we had excellent results with that. Lower use of actual number of grafts, so we had, for VBX side we only had one graft
per vessel treated. If you look at the other grafts, they're anywhere between 1.2 and two grafts per vessel treated. We had similar mortality and followup was good with excellent graft patency for the VBX grafts.
As mentioned, technical success of 99%, mimicking the data that Dr. Metzger put forward to us. So in conclusion, I think VBX is a safe and a very versatile graft we can use for treating these complex aneurysms for perfusion of iliac vessels as well as visceral vessels
as we illustrated. And we use it for aortoiliac occlusive disease, branch and fenestrated grafts and parallel grafts. It's patency is equal to if not better than the similar grafts and has a greater flexibility for modeling and conforming to the existing anatomy.
Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you again Rex. This is again my disclosure, the same. I think you agree with me that we all do not want these images and after the procedure in our patients or in followup. We might be able to keep this reconstructions patent by continuing accuracy ventricle relation
but there is somehow a disturbance of the venous flow. If we we advocate that 50% stenosis is significant. Flexibility is one reason why we have already the first generation of dedicated venous stents. These are the currently available, excuse me, currently available venous stents
in the European market and despite very different structures, geometries and characteristics they all want to combine the best balance between flexibility, radial force, crush resistance or porosity. So this is not a real scientific way to show
or to evaluate the flexibility but it shows you that there are really differences between the current dedicated venous stents regarding the flexibility and we have closed cell stent, we have open celled stent, we have woven stent, we have laser knitted stent,
we have hybrid or segmented stent. So let us go to one case from our center. We re-cannulized the left iliac tract as you can see here. We used the closed cell stent at the proximal part, lengthen it with a dedicated venous
open cell segmented stent below the ligament going into the common femoral vein as you can see here. So going into the axial plane with duplex we see a very nice cross sectional shape below the artery at the mitonal point. This stent performs very well here
but a few centimeters more distal we have a destroyed cross sectional shape. Going into the detail, the same patient in longitudinal evaluation with stent we see three different diameters and if we take the proximal diameter
you see again the same picture with a minimum diameter of 1.27 maximum diameter of 1.57 giving us a 1.57 square centimeters of area and this is a 1.23 aspect ratio. Taking the kink, the level of the kink, we have the destroyed picture.
Minimum diameter 0.65, maximum diameter of 1.47 giving us only a 0.89 square centimeters and regarding the published and the aspect ratio is 2.3 and regarding this 2008 published paper which showed that area affects outcome and the recent work of Lowell Kabnick
which shows that not only the area but also the aspect ratio affects the outcome. We have to conclude that in this patient, of our center this kink might destroy or might affect the outcome. This is the literature you heard in the last session
already the patency rates of all stents but my message from this table is they included only a small number of patients with short followups as you can see ranging from 10 to 12 but despite very different flexibilities
which we have seen in the second slide we have no significant differences regarding the patency or the outcome and therefore whether more flexibility leads to a better clinical outcome remains still unclear. In conclusion, there is no doubt
that flexibility is important. The flexibility of majority of current venous stents seems to be enough. Till date with currently available studies we cannot answer how much flexibility we need. Where is the threshold
to say this is good and the other is bad? If more flexibility means really better outcome and it is not only the stent, it is more the pattern of disease which affects the outcome. So we started with arterial stents in the venous pathology, we improved to first generation of dedicated venous stents
but we are looking for best stents. Thank you very much.
- So I don't have to give you any data. I just have to tell you how we do it. So this is the easiest talk of this session. Step-by-step technical tips. Now our definition of pharmaco-mechanical may vary between us so I'll give that as we go along. These are my conflicts.
When to use it. Well certainly as you already heard, Massive PE has contraindication to full dose lytic is one area. Submassive elevated risk may be another. We've already seen multiple people put up
these guidelines so what we're really talking about at this point in time is those patients that we just talked, that those two groups that they just talked about because those are the ones that we're trying to treat. The biggest thing is don't be frozen by indecision.
Majority of patients eligible for thrombolysis do not receive it. It's amazing to me as a referral center to get the call from an outside community hospital or the patient with hypotension, abnormal RV or biomarkers and they've barely given the patient
Heparin and they just want to transfer the patient out of there and you tell them that's a massive PE. Please give them systemic thrombolysis and they go what? And I go you now have 10 times the death rate of an acute myocardial infarction. Would you give this patient lytics for acute MI?
Yes. Then give them the freaking lytics. Save their life. It's amazing what's going on in this country. So the PERT Consortium and everything, we really need to educate the community
because it's ridiculous. If you look at the utilization of thrombolysis, it's going down. Unbelievable and if you look at the in-hospital mortality for these patients that have significant PE, the in-hospital mortality is much higher
if you don't give thrombolysis. You've already seen this indirectly in a bunch of different lectures, but I just wanted to show you very quickly how to do this on an echo or CT. You want to get the center line, get it at the valve and then measure it one centimeter
below that valvular plane. This is something you don't have to depend on radiology just to do. You can just look at the transfer CT. You can look at the echo. You don't have to fight with your echo guy to give you that.
It's also very evident and often times just looking at the images. Why treat submassive elevated risk PE? You know what? I've heard all the mortality stuff. I get it.
It doesn't change mortality that much. It does and we should measure it as a primary endpoint in our trials. Change your discharge time and in this day and age, medicine is so expensive. Time in the hospital, repeat procedures,
elevated your amount of treatment for that patient really has to be looked at as part of that, not just mortality. But there's eight times more recurrent PE and four times a mortality rate if you have a PE and unresolved RV dysfunction at discharge
and that should be looked at prior to discharge, not just say well they look like they're doing okay. Treatment of IVC, higher risk PE. Certainly the other thing we have to look at is there's other things to do. You've already heard a little bit
that there's IVC filters out there. We take out 90 some percent of our IVC filters in our section. We actually as a system now are up to 60% at seven months and it only takes effort. The patients that I see die in our hospital
in the last year that shouldn't have died are patients that should've gotten an IVC filter because they got heroic things to take out their PE and nobody put a filter in even though they had significant DVT left over because they were afraid of the TV commercials?
Oh my gosh. If you look at the 27 extra deaths that we've had from IVC filters that were removable in the United States, and you take our experience and multiply it by the number of tertiary care hospitals in the United States, use them when they're appropriate.
Take them out so the risk is low, but don't go away from them. They've already been shown to be beneficial for the right patient population. But you also have embolectomy and surgery should also be considered.
Step by step. Make the decision and clinically be consistent. PERT team or other consistent mechanisms. We have an app that we use. This is throughout our entire healthcare system so all the vascular specialists have this.
It's an algorithm that's supposed to be used both in the ER and for the different vascular specialties so everybody's being treated very similarly. We have all the different definitions. We have the PESI calculator. All this is in an app
that's readily available to our constituents. Special consideration certainly is the tolerance of thrombolysis, underlying tolerance of pulmonary hypertension. Again, we need to evaluate the patient, not just label them as a PE.
And I also think there's a special population we need to study and that's the socked in pulmonary artery with no perfusion on a CT scan. I think this is a different population long term and we need to study that a little bit more. We got to get the patient back from the edge.
I think I'm opposite of Jeff. I don't want to see them get worse and then treat 'em. I want to prevent them from getting worse as long as I'm selecting that population in a thoughtful matter. We primarily use low dose TNK.
This is nothing I'm going to give you data on. This is an institutional, what do you want to call it, anecdotal experience and we lost our contracts except for TNK so we had to go to this and so we do a lot of catheter-directed. You've already seen all these trials.
There's a ton of different devices out there. The one I want to talk to you about is using a really fancy one called a pigtail catheter and another one called an ethos catheter. This is a patient that had a significant PE. You can see that they've got bilateral main PE.
This is on table. This is what we do for the vast majority of our patients. We sit there, we use ultrasound guided access to the vein so that we cut down our venous complications for access site. The patient is given 20 and 30% of a loading dose
of TNK and then we watch them. If you look at thrombus in a test tube and you give a thrombolytic therapy, it takes about 20 minutes for fibrinolysis. So this is what we do. As you're going to see, this is over 25 minutes
and we see the patient went from a pulmonary pressure of 65 and a heart rate of 115 down to 25 minutes, the patient's pulmonary pressure is about 44 and their heart rate is in the 90's. This patient then has all the catheters removed on the table even though they got lytic
and they're heparinized. This is a venipuncture, so big IV. We send them up to the unit and we typically discharge them the next day. We have an echo B4 discharge to make sure there's been a significant recovery of RV.
If not we'll watch them an extra day and then all these patients get a CT again. I'm sorry an echo again at 30 days to make sure that we're getting good resolution from that. On table results, decrease your complications. Thrombolysis has always been associated with the
duration of thrombolytic therapy and intracranial bleed. Now you can either use a pigtail catheter which is what we use for most of these people because we can measure pressure in it. We spin it around a little bit in the pulmonary arteries and give the dosage.
Again, we give 20-30% of the dose. There is no data for that. If significant improvement does not occur, they'll get dripped overnight in the ICU at usually .5 to 1 milligram per hour. You've already seen the data for EKOS.
We use this if we think we need a little bit quicker Thrombolysis such as in a socked in pulmonary artery 'cause we have no flow. We do think that may help, but we don't have any data for that. It makes us feel good.
We spend a lot more money and so we think that may be reasonable at that point in time. This is just what it looks like when you put in bilateral EKOS catheters. Certainly the patient can be put in the ICU for this. I do think that we should do a trial looking at EKOS
with a little higher dose, do it for 30 minutes, look at those pulmonary pressures right on the table. I think, again, my own opinion is after 25 years, the closer we get to being done on table, catheters out, patients doing well, the better, safer procedure we have,
the less chance of mortality, the less chance of complication and as you decrease complications, your benefit improves. We've already seen the results and you'll see more of these from non-randomized trials such as Seattle 2 which looked at 150 patients,
but they saw very quick recovery of the RV which was very important. If you look at technical success, it was very high. The dosage of thrombolytic exceedingly lower, lower than what we're giving in a PTO catheter, that's for sure.
And if you look at the RV from Ultima Trial which was randomized. There was faster RV recovery utilizing this device. Thank you very much.
- Thank you Dr. Albaramum, it's a real pleasure to be here and I thank you for being here this early. I have no disclosures. So when everything else fails, we need to convert to open surgery, most of the times this leads to partial endograft removal,
complete removal clearly for infection, and then proximal control and distal control, which is typical in vascular surgery. Here's a 73 year old patient who two years after EVAR had an aneurism growth with what was thought
to be a type II endoleak, had coiling of the infermius mesenteric artery, but the aneurism continued to grow. So he was converted and what we find here is a type III endoleak from sutures in the endograft.
So, this patient had explantations, so it is my preference to have the nordic control with an endovascular technique through the graft where the graft gets punctured and then we put a 16 French Sheath, then we can put a aortic balloon.
And this avoids having to dissect the suprarenal aorta, particularly in devices that have super renal fixation. You can use a fogarty balloon or you can use the pruitt ballon, the advantage of the pruitt balloon is that it's over the wire.
So here's where we removed the device and in spite of the fact that we tried to collapse the super renal stent, you end up with an aortic endarterectomy and a renal endarterectomy which is not a desirable situation.
So, in this instance, it's not what we intend to do is we cut the super renal stent with wire cutters and then removed the struts individually. Here's the completion and preservation of iliac limbs, it's pretty much the norm in all of these cases,
unless they have, they're not well incorporated, it's a lot easier. It's not easy to control these iliac arteries from the inflammatory process that follows the placement of the endograft.
So here's another case where we think we're dealing with a type II endoleak, we do whatever it does for a type II endoleak and you can see here this is a pretty significant endoleak with enlargement of the aneurism.
So this patient gets converted and what's interesting is again, you see a suture hole, and in this case what we did is we just closed the suture hole, 'cause in my mind,
it would be simple to try and realign that graft if the endoleak persisted or recurred, as opposed to trying to remove the entire device. Here's the follow up on that patient, and this patient has remained without an endoleak, and the aneurism we resected
part of the sack, and the aneurism has remained collapsed. So here's another patient who's four years status post EVAR, two years after IMA coiling and what's interesting is when you do delayed,
because the aneurism sacks started to increase, we did delayed use and you see this blush here, and in this cases we know before converting the patient we would reline the graft thinking, that if it's a type III endoleak we can resolve it that way
otherwise then the patient would need conversion. So, how do we avoid the proximal aortic endarterectomy? We'll leave part of the proximal portion of the graft, you can transect the graft. A lot of these grafts can be clamped together with the aorta
and then you do a single anastomosis incorporating the graft and the aorta for the proximal anastomosis. Now here's a patient, 87 years old, had an EVAR,
the aneurism grew from 6 cm to 8.8 cm, he had coil embolization, translumbar injection of glue, we re-lined the endograft and the aneurism kept enlarging. So basically what we find here is a very large type II endoleak,
we actually just clip the vessel and then resected the sack and closed it, did not remove the device. So sometimes you can just preserve the entire device and just take care of the endoleak. Now when we have infection,
then we have to remove the entire device, and one alternative is to use extra-anatomic revascularization. Our preference however is to use cryo-preserved homograft with wide debridement of the infected area. These grafts are relatively easy to remove,
'cause they're not incorporated. On the proximal side you can see that there's a aortic clamp ready to go here, and then we're going to slide it out while we clamp the graft immediately, clamp the aorta immediately after removal.
And here's the reconstruction. Excuse me. For an endograft-duodenal fistula here's a patient that has typical findings, then on endoscopy you can see a little bit of the endograft, and then on an opergy I series
you actually see extravasation from the duodenal. In this case we have the aorta ready to be clamped, you can see the umbilical tape here, and then take down the fistula, and then once the fistula's down
you got to repair the duodenal with an omental patch, and then a cryopreserved reconstruction. Here's a TEVAR conversion, a patient with a contained ruptured mycotic aneurysm, we put an endovascular graft initially, Now in this patient we do the soraconomy
and the other thing we do is, we do circulatory support. I prefer to use ECMO, in this instances we put a very long canula into the right atrium, which you're anesthesiologist can confirm
with transassof forgeoligico. And then we use ECMO for circulatory support. The other thing we're doing now is we're putting antibiotic beads, with specific antibiotic's for the organism that has been cultured.
Here's another case where a very long endograft was removed and in this case, we put the device offline, away from the infected field and then we filled the field with antibiotic beads. So we've done 47 conversions,
12 of them were acute, 35 were chronic, and what's important is the mortality for acute conversion is significant. And at this point the, we avoid acute conversions,
most of those were in the early experience. Thank you.
- Relevant disclosures are shown in this slide. So when we treat patients with Multi-Segment Disease, the more segments that are involved, the more complex the outcomes that we should expect, with regards to the patient comorbidities and the complexity of the operation. And this is made even more complex
when we add aortic dissection to the patient population. We know that a large proportion of patients who undergo Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair, require planned coverage of the left subclavian artery. And this also been demonstrated that it's an increase risk for stroke, spinal cord ischemia and other complications.
What are the options when we have to cover the left subclavian artery? Well we can just cover the artery, we no that. That's commonly performed in emergency situations. The current standard is to bypass or transpose the artery. Or provide a totally endovascular revascularization option
with some off-label use , such as In Situ or In Vitro Fenestration, Parallel Grafting or hopefully soon we will see and will have available branched graft devices. These devices are currently investigational and the focus today's talk will be this one,
the Valiant Mona Lisa Stent Graft System. Currently the main body device is available in diameters between thirty and forty-six millimeters and they are all fifteen centimeters long. The device is designed with flexible cuff, which mimics what we call the "volcano" on the main body.
It's a pivotal connection. And it's a two wire pre-loaded system with a main system wire and a wire through the left subclavian artery branch. And this has predominately been delivered with a through and through wire of
that left subclavian branch. The system is based on the valiant device with tip capture. The left subclavian artery branch is also unique to this system. It's a nitinol helical stent, with polyester fabric. It has a proximal flare,
which allows fixation in that volcano cone. Comes in three diameters and they're all the same length, forty millimeters, with a fifteen french profile. The delivery system, which is delivered from the groin, same access point as the main body device. We did complete the early feasibility study
with nine subjects at three sites. The goals were to validate the procedure, assess safety, and collect imaging data. We did publish that a couple of years ago. Here's a case demonstration. This was a sixty-nine year old female
with a descending thoracic aneurysm at five and a half centimeters. The patient's anatomy met the criteria. We selected a thirty-four millimeter diameter device, with a twelve millimeter branch. And we chose to extend this repair down to the celiac artery
in this patient. The pre-operative CT scan looks like this. The aneurysm looks bigger with thrombus in it of course, but that was the device we got around the corner of that arch to get our seal. Access is obtained both from the groin
and from the arm as is common with many TEVAR procedures. Here we have the device up in the aorta. There's our access from the arm. We had a separate puncture for a "pigtail". Once the device is in position, we "snare" the wire, we confirm that we don't have
any "wire wrap". You can see we went into a areal position to doubly confirm that. And then the device is expanded, and as it's on sheath, it does creep forward a bit. And we have capture with that through and through wire
and tension on that through and through wire, while we expand the rest of the device. And you can see that the volcano is aligned right underneath the left subclavian artery. There's markers there where there's two rings, the outer and the inner ring of that volcano.
Once the device is deployed with that through and through wire access, we deliver the branch into the left subclavian artery. This is a slow deployment, so that we align the flair within the volcano and that volcano is flexible. In some patients, it sort of sits right at the level of
the aorta, like you see in this patient. Sometimes it protrudes. It doesn't really matter, as long as the two things are mated together. There is some flexibility built in the system. In this particular patient,
we had a little leak, so we were able to balloon this as we would any others. For a TEVAR, we just balloon both devices at the same time. Completion Angiogram shown here and we had an excellent result with this patient at six months and at a year the aneurysm continued
to re-sorb. In that series, we had successful delivery and deployment of all the devices. The duration of the procedure has improved with time. Several of these patients required an extension. We are in the feasibility phase.
We've added additional centers and we continue to enroll patients. And one of the things that we've learned is that details about the association between branches and the disease are critical. And patient selection is critical.
And we will continue to complete enrollment for the feasibility and hopefully we will see the pivotal studies start soon. Thank you very much
- My topic is status of left atrial appendage exclusion and we're going to go to the heart in this topic. This is my disclosures: atricure being the main one. The other disclosure is we actually have an annual meeting of left atrial appendage that takes over three days, so this is a very
extensive topic and I'm going to ask you to put your seat belts on because it's going to be a lot of topics to cover over five minutes. So, as you know, the left atrial appendage is the source of thrombus that comes from the heart in ninety percent of patients so patients
who have a stroke coming from the heart, ninety percent chances are the clot was in the left atrial appendage. If you look at just in the US, if we can take care of left atrial appendage in these patients, we can deal with 130,000 strokes.
It's a very substantial number. And this translates with the amount of money that the industry has put in this. Over half a billion dollars currently and it's increasing significantly. This is one of the fastest growing area
of devices worldwide in any specialty. Now left atrial appendage also excludes atrial fibrillation so besides dropping and reducing the stroke, it does also an electric isolation so it reduces the atrial fibrillation rate in patients
who have chronic AFIB so those are two main reasons why we close left atrial appendage in specific patients who have the indication for. Now I'm going to go over the talk if you look at patients who have an open heart surgery, they already know, based upon this recently
published journal publication from Mayo Clinic, that left atrial exclusion significantly reduces stroke. In these patients, they actually look at 75,000 patients, five percent of them had surgical exclusion and that that propensity analysis among patients who had AFIB and closure of appendage versus
the same patient population with similar risk who did not and they had significantly less stroke in patients who had exclusion of appendage, as you see here, and less mortality. There is a specific trial called ATLAS that is going to be given a more randomized study
but there is a lot of data already supporting that appendage reduces significant stroke. Now these are the two studies. This is one of the most important slides that I want you to remember. They are the Endocardial Trial Devices
and there are Epicardial Devices and I'm going to go over in the last slide what are the pros and cons of each one. What I'm going to talk about each of them at a time. Now endocardial is obviously transcatheter techniques. Epicardial is a clip that is typically placed
outside but it could be also endocardial, as well. So Watchman is the most common device that is placed endocardial. It's also the only one that is FDA approved currently. And it's probably the best device that we will place in an elderly patients or failed patients.
It's 14 Fringe, has five sizes based upon a CT Scan. Sized pretty much like a anthracic aneurysm in how we measure actually, triple As. It's sized 10 o
and has 10 barbs in it. It's also approved in CE marks, as well. Now the FLX version of it is a new version that has been overworked right now but this study, this device is actually the most studied device. Protect-AF and Prevails are the typical two studies
and they have shown at four-year followup that the ischemic stroke and systemic embolization is significantly lower and comparable to coumadin and significantly lower bleeding rate, as well. But they are not perfect obviously. There is a lot of patients that cannot be treated
due to anatomic issues. There is also percent of patients will have leaks that will require additional anticoagulation. Now Amplatzer is not approved.
It's not a percutaneous endocardial device, that is CE marked, but I'm not going to spend time just because of the timing. Same applies to WaveCrest, Occulotech, and LAmbre. You can imagine these at the early time of EVARS and TVARS that we have initially one device on the market
and now more and more devices coming up. We have a similar one on the left atrial appendage. And these devices will come into market within the next few years. They are already in Europe available. But no randomized trials.
Now with all these endocardial devices there are multiple leak effects typically including leaking around it because as you know appendage orifices is not a perfect circle. It's not like a aorta, many aortas, at least. You could have an area that is very narrowed
and you could have what we call a really perivalval leak which cardiologists will name differently, a agofact in this case. Now one of the epicardial devices, these are devices that come from outside, is called the LARIAT.
This is 510K approved in the United States and also available in CE but has significant complications. Why? Because it's an endocardial device. That means you have to transvenous access and have a transeptal from right atrium going to the left atrium but also you have
to access the pericardium and pretty much put a loop around the left atrial appendage that connects over a magnet. It's actually a pretty neat device but it has significant issues with complications including tamponade and its the only device
that has actually a death rather compared to any other ones. Other ones have almost zero mortality rates. There is a leak option so if you close that appendage with a circular device, if you continues to have some blood going into it
this enlargened sac can actually open up again to orifices that's called the Gunnysack Effect. And one of the issues that, you know, Lariat has a failure rate. Plus, Lariat can be only applied for certain sizes of appendages that are small,
so that's important, as well. Now there are a lot of issues with surgical closures. I'm going to shorten this portion but to say the suture alone is not a perfect idea and for that reason, we actually use a clip for this that's called the AtriClip
that is FDA approved and this is how it looks like from inside the heart. You have an endocardial to endocardial apposition with less thrombogenesty. This is the AtroClip device again and we have option also to put that as a
thoracoscopic approach for patients who do not need open heart surgery. As you see at three month, the entire appendage dies off from ischemic event: it goes away, which is what we want. This is the prospective trial that showed
the safety of this device. And this is the left atrial appendage symposium that I mentioned to you. If you look at the Watchman device, the leak is a certain concern but it's the safest device for elderly patients, however, the epicardial
device are the safest with the lowest rate of leak and best outcome. Overall, this is my last slide, I think 100 percent of closing the left atrial appendage is important so that's the reason epicardial device right now are much more successful.
This is an important concept for patient with permanent AFib: it can cut down on the stroke risk by 90 percent and improves survival in patients and loved ones who has atrial fibrillation. Efficacy has been shown in multiple studies and in the safety, as well (mumbles).
If we have a heart-team approach, very similar like in the vascular approach, I think it takes away the specialty bias among the two various closure devices. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, I'm going to try to move forward with some of my slides. There we go. And, again, in order to avoid that, we're just going to move through the cases. I have some cases that are different
to the ones presented before. It seems that everybody's happy with this technology. This is a CTO recanalization of a patient with subacute total occulsion of the SFA that previously had a stent in place,
in the distal SFA. And here you can see how we are able to reopen the vessel and look at the clot in the entire length at the end of the catheter there. So, this technology really works.
Let me show you now an acute bowel ischemia case. A patient that comes with abdominal pain. A CTA shows that the patient has an occlusion of the proximal SMA. We put a catheter there,
we do a diagnostic angiogram confirming the occlusion, then we cross the lesion and we inject distali showing that the branches are patent. And then we put in place
an oscar directional sheath that will give us great stability to work and through that one we use a Cat Eight, from Penumbra. As you can see here, advancing the catheter in combination with the separator,
and this is the final angiogram showing complete opening of the main SMA and you can see very clearly the elements that were occluding the MSL. We are also using this technology in DVT, acute DVT, with proprietal access
and here you can see the before, and then, sometimes we use it alone, sometimes we use it in combination with angiojet and with the bull spray, followed by this technology for the areas that did not respond.
But this is usually a technology that is helping us to get rid of most of the clot. Like here, you see there is some residual clot. And after Penambra, you can direct the catheter and you can really clean the entire vein. Same here, before and after.
We are also using it for PE. I know that you guys in Miami are doing the same and we are happy with the results. And then, just to finish, I think this is a really nice case that was done by one of our partners in vascular surgery.
A patient with an occluded carotid subclavial bypass. So you see access from the brachial artery on one side. And this person, the person who did this, was smart enough to also came from the groin
and put the filter in the internal carotid artery, just in case. So then he starts to manipulate that occluded subclavial carotid bypass. As you can see here. And at a certain point,
he does a follow-up angiogram showing that the entire carotid, including the internal and external, is totally occluded. So, because he was prepared, he had a filter,
he didn't panic, he went and used the indigo device, and he was able to get all that clot out and re-establish nice anterial flowing in the carotid artery,
completely clean. The carotid subclavial bypass. And he did a final angiogram in AP and lateral view, confirming that there is no distimbolisation at the intercranial level. So, this technology really works.
I think that we all agree. And these are good examples on how we can help patients with that technology. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you, it's a pleasure to be here. I'll address how the Indigo Thrombectomy technology can expand the reach of what you can do for your patients. It will preserve treatment options, improve patient outcomes, conserve hospital resources,
and perhaps most importantly, improve your day. The old treatment strategy, every time I had someone with acute limb ischemia I felt like I was shopping at this store. When I went to surgery, I wished I could put a drip catheter in, it lasts a little longer,
to mop up some di when I went to the angio suite, I wished I could cut down and remove some more macroscopic debris. I submit that the new Indigo technology
will provide a new strategy for treating acute arterial ischemia. On the same concepts are predicated STEMI, code stroke, Level I trauma alerts, we've instituted acute aorta, and piggybacked on that, an acute arterial ischemia protocol.
So that means when a patient like this presents with acute arterial ischemia, they get an algorithmic, systemic, trained, metered approach. They go past the holding room directly to the endovascular suite,
and all the processes happen in parallel, not in series. The call team is trained and dedicated, and while anesthesia is working up top with labs and lines, we use the duplex ultrasound to pick carefully our access sites. A faster time to reperfusion allows us to
do it and avoid general anesthesia, incision in hostile groins, and the exposure of lytic therapy, resulting in a decreased morbidity and mortality. Being able to treat the full spectrum of the arterial tree allows us to run options.
We preserve options by first mopping up more proximal clot, and then dripping distally when we need to, or, dripping distally to open up distal targets for surgical bypasses. As an example, this was a recent case
on a trauma CT scan, injured inthrelane aorta with emblogenic thrombus confirmed on intravascular ultrasound. We went in with a large bore system, a cath to aspirate the clot, and then used a cover stent to repair the aorta.
We shot an arteriogram the lower extremities, noticed that it embolized distally, and we used a Cat 6 to pluck out this clot and restore flow. Able to work up and down the full arterial tree. A learning curve for me was to understand that debris has to be corked to removal, which means no flow.
And most other worlds in vascular surgery, flow is good. No flow is bad. Also, you have to vacuum the clot out. Which means you have to uncross the lesion, which is counter intuitive for most of the precepts I've learned.
I've learned to use long sheaths to approach the lesion and to use larger catheters to remove more macroscopic debris. I rarely use the separator, I engage it and cork it for 90 seconds. That allows it to get a firm grip and purchase on it.
And I have to remember that no flow is good. This demonstrates how you approach the catheter with a large sheath. Under roadmap guidance you turn the aspiration vacuum on immediately before you cork it to minimize blood loss. And you use it like a vacuum by uncrossing the lesion
and let it slowly engage and aspirate the catheter. Ninety seconds allows it to get a firm grip and purchase so you can extract it without breaking it loose. I rarely use a separator, I use it only for large thrombus burdens, sub-acute clot, adherent debris,
or when the Indigo catheter is clogged. I strip out the catheter with the separator like a pipe cleaner, and then, every once in a while, on a subacute clot, I'll peck and morcellate it with a separator. Typically, in my lab, when I have new technology
I never have the team trained when I have just the right case, so I've learned over time, to train the team first. And with a trained team, they've taught me a lot. I've found with the Indigo catheter it's hard for me to watch the monitor,
work the catheter, handle the on-off switch, and watch the flow in the canister. So, what we do is we have a spotter who's not scrubbed. They taught me to take the on-off switch out, and then mechanically kink the tubing to make and on-off switch.
And they provide me feedback and just say fast, slow, or corked, so I can run the catheter and watch the monitor. I've learned to beware of the Cook Flexor sheaths, because they scuff up the tip. Use a check flow valve that unscrews from the
catheter if possible. I use coaxial catheters whenever possible, and I telescope them. You can telescope large catheters over small catheters. I use large sheaths and catheters whenever possible, using the preclose technique,
and then you can preserve options if you want to press more distally, you can cinch down, remove the large sheath, put in a 4 5 French, and then press ahead. I also, after I use a pulse technique, will occasionally use the Jungle Juice.
The team taught me the Jungle Juice is half strength contrast, some TPA and some nitroglycerine. When I lace the clot with Jungle Juice, I can observe fluoroscopically, the progress I'm making as I'm aspirating the clot. Thank you.
- 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, I'm going to probably echo many of the themes that Gary just touched upon here. These are my disclosures. So, if we look at the CHEST guidelines on who should get pharmacomechanical techniques, it is very very very sobering, and I apologize if the previous speakers have shown this slide,
but essentially, what's right now being disseminated to the American College of CHEST Physicians is that nobody should get catheter-directed thrombolysis, the concept of pharmacomechanical technique should really only reserved as a last-ditch effort if nothing else works, if you happen to have somebody
with extraordinary expertise in your institution, it could not be more of a damning recommendation for what I'm about to talk to you about for the next eight or nine minutes or so. So, then the question is, what is the rationale? What are we talking about here?
And again, I'm going to say that Gary and I, I think are sort of kindred spirits in recognizing that we really do need to mature this concept of the catheter-based technique for pulmonary embolism. So, I'm going to put out a hypothetical question, what if there was a single session/single device therapy
for acute PE, Gary showed one, that could avoid high dose lytics, avoid an overnight infusion, acutely on the table lower the PA pressure, acutely improve the function of the right ventricle, rapidly remove, you know, by angiography,
thrombus and clot from the pulmonary artery, and it was extremely safe, what if we had that? Would that change practice? And I would respectfully say, yes it would. And then what if this concept has already been realized, and we're actually using this across the world
for STEMI, for stroke, for acute DVT, and so why not acute pulmonary embolism? What is limiting our ability to perform single session, rapid thrombus removal and
patient stabilization on the table? Gary showed this slide, there's this whole litany of different devices, and I would argue none of them is exactly perfect yet, but I'm going to try and sort of walk you through what has been developed in an attempt
to reach the concept of single session therapy. When we talk about pharmacomechanical thrombectomy or thrombo-aspiration, it really is just one line item on the menu of all the different things that we can offer patients that present with acutely symptomatic PE, but it is important to recognize
what the potential benefits of this technology are and, of course, what the limitations are. When we look at this in distinction to stroke or STEMI or certainly DVT, it's important to recognize that during a surgical pulmonary embolectomy case, the clot that's able to be extracted is quite impressive,
and this is a very very very sobering amount of material that is typically removed from the patient's right heart and their pulmonary circulation, so, in order to innovate and iterate a percutaneous technology based on existing concepts,
it really does demand significant disruption to achieve the goals, we have not tackled this yet in terms of our endovascular tool kit. So, what is the role? Well, it's potentially able to debulk in acute PE, in an intermediate risk patient which would
ideally eliminate the need for overnight lysis, as Gary alluded to, but what if it could actually replace surgical embolectomy in high risk patients? I think many of us have had the conversation where we, we sort of don't know that's there a
experienced, comfortable surgeon to do an embolectomy within the building or within immediate access to the patient that we see crashing in front of our eyes. I'm very very lucky here in New York that I've incredible cardiovascular surgeons that are able to perform this procedure very very safely 24/7,
but I know that's not the case across the country. So, one of our surgeons who actually came from the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston developed this concept, which was the sort of first bridge between surgical embolectomy and percutaneous therapy, which is a large bore aspiration catheter,
it's a 22 French cannula that was originally designed to be placed through a cutdown but can now be placed percutaneously, and I think many of us in the room are familiar with this technology, but essentially you advance this under fluoroscopy into the right heart,
place the patient on venous-venous bypass, and a trap, which is outside the patient, is demonstrated in the lower left portion of the screen here, is able to capture any thrombotic material and then restore the circulation via the contralateral femoral vein,
any blood that is aspirated. Very very scant data on this, here's the experience from Michael and Kenny up in Boston where they tried this technology in just a handful of cases, this was followed by John Moriarty's experience from UCLA, where he actually argued a little bit of caution
using this technology, largely related to its inability to safely and reliably deliver it to the pulmonary circulation. To that end, AngieDynamics is funding a prospective registry really looking at safety and efficacy at delivering this device to the pulmonary circulation
and its ability to treat acute pulmonary embolism as well as any right heart clot, but that data's not commercially available yet. This is just one case that we did recently of a clot in transit, which I would argue could not be treated with any other technology
and the patient was able to be discharged the same day, I personally think this is a wonderful application of this technology and is our default strategy right now for a very large clot in transit. The second entrance to the space is the Inari FlowTriever device, which is a 20 French cannula,
it does not require a perfusion team in vein-vein bypass, the concept is simple, a 20 French guide catheter is advanced into the pulmonary circulation and these trilobed disks, which function like a stentriever for stroke are deployed in the pulmonary circulation, retracted to allow the clot to be delivered to the guide cath,
and then using manual aspiration, the clot is retrieved from the patient. Just a few case reports in small series describing this, this one in JACC two years ago, showing quite robust ability to extract a clot, this company which is a relatively small company funded a
single-arm prospective trial enrolling 168 patients, and not only did they complete enrollment last year, but they actually received FDA approval, now there is no peer-reviewed literature on this, it has undergone public presentation, but we, we really don't know exactly which patients were treated,
and so we really can't dissect this, I think there is a learning curve to this technology, and it's not, certainly, ready for broad dissemination yet, we just don't know which patients are ideal for it currently. Another technology, the Penumbra CAT8 system,
a market reduction in the size, an 8 French catheter based technology, this is exact same technology that's used for thrombo-aspiration for acute ischemic stroke, currently just in a slightly different size, and then a number of cases demonstrating its efficacy at
alleviating the acute nonperfusion of an entire lobe, as Gary was referring to previously, and this is one of our cases from our own lab, where you see there's no perfusion of the right, middle and lower lobe, I'm not sure if I can get these movies to play here, oh here it goes,
and so using sort of a handmade separator, we were able to restore perfusion again to the right, middle and lower lobe here, so just one example where, I think there is a potential benefit of thrombo-aspiration in a completely occluded segment.
There has been a wealth of literature about this technology, mostly demonstrating safety and efficacy, the most recent one on the bottom right in CVIR demonstrates the ability to acutely reduce the PA pressures on the table with the use of this technology, and to that end,
Akhi Sista, our faculty here this morning, is the national principal investigator of a US multicenter prospective study looking at exactly that, to try and prove that this technology is safe and effective in the treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism, so more to come on that.
Lastly, the AngioJet System, probably the most reported and studied technology, this is a 6 French technology by default, a wealth of literature here showing safety and efficacy, however, due to adverse event reporting, this technology currently has black box label warnings
in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism, so clearly this technology should not be used by the novice, and there are significant safety concerns largely related to bradyarrhythmias and hypotension, that being said, again, it is a quite experienced technology for this. So where do we currently stand?
I think we clearly see there are several attributes for thrombo-aspiration including just suction aspiration, a mechanical stent-triever technology, and the ability to not just insanguinate the patient but actually restore circulation and not make the patient anemic, here,
you can see where these technologies are going in terms of very very large bore and very small bore, I placed the question marked right in the center which is where I think this technology needs to converge in order to lead to the disruption for the broad adoption of a single session technology.
So, numerous devices exist, all the devices have been used clinically and have demonstrated the ability to be delivered in aspirary pulmonary embolus, at present, unfortunately there is no consensus regarding which device should be used for which patients and in which clinical presentations,
we need many prospective studies to demonstrate the safety and clinical benefit for our patients, we desperately do need a single session therapy, again, I completely agree with Gary on this, but there is a lot of work yet to do. Thank you for your attention.
- Good morning, thank you, Dr. Veith, for the invitation. My disclosures. So, renal artery anomalies, fairly rare. Renal ectopia and fusion, leading to horseshoe kidneys or pelvic kidneys, are fairly rare, in less than one percent of the population. Renal transplants, that is patients with existing
renal transplants who develop aneurysms, clearly these are patients who are 10 to 20 or more years beyond their initial transplantation, or maybe an increasing number of patients that are developing aneurysms and are treated. All of these involve a renal artery origin that is
near the aortic bifurcation or into the iliac arteries, making potential repair options limited. So this is a personal, clinical series, over an eight year span, when I was at the University of South Florida & Tampa, that's 18 patients, nine renal transplants, six congenital
pelvic kidneys, three horseshoe kidneys, with varied aorto-iliac aneurysmal pathologies, it leaves half of these patients have iliac artery pathologies on top of their aortic aneurysms, or in place of the making repair options fairly difficult. Over half of the patients had renal insufficiency
and renal protective maneuvers were used in all patients in this trial with those measures listed on the slide. All of these were elective cases, all were technically successful, with a fair amount of followup afterward. The reconstruction priorities or goals of the operation are to maintain blood flow to that atypical kidney,
except in circumstances where there were multiple renal arteries, and then a small accessory renal artery would be covered with a potential endovascular solution, and to exclude the aneurysms with adequate fixation lengths. So, in this experience, we were able, I was able to treat eight of the 18 patients with a fairly straightforward
endovascular solution, aorto-biiliac or aorto-aortic endografts. There were four patients all requiring open reconstructions without any obvious endovascular or hybrid options, but I'd like to focus on these hybrid options, several of these, an endohybrid approach using aorto-iliac
endografts, cross femoral bypass in some form of iliac embolization with an attempt to try to maintain flow to hypogastric arteries and maintain antegrade flow into that pelvic atypical renal artery, and a open hybrid approach where a renal artery can be transposed, and endografting a solution can be utilized.
The overall outcomes, fairly poor survival of these patients with a 50% survival at approximately two years, but there were no aortic related mortalities, all the renal artery reconstructions were patented last followup by Duplex or CT imaging. No aneurysms ruptures or aortic reinterventions or open
conversions were needed. So, focus specifically in a treatment algorithm, here in this complex group of patients, I think if the atypical renal artery comes off distal aorta, you have several treatment options. Most of these are going to be open, but if it is a small
accessory with multiple renal arteries, such as in certain cases of horseshoe kidneys, you may be able to get away with an endovascular approach with coverage of those small accessory arteries, an open hybrid approach which we utilized in a single case in the series with open transposition through a limited
incision from the distal aorta down to the distal iliac, and then actually a fenestrated endovascular repair of his complex aneurysm. Finally, an open approach, where direct aorto-ilio-femoral reconstruction with a bypass and reimplantation of that renal artery was done,
but in the patients with atypical renals off the iliac segment, I think you utilizing these endohybrid options can come up with some creative solutions, and utilize, if there is some common iliac occlusive disease or aneurysmal disease, you can maintain antegrade flow into these renal arteries from the pelvis
and utilize cross femoral bypass and contralateral occlusions. So, good options with AUIs, with an endohybrid approach in these difficult patients. Thank you.
- Thank you very much for the kind introduction, and I'd like to thank the organizers, especially Frank Veith for getting back to this outstanding and very important conference. My duty is now to talk about the acute status of carotid artery stenting is acute occlusion an issue? Here are my disclosures.
Probably you might be aware, for sure you're aware about pore size and probably smaller pore size, the small material load might be a predisposing factor for enhanced thrombogenicity in these dual layer stents, as you're probably quite familiar with the CGUARD, Roadsaver and GORE, I will focus my talk a little bit
on the Roadsaver stent, since I have the most experience with the Roadsaver stent from the early beginning when this device was on the market in Europe. If you go back a little bit and look at the early publications of CGUARD, Roadsaver and GORE stent, then acute occlusion the early reports show that
very clearly safety, especially at 30 days in terms of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events. They are very, very safe, 0% in all these early publications deal with these stents. But you're probably aware of this publication, released end of last year, where a German group in Hamburg
deals with carotid artery stenosis during acute stroke treatment. They used the dual layer stent, the Roadsaver stent or the Casper stent in 20 cases, in the same time period from 2011 to 2016, they used also the Wallstent and the VIVEXX stent,
in 27 cases in total and there was a major difference, in terms of acute stent occlusion, and for the Roadsaver or Casper stent, it was 45%, they also had an explanation for that, potential explanations probably due to the increase of thrombogenic material due to the dual layer
insufficient preparation with antiplatelet medication, higher patient counts in the patients who occluded, smaller stent diameters, and the patients were not administered PTA, meaning Bridging during acute stroke patient treatment, but it was highlighted that all patients received ASA of 500mg intravenously
during the procedure. But there are some questions coming up. What is a small stent diameter? Post-dilatation at what diameter, once the stent was implanted? What about wall apposition of the stent?
Correct stent deployment with the Vicis maneuver performed or not and was the ACT adjusted during the procedure, meaning did they perform an adequate heparinization? These are open questions and I would like to share our experience from Flensburg,
so we have treated nearly 200 patients with the Roadsaver stent from 2015 until now. In 42 patients, we used this stent exclusively for acute stroke treatment and never, ever observed in both groups, in the symptomatic and asymptomatic group and in the group of acute stroke treatment,
we never observed an acute occlusion. How can we explain this kind of difference that neither acute occlusion occurred in our patient group? Probably there are some options how we can avoid stent thrombosis, how we can minimize this. For emergency treatment, probably this might be related
to bridging therapies, though in Germany a lot of patients who received acute stroke treatment are on bridging therapy since the way to the hospital is sometimes rather long, there probably might be a predisposing factor to re-avoid stent thrombosis and so-called tandem lesions if the stent placement is needed.
But we also take care of antiplatelet medication peri-procedurally, and we do this with ASA, as the Hamburg group did and at one day, we always start, in all emergency patients with clopidogrel loading dose after positive CT where we could exclude any bleeding and post-procedurally we go
for dual anti-platelet therapy for at least six months, meaning clopidogrel and ASA, and this is something probably of utmost importance. It's quite the same for elective patients, I think you're quite familiar with this, and I want to highlight the post-procedural clopidogrel
might be the key of success for six months combined with ASA life-long. Stent preparation is also an issue, at least 7 or 8 diameters we have to choose for the correct lengths we have to perform adequate stent deployment and adequate post-dilatation
for at least 5mm. In a lot of trials the Roadsaver concept has been proven, and this is due to the adequate preparation of the stent and ongoing platelet preparation, and this was also highlight in the meta-analysis with the death and stroke rate of .02% in all cases.
Roadsaver study is performed now planned, I am a member of the steering committee. In 2000 patients, so far 132 patients have been included and I want to rise up once again the question, is acute occlusion and issue? No, I don't think so, since you keep antiplatelet medication
in mind and be aware of adequate stent sizing. I highly appreciated your attention, thank you very much.
- [Speaker] Thank you. My disclosures. So upper extremity dvt occurs in 4-10% of all causes of venous thrombosis. And while a minority, dvt in the upper extremity can often be caused by thoracic outlet syndrome, effort thrombosis, occasionally
idiopathic venous thrombosis. The majority is more likely related to central venous catheters, pacemakers, cancer, etc. This is some of the presentation of someone with Paget Schroeder or venous thoracic outlet syndrome, we're all well aware of this.
Some features of this can be sudden onset of pain, discoloration and some of this subcutaneous collateral veins that we note. Initial treatment of this is traditionally with venous thrombolysis. Although the results are good, this thrombolysis can
be associated with bleeding complications, potential for renal insufficiency, prolonged dwell times, and increased cost. I think it's important that this is not just a talk about a technique but a technique in the context of an operation this is soon to come.
Whether you choose to take out the rib at the same setting or you choose to delay the operation by a week or two, by and large the complications associated with that venous thrombolysis are going to come back and haunt you in the next operations. I think that's the context of this talk.
One of the risks I just mentioned about some of these techniques is, that's sort of curious to me, is the acute kidney injury after AngioJet venous thrombolysis. You see here, this paper, of a hundred patients, 50 AngioJet, 50 catheter directed thrombolysis, shows a statistical significantly
increased risk of acute kidney failure in the AngioJet group. Eight fold odds ratio. The Indigo system enables operators to remove the thrombus in a single setting, while potentially reducing or eliminating the need for thrombolysis.
This has already been discussed by some of the prior speakers, you see the different iterations first introduced in 2014. The CAT8 is the largest device and you can see some of the features of this proprietary technology with the separator and the directional sheaths that
allow us to aspirate nicely. This continuous suction you see here, can be very nicely controlled with an on-off switch that minimizes blood loss. It's single operator design, very easy to set up, hands free aspiration, a very simple set up.
You also heard just recently about the volume that can be aspirated in 20 seconds you see, especially with the larger profile devices, quite impressive amount of thrombus can be removed. Again, with the careful control for blood loss. The directionality of the sheath is also important,
and you can see some of the different directionality sheaths. Here's a couple case examples of a Paget-Schroder patient comes in with an acute sudden onset of arm pain and swelling discoloration, and you can see the penumbra device being used to clean out that vein.
This is another example, a 25-year old male with acute right arm swelling, sort of a body lifter type, and you can see here, this is the separator that's being moved forward and backwards, in and out to help break out the thrombus. This is the CAT8 device.
The pre-intervention picture seen here, we're crossing the lesion with a wire and and you can see the post-intervention on the right. You, of course, have the venous compression from the first rib, thoracic outlet, but the vein is widely open and now we can go ahead and see
the specimen that's retrieved as you've seen other videos in the prior presentations. This, of course, is what we're left with at the time of surgery. I only bring this up to remind us that there is a second stage to this treatment,
which is the rib resection. A combined experience that I just want to put together, very small numbers of course but, 16 patients with thoracic outlet who presented and were treated with the Penumbra system. You can see here, some of the demographic data.
I'll just point out the symptoms, of course, pain, swelling in these patients, imaging mostly venous duplex, occasionally CT or MR venogram. They all of course get venography at the time of procedure. The extent of the thrombus in all of them was complete occlusion and you can see some
of the extent in the subclavian axillary veins. Site of access can be the brachial or the basilic vein. The operative details as well, shown here, and I'll just point out the estimated blood loss, it can be very reasonable, especially with some experience you can sort of control that
on-off valve and minimize blood loss with this technique. Adjunctive therapies are shown here and of course, maybe because we're a little bit stuck on our ways, we did have a fair number of adjunctive lytic therapy. There were only three patients who had overnight lysis. A lot of venoplasty done at the time of the procedure.
All veins remained patent until the day of the rib resection but I will point out that one of these patients did develop a significant complication with hemothorax. This is one of those patients who had overnight lysis. And I point that out to stress that perhaps
this is what we're trying to move away from. So, in conclusion, mechanicothrombectomy using Indigo device shows promising initial results. Minimal blood loss, one complication of the hemothroax with the overnight lytics. No renal insufficiency or distal embolization.
The practice pattern, I think, need to adjust away from routing lytics to additionally minimize complications prior to surgery. Thank you.
- Thanks to Dr. Veith again for allowing us to present this data. So this is a one year update on the LEOPARD trial. This is my disclosure that's relevant to this trial, at least in terms of serving as the national PI and as a consultant. The acronym stands for looking at EVAR outcomes
with primary analysis of randomized data. This is in fact the first contemporary randomized control trial of EVAR devices in a commercially available setting. Real world population head to head comparison, and you'll notice on the right the unique aspect of this is
half of the patients were randomized to an Endologix AFX device with anatomic fixation. The other half one of three commercially available devices. Either Cook Zenith, Gore Excluder, or Medtronic Endurant. This was across 80 enters in the U.S. with four hundred patients.
We chose to have a primary composite endpoint of one year survival with aneurysm related complications and ARC. This includes the following 30 day procedural death, occlusion migration. The thing that is different is we included all endoleak in this in addition to aneurysm enlargement
greater than five millimeters. And of course, reintervention. So the total enrollment was 455 patients, roughly half in each group. You can see the breakdown here between Endurant, Excluder, and Zenith.
For the individual investigators when they agreed to randomize in the trial the randomization was between an Endologix device and one of the other and that was consistent throughout the trial so they had to choose upfront which of those three devices they would use.
These are the patient demographics for the trial as for most infrarenal AAA trials this was predominantly elder, elderly white males. ASA classification predominantly three, four, and even five. There was a high incidence with smoking, co-morbidities but notice a fairly low incidence
of family history of aneurysm disease. These were, in fact, fairly large aneurysms, five and a half centimeters in diameter. They did have routinely reasonable neck anatomy and iliac landing zones, although I call your attention to the fact that in both groups about a quarter
of these patients were outside the instructions for use for the respective devices so I think that's important when thinking about results. When we looked at periprocedural characteristics including things like total procedure time, anesthesia time, contrast volume used there was a tendency
towards shorter times in the anatomic fixation group but this has not proven statistically significant. You'll also note that two thirds of these were performed percutaneously. The vast majority under a general anesthetic. No ICU time and one day in the hospital on average.
So here is the one year data for freedom from aneurysm related complications. You'll notice the blue on the top is the anatomic fixation or the Endologix group, the red is the composite of all others. This was also looked at by individual devices although the
trial was designed to combine all three of these together. There was no difference when combining the three or when looking at them separately. We looked at both freedom from all-cause mortality and freedom from aneurysm related mortality and again I apologize for the size.
This data is complete for the one year but we will continue to follow this out through two, three, and five years. And you'll notice there is no difference between the groups either for all-cause or aneurysm related mortality. When we look specifically at endoleak, no difference in type one endoleak.
There was a trend towards fewer type two endoleaks which we had seen previously in other institutions, but again, at least out to three years was about a 5% difference and freedom from type three endoleak was not significantly different. When we looked at things like freedom from conversion
and freedom from rupture, again, at that one year time point there was no significant difference. Freedom from graph limb occlusion, again a little bit lower on the anatomic fixation just given the nature of the device, but again not significantly different.
And freedom from reinterventions at one year absolutely no difference. So in conclusion we do believe there's a critical need for level one evidence in contemporary real-word patients using commercially available devices. The LEOPARD study is the first randomized control trial
comparing contemporary devices in a real-world setting, and we believe this will provide very important data for future randomized control trials as the control arm. The one year ARC shows no difference between anatomic fixation with very similar performance but further analysis needs to be performed to evaluate
potential benefits between the two types of graphs. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you Dr. Asher. What an honor it is to be up here with Dr. Veith and Dr. Asher towards the end. You guys are leading by example being at the end of the meetings. So, thank you for allowing me to be up and talking about something
that not a lot of vascular surgeons have experience with, including me. I have no disclosures. On your left, I have listed some of the types of diseases that we most commonly see in the vertebral artery, and there are quite a lot.
And on the right, the standard types of treatment that we pursue in vascular surgery or as a vascular specialist. And often, in the vertebral artery, if we are going to pursue treatment, it's the endovascular route.
But I'll talk a little bit about open surgery. The clinical presentation is often vague. And the things I wanted to point out here in this long list are things like alternating paresthesias, dysphagia, or perioral numbness may be something in the history to look for
that you may not be thinking about when you're thinking about vertebral basilar disease. The anatomy looks straightforward in this picture, with the four segments, as you can see. It gets a little more complicated with just the arterial system,
but then when you start looking at all these structures, that you have to get out of of the way to get to the vertebral artery, it actually can be a difficult operation, particularly even in the V1 segment. The V1 typically is atherosclerotic disease.
V2 is often compression, via osteophyte or musculo-tendon structures. And V3 and V4, at the top, are typically from a dissection injury from sort of stretch or trauma injury. The pathophysiology isn't that well understood.
You have varying anatomy. It's very difficult to access this artery. Symptoms can be difficult to read, and treatment outcomes are not as reliable. But I'm going to take you through a very quick path through history here in the description
of the V1 segment exposure by Dr. Rentschler from 1958. And I love these pictures. Here is a transverse incision over the sternocleidomastoid, just above the clavicular head on the right side. And once you get the sternoclavicular head divided, you can see the longus colli muscle there.
Anteromedial is the carotid. Of course, you surround that with a Penrose drain. And then once you do that, you can separate your longus colli, and deep to that, the vertebral artery just easily slips right up, so you can do your transposition.
It's not quite that easy. I've done one of these operations, and it was difficult finding t e. And, again, here is on the opposite side, you can see the transposition in this cartoon.
Dr. Berguer is the world's expert, and a lot of this open surgical work comes out of the University of Michigan. Here is a study looking at 369 consecutive extracranial vertebral artery reconstructions. You can see the demographics of clinical presentation.
And note that about 34% of patients are presenting with hemispheric symptoms, with 60% in the vertebral basilar distribution. 300 of these reconstructions were for atherosclerosis. And the outcomes were pretty good. Before 1991, there wasn't really a protocol in place
in assessing and doing these procedures. And you can see the stroke and death rates of 4.1 and 3.2% respectively. And then the outcomes after 1991 are considerably better with a five year patency rate of 80%. So, in summary, vertebral artery disease is,
I think if you review this, is somewhat under diagnosed. Revascularization is a viable option. Most often, it's endovascular. But if you have endo-hostility, then an open, particularly for the V1 segment, may be a better option.
And this requires people with good operative experience. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- So this is what I've been assigned to do, I think this is a rich topic so I'll just get into it. Here are my disclosures. So I hope to convince you at the end of this talk that what we need for massive PE when we're talking about catheter based therapy is a prospective registry. And what we need for catheter based therapy for
submassive PE is a randomized controlled trial. So we'll start with massive PE and my rational for this. So you know, really as you've heard, the goal of massive PE treatment is to rescue these patients from death. They have a 25 to 65% chance of dying
so our role, whatever type of physician we are, is to rescue that patient. So what are our tools to rescue that patient? You've heard about some of them already, intravenous thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, and catheter directed therapy.
The focus of my talk will be catheter directed therapy but let's remember that the fastest and easiest thing to do for these patients is to give them intravenous thrombolysis. And I think we under utilize this therapy and we need to think about this as a first line therapy for massive PE.
However, there's some patients in whom thrombolytics are contraindicated or in whom they fail and then we have to look at some other options. And that's where catheter directed therapy may play a role. So I want to show you a pretty dramatic case and this was an eye-opening case for me
and sort of what launched our PERT when I was at Cornell. It's a 30 year old man, transcranial resection of a pituitary tumor post-op seizures and of course he had a frontal lobe hemorrhage at that time. Sure enough, four or five days after this discovery
he developed hypertension and hypoxia. And then is he CT of the chest, which I still remember to this day because it was so dramatic. You see this caval thrombosis right, basically a clot in transit
and this enormous clot in the right main pulmonary artery. And of course he was starting to get altered, tachycardiac and a little bit hypotensive. So the question is, what to do with this patient with an intracranial hemorrhage? Obviously, systemic thrombolytics are
contraindicated in him. His systolics were in the 90 millimeter of mercury ranged, getting more altered and tachycardiac. He was referred for a CDT and he was brought to the IR suite. And really, at this point,
you could see the multidisciplinary nature of PE. The ICU attending was actively managing him while I was getting access and trying to do my work. So this was the initial pulmonary angiogram you can see there's absolutely no flow to the right lung even with a directed injection
you see this cast of thrombus there. Tried a little bit of aspiration, did a little bit of maceration, even injected a little TPA, wasn't getting anywhere. I was getting a little bit more panicked as he was getting more panicked
and I remembered this device that I had used in AV fistula work called the Cleaner. Totally off label use here, I should disclose that and I have no interest in the company, no financial interest in the company. And so we deployed this thing, activate it a few times,
it spins at 3,000 rpm's, he coughed a little bit, and that freaked us all out also. But low and behold we actually started seeing some profusion. And you can see it in the aortogram actually in this and that's the whole point of massive PE treatment with CDT,
is try to get forward flow into the left ventricle so that you have a systemic blood pressure. Now, you know, when we talk about catheter based therapies we have all sorts of things at our disposal. And my point to you is that you know really, thank you...
You guys can see that, great. So really, the point of these catheter therapies is that you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE because basically your role is to try to help this patient live. So, if I can get this thing to show up again.
There we go. It's not working very well, sorry. So, from clockwise we have the AngioVac circuit, you have, let's see if this will work again, okay. Nope, it's got a delay. So then you have your infusion catheter,
then you have the Inari FlowTriever, you saw the Cleaner in the previous cast, and you have the Penumbra aspiration device the CAT 8. And some of these will be spoken about in more detail in subsequent talks. But really, you can throw the kitchen sink at massive PE
just to do whatever it takes to get profusion to the left side. So, the best analysis that has been done so far was Will Kuo in 2009. He conducted a meta-analysis of about 594 patients and he found this clinical success rate of 86.5%.
This basically meant these patients survived to 30 days. Well, if that we're the case, that's a much lower mortality than we've seen historically we should basically be doing catheter directed therapy for every single massive PE that comes into the hospital. But I think we have to remember with this meta-analysis
that only 94 of these patients came from prospective studies, 500 came from retrospective, single center studies. So even though it was a very well conducted meta-analysis, the substrate for this meta-analysis wasn't great. And I think my point to you is that
we really are going to have a hard time studying this in a prospective fashion. So what is the data, as far as massive PE tell us and not tell us? Techniques are available to remove thrombus, it can be used if systemic lysis is contraindicated,
but it doesn't tell us whether catheter based therapies are better than the other therapies. Whether they should be used in combination with them and which patients should get catheter based therapy, which should get surgery and which techniques are most effective and safe.
Now, I think something we have to remember is that massive PE has a 5% incidence which is probably a good thing, if this was even higher than that we would have even more of an epidemic on our hand. But this is what makes massive PE very difficult to study.
So, if you looked at a back of the envelope calculation an RCT is just not feasible. So in an 800 bed hospital, you have 200 PE's per year, 5% are massive which means you get 10 per year in that hospital, assume 40% enroll which is actually generous,
that means that 4 massive PE's per year per institution. And then what are you going to do? Are you going to randomize them to IV lytics versus surgery versus interventional therapy, a three arm study, what is the effect size, what difference do you expect between these therapies
and how would you power it? It's really an impossible question. So I do want to make the plug for a Massive PE Prospective Registry. I think something like the PERT consortium is very well-suited to run something like this
especially with this registry endeavors. Detailed baseline characteristics including all these patients, detailing the intervention and looking at both short and long-term outcomes. Moving on to submassive PE. As you've heard much more controversial,
a much more difficult question. ICOPER as you already heard from the previous talk, alerted the world to RV dysfunction which this right ventricular hypokinesis conferring a higher mortality at 90 days than no RV dysfunction. And that's where PEITHO came in as you heard.
This showed that the placebo group met the primary endpoint of hemodynamic decompensation more commonly than the Tenecteplase group. Of course, coming at the risk of higher rate of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. So I just want to reiterate what was just said
which is that systemic thrombolysis has a questionable risk benefit profile and most patients with submassive PE, as seen in the guideline documents as well. So that sort of opens a sort of door for catheter directed therapy.
Is this the next therapy to overcome some of the shortcomings of systemic thrombolysis? Well what we have in terms of CDT is these four trials, Ultima, Seattle II, Optalyse, and Perfect. Three of these trails were the ultrasound assisted catheter, the Ekos catheter.
And only one of them is randomized and that's the Ultima trial. I'm going to show you just one slide from each one of them. The Ultima trial is basically the only randomized trial and it showed that if you put catheters in these patients 24 hours later their RV to LV ratio will be lower
than if you just treat them with Heparin. Seattle II is a single arm study and there was an association with the reduction in the RV to LV ratio at 48 hours by CTA. PERFECT, I found this to be the most interesting figure from PERFECT which is that you're going to start it at
systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 51 and you're going to come down to about 37. Optalyse, a brand new study that was just published, four arms each arm has increasing dose associated with it and at 48 hours it didn't matter, all of these groups had a reduction in the RV to LV ratio.
And there was no control group here as well. What is interesting is that the more thrombolytics you used the more thrombus you cleared at 48 hours. What that means clinically is uncertain at this point. There is bleeding with CDT. 11% major bleeding rate in Seattle II,
no intracranial hemorrhages. Optalyse did have five major bleeds, most of the major bleeds happened in the highest dosed arms. So we know that thrombolytics cause bleeding that's still an issue. Now, clot extraction minus fibrinolytic,
this is an interesting question. We do have devices, you're going to hear about the FLARE trial later in this session. EXTRACT-PE is ongoing which we have enrolled about 75 patients into. What the data does and does not tell us
when it comes to CDT for submassive PE it probably reduces the RV to LV ratio at 24 hours, it's associated with a reduction at 48 hours, major bleeding is seen, we do not know what the short and long-term clinical outcomes are
following CDT for submassive PE. Whether it should be routinely used in submassive PE and in spite of the results of Optalyse this is a preliminary trial, we don't know the optimal dose and duration of thrombolytic drug. And even is spite of these early trials
on these non-lytic techniques, we don't know their true role yet. I'd liked to point out that greater than 1,600 patients have been randomized in systemic lytic trails yet only 59 have been randomized in a single, non-U.S. CDT trial.
So this means that you can randomize patients with submassive PE to one treatment or the other. And we want to get away from this PERT CDT roller coaster where you get enthusiasm, you do more cases, then you have a complication, then the number of cases drops.
You want that to be consistent because you're basing it on data. And that's where we're trying to come up with a way of answering that with this PE-TRACT trial. Which is a RCT of CDT versus no-CDT. We're looking at clinical endpoints
rather than radiographic ones greater than 400 patients, 30 to 50 sites across the country. So in summary I hope I've convinced you that we need a Prospective Registry for massive PE and a Randomized Controlled Trail for submassive PE. 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.