- Yeah now, I'm talking about another kind of vessel preparation device, which is dedicated to prevent the occurrence of embolic events and with these complications. That's a very typical appearance of an occluded stent with appositional stent thrombosis up to the femur bifurcation.
If you treat such a lesion simply with balloon angioplasty, you will frequently see some embolic debris going downstream, residing in this total occlusion of the distal pocket heel artery as a result of an embolus, which is fixed at the bifurcation of
the anterior tibial and the tibial planar trunk, what you can see over here. So rates of macro embolization have been described as high as 38% after femoral popliteal angioplasty. It can be associated with limb loss.
There is a risk of limb loss may be higher in patients suffering from poor run-off and critical limb ischemia. There is a higher rate of embolization for in-stent restenosis, in particular, in occluded stents and chronic total occlusions.
There is a higher rate of cause and longer lesions. This is the Vanguard IEP system. It's an integrated balloon angioplasty and embolic protection device. You can see over here, the handle. There is a rotational knob, where you can,
a top knob where you can deploy, and recapture the filter. This is the balloon, which is coming into diameters and three different lengths. This is the filter, 60 millimeter in length. The pore size is 150 micron,
which is sufficient enough to capture relevant debris going downstream. The device is running over an 80,000 or 14,000 guide-wire. This is a short animation about how the device does work. It's basically like a traditional balloon.
So first of all, we have to cross the lesion with a guide-wire. After that, the device can be inserted. It's not necessary to pre-dilate the lesion due to the lower profile of the capture balloon. So first of all, the capture filter,
the filter is exposed to the vessel wall. Then you perform your pre-dilatation or your dilatation. You have to wait a couple of second until the full deflation of the balloon, and then you recapture the filter, and remove the embolic debris.
So when to use it? Well, at higher risk for embolization, I already mentioned, which kind of lesions are at risk and at higher risk of clinical consequences that should come if embolization will occur. Here visible thrombus, acute limb ischemia,
chronic total occlusion, ulceration and calcification, large plaque volume and in-stent reocclusion of course. The ENTRAP Study was just recently finished. Regarding enrollment, more than 100 patients had been enrolled. I will share with you now the results
of an interim analysis of the first 50 patients. It's a prospective multi-center, non-randomized single-arm study with 30-day safety, and acute performance follow-up. The objective was to provide post-market data in the European Union to provide support for FDA clearance.
This is the balloon as you have seen already. It's coming in five and six millimeter diameter, and in lengths of 80, 120 and 200 millimeters. This is now the primary safety end point at 30 days. 53 subjects had been enrolled. There was no event.
So the safety composite end point was reached in 100%. The device success was also 100%. So all those lesions that had been intended to be treated could be approached with the device. The device could be removed successfully. This is a case example with short lesion
of the distal SFA. This is the device in place. That's the result after intervention. That's the debris which was captured inside the filter. Some more case examples of more massive debris captured in the tip of the filter,
in particular, in longer distance total occlusions. Even if this is not a total occlusion, you may see later on that in this diffused long distance SFA lesion, significant debris was captured. Considering the size of this embolus,
if this would have been a patient under CLI conditions with a single runoff vessel, this would have potentially harmed the patient. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- Thank you. I have no conflict of interest. Now the first burning question in carotid artery disease management. I agree with the previous speaker somewhat. Is that is who if anyone with asystematic Carotid Stenosis is likely to benefit from a carotid procedure
in addition to current optimal medical intervention? Where I have to ask this question because of significant advances in medical revascularization over the last three to four decades. Particularly since ACAS was published.
Now at most about 4% of persons with asystametic cartonied stenosis will have a stroke caused by the lesion as explained on Tuesday. We just know that its overall harmful and wasteful to do a procedure on all of them.
But stoke risk stratification cannot identify those who now benefit from carotid endocardectomy and stenting is overall more harmful than endocardectomy. There are many proposed markers of high stroke risk in asymptomatic carotenosis patients given just medical treatment.
Including those some of the European society vascular surgeons. But we already know that each of these markers used in isolation they lack sufficient specificity to identify those most likely to benefit from a procedure. In other words they are to common.
And also the event rates with these individual markers are too low. Particularly considering that all of these studies of these markers were done with suboptimal medical treatment. The second burning question.
Is will prevailing carotid trails find a current procedural indication in stroke prevention? Well the answer with respect to ACST-2 is no. Because its just a trail of stinted verse endocaretomy There is no medical treatment only arm. So its not testing the efficacy of these procedures.
It will help to measure harm of one procedure versus another. But this is of little value without a procedurual indication in the first place. The answer of CREST-2 is not too. Because unfortunately there randomizing
average risk patients like those in ACAS. And we already know that to do a procedure on all of these people is going to be futile and harmful. There's no stroke risk stratification before recruitment. An although they are doing some sub group analysis with markers.
Are these powered sufficiently? I haven't seen that is the case so far. If you look at the CREST-2 sample size. There is approximately 85% power to detect differences in peri-procedural stroke or death or later ipsilateral stroke with endocardectomy versus stent
or stenting versus medical treatment. If the average annual event rate in the medical intervention arm is greater than 2.1 or less than .2 compared to .9 in those procedural arms. Now we know from CREST-1 that they did achieve and average annual event rate of .9 with endocardectomy
but not with stenting. The risk there was about twice as high at 1.6. And its highly likely that they will get an annual event rate in the medical intervetion arm within that range. So that means that the overall role
CREST is most likely to show that stenting causes harm and endocardrectomy knows significant difference with the respect to medical intervention on its own. In other words no procedural indication because if stenting is more harmful we won't do it. And if endocardectomy adds no benefit we won't do it.
The same response for ESCT-2 because like CREST-2 its randomizing average surgical risk patients. No stroke risk stratification before recruitment. Not pre-powered for high stroke risk markers that we have been talking about. ACTRIS has the best chance of finding a procedural role
in asystematic carotid stenosis because they are doing stroke restratification before recruitment. Using embolize detection, errands of impaired to cerebral vascular reserve, errands of intraplaque hemorrhage on MRI
and errands of rapid and severe stenosis progression. But the outcome of this will depend on how the data is analyzed. For example these markers be tested separtly or combined. We already know that markers individually lack specificity. And at the moment the trail does appear to underpowered
with the total of only 700 total patients expected. Mean while TCAR is being accessed only in registries plus or minus input in CREST-2. So it appears we have absent or underpowered comparisons with current medical intervention.
So a clinical indication is unlikely to be established with the current research that is planned. Actually procedural trails are premature when it comes to asystametic cartonid stenosis. What we should be doing is first defining current optimal medical treatment.
Measuring its impact. Risk stratifying people. Using procedural trials only if we find a sub group with an ipsilateral stroke rate that is high enough despite current optimal medical treatment. So if anyone would like to help on this path.
Please speak to me afterwards.
- Thank you Professor Veith. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present on behalf of my chief the results of the IRONGUARD 2 study. A study on the use of the C-Guard mesh covered stent in carotid artery stenting. The IRONGUARD 1 study performed in Italy,
enrolled 200 patients to the technical success of 100%. No major cardiovascular event. Those good results were maintained at one year followup, because we had no major neurologic adverse event, no stent thrombosis, and no external carotid occlusion. This is why we decided to continue to collect data
on this experience on the use of C-Guard stent in a new registry called the IRONGUARD 2. And up to August 2018, we recruited 342 patients in 15 Italian centers. Demographic of patients were a common demographic of at-risk carotid patients.
And 50 out of 342 patients were symptomatic, with 36 carotid with TIA and 14 with minor stroke. Stenosis percentage mean was 84%, and the high-risk carotid plaque composition was observed in 28% of patients, and respectively, the majority of patients presented
this homogenous composition. All aortic arch morphologies were enrolled into the study, as you can see here. And one third of enrolled patients presented significant supra-aortic vessel tortuosity. So this was no commerce registry.
Almost in all cases a transfemoral approach was chosen, while also brachial and transcervical approach were reported. And the Embolic Protection Device was used in 99.7% of patients, with a proximal occlusion device in 50 patients.
Pre-dilatation was used in 89 patients, and looking at results at 24 hours we reported five TIAs and one minor stroke, with a combined incidence rate of 1.75%. We had no myocardial infection, and no death. But we had two external carotid occlusion.
At one month, we had data available on 255 patients, with two additional neurological events, one more TIA and one more minor stroke, but we had no stent thrombosis. At one month, the cumulative results rate were a minor stroke rate of 0.58%,
and the TIA rate of 1.72%, with a cumulative neurological event rate of 2.33%. At one year, results were available on 57 patients, with one new major event, it was a myocardial infarction. And unfortunately, we had two deaths, one from suicide. To conclude, this is an ongoing trial with ongoing analysis,
and so we are still recruiting patients. I want to thank on behalf of my chief all the collaborators of this registry. I want to invite you to join us next May in Rome, thank you.
- Thank you. Historically, common femoral endarterectomy is a safe procedure. In this quick publication that we did several years ago, showed a 1.5% 30 day mortality rate. Morbidity included 6.3% superficial surgical site infection.
Other major morbidity was pretty low. High-risk patients we identified as those that were functionally dependent, dyspnea, obesity, steroid use, and diabetes. A study from Massachusetts General Hospital their experience showed 100% technical success.
Length of stay was three days. Primary patency of five years at 91% and assisted primary patency at five years 100%. Very little perioperative morbidity and mortality. As you know, open treatment has been the standard of care
over time the goal standard for a common femoral disease, traditionally it's been thought of as a no stent zone. However, there are increased interventions of the common femoral and deep femoral arteries. This is a picture that shows inflection point there.
Why people are concerned about placing stents there. Here's a picture of atherectomy. Irritational atherectomy, the common femoral artery. Here's another image example of a rotational atherectomy, of the common femoral artery.
And here's an image of a stent there, going across the stent there. This is a case I had of potential option for stenting the common femoral artery large (mumbles) of the hematoma from the cardiologist. It was easily fixed
with a 2.5 length BioBond. Which I thought would have very little deformability. (mumbles) was so short in the area there. This is another example of a complete blow out of the common femoral artery. Something that was much better
treated with a stent that I thought over here. What's the data on the stenting of the endovascular of the common femoral arteries interventions? So, there mostly small single centers. What is the retrospective view of 40 cases?
That shows a restenosis rate of 19.5% at 12 months. Revascularization 14.1 % at 12 months. Another one by Dr. Mehta shows restenosis was observed in 20% of the patients and 10% underwent open revision. A case from Dr. Calligaro using cover stents
shows very good primary patency. We sought to use Vascular Quality Initiative to look at endovascular intervention of the common femoral artery. As you can see here, we've identified a thousand patients that have common femoral interventions, with or without,
deep femoral artery interventions. Indications were mostly for claudication. Interventions include three-quarters having angioplasty, 35% having a stent, and 20% almost having atherectomy. Overall technical success was high, a 91%.
Thirty day mortality was exactly the same as in this clip data for open repair 1.6%. Complications were mostly access site hematoma with a low amount distal embolization had previously reported. Single center was up to 4%.
Overall, our freedom for patency or loss or death was 83% at one year. Predicted mostly by tissue loss and case urgency. Re-intervention free survival was 85% at one year, which does notably include stent as independent risk factor for this.
Amputation free survival was 93% at one year, which factors here, but also stent was predictive of amputation. Overall, we concluded that patency is lower than historical common femoral interventions. Mortality was pretty much exactly the same
that has been reported previously. And long term analysis is needed to access durability. There's also a study from France looking at randomizing stenting versus open repair of the common femoral artery. And who needs to get through it quickly?
More or less it showed no difference in outcomes. No different in AVIs. Higher morbidity in the open group most (mumbles) superficial surgical wound infections and (mumbles). The one thing that has hit in the text of the article
a group of mostly (mumbles) was one patient had a major amputation despite having a patent common femoral artery stent. There's no real follow up this, no details of this, I would just caution of both this and VQI paper showing increased risk amputation with stenting.
- Thank you 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 very much. I'm going to talk on Improper and Suboptimal Antiplatelet Therapy which is probably currently the standard on most carotid angioplasty stent trials and I'm going to show you how it could potentially affect all of the results we have seen so far. I have nothing to disclose.
So introduction, based on the composite end point of stroke/death in our technical trials, they're always, in all randomized trials Endarterectomy always did marginally better than Carotid angioplasty and stenting. However, a small shift, just about a one person shift
could make carotid artery stenting better could shift the results of all these carotid stent trials. Let's just look at CREST. I think it's the gold standard for randomized trial comparing endarterectomy with stenting. You can see the combined death, streak and MI rate.
For endarterectomy, it's 6.8%, for CAS, 7.2%. For stroke, again 2.3, 4.1. Again, it's a one person shift in a direction of making stents better could actually show that stents were favorable, but comparable to it, not just inferior.
Now if you look at the data on CREST, it's very interesting that the majority of the strokes, about 80% of the strokes happened after about 24 hours. In fact, most of them happened on the third day period. So it wasn't a technical issue. You know, the biggest issue with current stenting
that we find is that we have filters, we have floor reversal. They're very worried about the time we place the stent, that we balloon, pre- and post-, but it wasn't a technical issue. Something was happening after 24 hours.
Another interesting fact that no one speaks about is if you look at the CREST data a little bit in more detail, most of the mortality associated with the stenting was actually associated with an access site bleed.
So if you could really decrease the late strokes, if you can decrease the access site bleeds, I think stents can be performed better than endarterectomies. The study design for all stent trials, there was a mandatory dual antiplatelet therapy.
Almost all patients had to be on aspirin and Plavix and on CREST, interestingly, they had to be on 75 milligrams BID for Plavix so they were all on very high dose Plavix. Now here's the interesting thing about Plavix that most people don't know.
Plavix is what is called a pro-drug. It requires to be converted to its active component by the liver for antiplatelet effect. And the particular liver enzyme that converts Plavix to its active metabolic enzyme is very variable patient to patient
and you're born that way. You're either born where you can convert its active metabolite or you can't convert it to its active metabolite and a test that's called 2C19 is actually interesting approved and covered by Medicare and here's the people
that read the black box warning for Plavix, that looked at the package insert. I just cut and paste this on the package that said for Plavix. I'm just showing you a few lines from the package insert. Now next to aspirin, it's the commonest prescribed drug
by vascular specialists, but most people probably have not looked at the package insert that says effectiveness of Plavix depends on activation by a liver enzyme called 2C19 and goes on to say that tests are available to identify to 2C19 genotype.
And then they go on to actually give you a recommendation on the package insert that says consider alternative treatment strategies in patients identified as 2C19 poor metabolizers. Now these are the people who cannot metabolize Plavix and convert them to its active metabolite.
So let's look at the actual incidents. Now we know there is resistance to, in some patients, to aspirin, but the incident is so small it doesn't make worth our time or doesn't make it worth the patient's outcome to be able to test everyone for aspirin resistance,
but look at the incidents for Plavix resistance. Again, this is just a slide explaining what does resistance mean so if you're a normal metabolizer, which we hope that most of us would be, you're going to expect advocacy from Plavix at 75 milligrams once a day.
Other hand, let's say you're a rapid or ultrarapid metabolizer. You have a much higher risk of bleeding. And then if you go to the other side where you are normal, intermediate or poor metabolizer, you're not going to convert Plavix to its active metabolite
and poor metabolizers, it's like giving a placebo. And interestingly, I'm a poor metabolizer. I got myself tested. If I ever have a cardiac interventionalist give me Plavix, they're giving me a placebo. So let's look at the actual incidents
of all these subsets in patients and see whether that's going to be an issue. So we took this from about 7,000 patients and interestingly in only about 40%, NM stands for nominal metabolizer or normal metabolizers. So only 40% get the expected efficacy of Plavix.
Let's look at just the extremes. Let's just assume people with normal metabolizers, normal intermediate and the subgroup between the ultra rapid, the normals, they're all going to respond well to Plavix. Let's just look at the extremes.
Ultra rapid and poor metabolizers. So these are the people who are going to convert Plavix to a much higher concentration of its active metabolite, but have a much higher risk of bleeding. Ultra rapid metabolizers. Poor metabolizers, Plavix doesn't work.
4%, 3%. That's not a small incidence. Now in no way am I saying that carotid stent trials itselves are totally based on Plavix resistance, but just look at the data from CREST. Let's say the patients with poor metabolizers,
that's 3%, so these people did not get Plavix. Plavix does not affect you in doses of up to 600 milligram for people with poor metabolizers. Incidents of embolic events in CREST trial for carotid stents was 4%. This happened after three days.
I believe it's possibly related to platelet debris occurring in the stent on people who did not receive a liquid anti-platelet therapy. How about the people who had the groin bleed? Remember I told you that access site bleeds were most highly predictable mortality.
If you're the ultra rapid metabolizers, that incidence was 4%. So these were the people that convert Plavix with a very high dose of active metabolite, very high risk of bleeding. Access site bleed rate,
if you look at the major/minor rates, 4.1%, very close to the ultra rapid metabolizers. So fact remains that carotid angioplasty stenting post procedure events are highly dependent on appropriate antiplatelet therapy to minimize embolic events and to decrease groin bleeds.
So in conclusion, if we just included 2C19 normal metabolizers, as was recommended by the packaging insert, so just test the people, include the people on normal metabolizers, exclude the rest, we are probably going to shift the results in favor of carotid angioplasty and stenting.
Results of all carotid angioplasty stent trials need to be questioned as a significant number of patients in the carotid angioplasty stent arm did not receive appropriate antiplatelet therapy. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak carbon dioxide angiography, which is one of my favorite topics and today I will like to talk to you about the value of CO2 angiography for abdominal and pelvic trauma and why and how to use carbon dioxide angiography with massive bleeding and when to supplement CO2 with iodinated contrast.
Disclosures, none. The value of CO2 angiography, what are the advantages perhaps? Carbon dioxide is non-allergic and non-nephrotoxic contrast agent, meaning CO2 is the only proven safe contrast in patients with a contrast allergy and the renal failure.
Carbon dioxide is very highly soluble (20 to 30 times more soluble than oxygen). It's very low viscosity, which is a very unique physical property that you can take advantage of it in doing angiography and CO2 is 1/400 iodinated contrast in viscosity.
Because of low viscosity, now we can use smaller catheter, like a micro-catheter, coaxially to the angiogram using end hole catheter. You do not need five hole catheter such as Pigtail. Also, because of low viscosity, you can detect bleeding much more efficiently.
It demonstrates to the aneurysm and arteriovenous fistula. The other interesting part of the CO2 when you inject in the vessel the CO2 basically refluxes back so you can see the more central vessel. In other words, when you inject contrast, you see only forward vessel, whereas when you inject CO2,
you do a pass with not only peripheral vessels and also see more central vessels. So basically you see the vessels around the lesions and you can use unlimited volumes of CO2 if you separate two to three minutes because CO2 is exhaled by the respirations
so basically you can inject large volumes particularly when you have long prolonged procedures, and most importantly, CO2 is very inexpensive. Where there are basically two methods that will deliver CO2. One is the plastic bag system which you basically fill up with a CO2 tank three times and then empty three times
and keep the fourth time and then you connect to the delivery system and basically closest inject for DSA. The other devices, the CO2mmander with the angio assist, which I saw in the booth outside. That's FDA approved for CO2 injections and is very convenient to use.
It's called CO2mmander. So, most of the CO2 angios can be done with end hole catheter. So basically you eliminate the need for pigtail. You can use any of these cobra catheters, shepherd hook and the Simmons.
If you look at this image in the Levitor study with vascular model, when you inject end hole catheter when the CO2 exits from the tip of catheter, it forms very homogenous bolus, displaces the blood because you're imaging the blood vessel by displacing blood with contrast is mixed with blood, therefore as CO2
travels distally it maintains the CO2 density whereas contrast dilutes and lose the densities. So we recommend end hole catheter. So that means you can do an arteriogram with end hole catheter and then do a select arteriogram. You don't need to replace the pigtail
for selective injection following your aortographies. Here's the basic techniques: Now when you do CO2 angiogram, trauma patient, abdominal/pelvic traumas, start with CO2 aortography. You'll be surprised, you'll see many of those bleeding on aortogram, and also you can repeat, if necessary,
with CO2 at the multiple different levels like, celiac, renal, or aortic bifurcation but be sure to inject below diaphragm. Do not go above diaphragm, for example, thoracic aorta coronary, and brachial, and the subclavian if you inject CO2, you'll have some serious problems.
So stay below the diaphragm as an arterial contrast. Selective injection iodinated contrast for a road map. We like to do super selective arteriogram for embolization et cetera. Then use a contrast to get anomalies. Super selective injection with iodinated contrast
before embolization if there's no bleeding then repeat with CO2 because of low viscocity and also explosion of the gas you will often see the bleeding. That makes it more comfortable before embolization. Here is a splenic trauma patient.
CO2 is injected into the aorta at the level of the celiac access. Now you see the extra vascularization from the low polar spleen, then you catheterize celiac access of the veins. You microcatheter in the distal splenic arteries
and inject the contrast. Oops, there's no bleeding. Make you very uncomfortable for embolizations. We always like to see the actual vascularization before place particle or coils. At that time you can inject CO2 and you can see
actual vascularization and make you more comfortable before embolization. You can inject CO2, the selective injection like in here in a patient with the splenic trauma. The celiac injection of CO2 shows the growth, laceration splenic with extra vascularization with the gas.
There's multiple small, little collection. We call this Starry Night by Van Gogh. That means malpighian marginal sinus with stagnation with the CO2 gives multiple globular appearance of the stars called Starry Night.
You can see the early filling of the portal vein because of disruption of the intrasplenic microvascular structures. Now you see the splenic vein. Normally, you shouldn't see splenic vein while following CO2 injections.
This is a case of the liver traumas. Because the liver is a little more anterior the celiac that is coming off of the anterior aspect of the aorta, therefore, CO2 likes to go there because of buoyancy so we take advantage of buoyancy. Now you see the rupture here in this liver
with following the aortic injections then you inject contrast in the celiac axis to get road map so you can travel through this torus anatomy for embolizations for the road map for with contrast. This patient with elaston loss
with ruptured venal arteries, massive bleeding from many renal rupture with retro peritoneal bleeding with CO2 and aortic injection and then you inject contrast into renal artery and coil embolization but I think the stent is very dangerous in a patient with elaston loss.
We want to really separate the renal artery. Then you're basically at the mercy of the bleeding. So we like a very soft coil but basically coil the entire renal arteries. That was done. - Thank you very much.
- Time is over already? - Yeah. - Oh, OK. Let's finish up. Arteriogram and we inject CO2 contrast twice. Here's the final conclusions.
CO2 is a valuable imaging modality for abdominal and pelvic trauma. Start with CO2 aortography, if indicated. Repeat injections at multiple levels below diaphragm and selective injection road map with contrast. The last advice fo
t air contamination during the CO2 angiograms. Thank you.
- I'd like to share with you our experience using tools to improve outcomes. These are my disclosures. So first of all we need to define the anatomy well using CTA and MRA and with using multiple reformats and 3D reconstructions. So then we can use 3D fusion with a DSA or with a flouro
or in this case as I showed in my presentation before you can use a DSA fused with a CT phase, they were required before. And also you can use the Integrated Registration like this, when you can use very helpful for the RF wire
because you can see where the RF wire starts and the snare ends. We can also use this for the arterial system. I can see a high grade stenosis in the Common iliac and you can use the 3D to define for your 3D roadmapping you can use on the table,
or you can use two methods to define the artery. Usually you can use the yellow outline to define the anatomy or the green to define the center. And then it's a simple case, 50 minutes, 50 minutes of ccs of contrast,
very simple, straightforward. Another everybody knows about the you know we can use a small amount of contrast to define the whole anatomy of one leg. However one thing that is relatively new is to use a 3D
in order to map, to show you the way out so you can do in this case here multiple segmental synosis, the drug-eluting-balloon angioplasty using the 3D roadmap as a reference. Also about this case using radial fre--
radial access to peripheral. Using a fusion of image you can see the outline of the artery. You can see where the high grade stenosis is with a minimum amount of contrast. You only use contrast when you are about
to do your angiogram or your angioplasty and after. And that but all everything else you use only the guide wires and cathers are advanced only used in image guidance without any contrast at all. We also been doing as I showed before the simultaneous injection.
So here I have two catheters, one coming from above, one coming from below to define this intravenous occlusion. Very helpful during through the and after the 3D it can be helpful. Like in this case when you can see this orange line is where
the RF wire is going to be advanced. As you can see the breathing, during the breathing cycle the pleura is on the way of the RF wire track. Pretty dangerous stuff. So this case what we did we asked the anesthesiologist
to have the patient in respiratory breath holding inspiration. We're able to hyperextend the lungs, cross with the RF wire without any complication. So very useful. And also you can use this outline yellow lines here
to define anatomy can help you to define where you need to put the stents. Make sure you're covering everything and having better outcomes at the end of the case without overexposure of radiation. And also at the end you can use the same volt of metric
reconstruction to check where you are, to placement of the stent and if you'd covered all the lesion that you had. The Cone beam CT can be used for also for the 3D model fusion. As you can see that you can use in it with fluoro as I
mentioned before you can do the three views in order to make sure that the vessels are aligned. And those are they follow when you rotate the table. And then you can have a pretty good outcome at the end of the day at of the case. In that case that potentially could be very catastrophic
close to the Supra aortic vessels. What about this case of a very dramatic, symptomatic varicose veins. We didn't know and didn't even know where to start in this case. We're trying to find our way through here trying to
understand what we needed to do. I thought we need to recanalize this with this. Did a 3D recan-- a spin and we saw ours totally off. This is the RFY totally interior and the snare as a target was posterior in the ASGUS.
Totally different, different plans. Eventually we found where we needed to be. We fused with the CAT scan, CT phase before, found the right spot and then were able to use
Integrated registration for the careful recanalization above the strip-- interiorly from the Supraaortic vessels. As you can see that's the beginning, that's the end. And also these was important to show us where we working.
We working a very small space between the sternal and the Supraaortic vessels using the RF wire. And this the only technology would allowed us to do this type of thing. Basically we created a percutaneous in the vascular stent bypass graft.
You can you see you use a curved RF wire to be able to go back to the snare. And that once we snare out is just conventional angioplasty recanalized with covered stents and pretty good outcome. On a year and a half follow-up remarkable improvement in this patient's symptoms.
Another patient with a large graft in the large swelling thigh, maybe graft on the right thigh with associated occlusion of the iliac veins and inclusion of the IVC and occlusion of the filter. So we did here is that we fused the maps of the arterial
phase and the venous phase and then we reconstruct in a 3D model. And doing that we're able to really understand the beginning of the problem and the end of the problem above the filter and the correlation with the arteries. So as you can see,
the these was very tortuous segments. We need to cross with the RF wire close to the iliac veins and then to the External iliac artery close to the Common iliac artery. But eventually we were able to help find a track. Very successfully,
very safe and then it's just convention technique. We reconstructed with covered stents. This is predisposed, pretty good outcome. As you can see this is the CT before, that's the CT after the swelling's totally gone
and the stents are widely open. So in conclusion these techniques can help a reduction of radiation exposure, volume of contrast media, lower complication, lower procedure time.
In other words can offer higher value in patient care. Thank you.
- 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.
- [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.
- 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 (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- So thank you for the kind introduction and thanks for professor Viet for the invitation again this year. So, if we talk about applicability, of course you have to check the eye views from this device and you're limited by few instructions for users. They changed the lengths between the target vessel
and the orifice and the branch, with less than 50 mm , they used to be less than 25 mm. Also keep in mind, that you need to have a distance of more than 67 mm between your renal artery cuff and your iliac bifurcation. The good thing about branch endografts
is that if you have renal artery which comes ... or its orifice at the same level of the SME, you can just advance and put your endorafts a bit more proximally, of course risking more coverage of your aorta and eventually risking high rate
of paraplegia or spinal cord ischemia. Also if your renal artery on one side or if your target vessel is much lower with longer bridging stent grafts which are now available like the VBX: 79 mm or combination of bridging stem grafts, this can be treated as well.
Proximally, we have short extensions like the TBE which only allows 77 or 81 mm. This can also expand its applicability of this device. The suitability has already been proven in.. or assessed by Gaspar and vistas and it came around plus 60%
of all patients with aortic aneurysms. Majority of them are limitations where the previous EVAR or open AAA repair or the narrow diameter reno visceral segment in case of diabetes sections. So, what about the safety of the T-branch device?
We performed an observational study Mister, Hamburg and Milner group and I can present you here the short term results. We looked at 80 patients in prospective or retro prospective manner with the t-branch as instructed for use.
Majority were aneurysms with the type two or type four Crawford tracheal aneurysms, also a few with symptomatic or ruptured cases. Patient characteristics of course, we have the same of the usual high risk cardiovascular profiling,
this group of patients that has been treated. Majority was performed percutaneously in 55%. The procedure time shows us that there is still a learning curve. I think nowadays we can perform this under 200 minutes. What is the outcome?
We have one patient who died post operative day 30, after experiencing multiorgan failure. These are 30 day results. No rupture or conversion to open surgery. We had one patient with cardiac ischemia, seven patients with spinal cord ischemia
and one patient has early branch occlusion. There was both renal arteries were occluded, he had an unknown heparin induced thrombocytopenia and was treated with endovascular thrombectomy and successfully treated as well. Secondary interventions within 30 days were in one patient
stent placement due to an uncovered celiac stent stenosis In one patient there was a proximal type one endoleak with a proximal extension. One patient who had paraplegia or paraparesis, he had a stenosis of his internal iliac artery which stem was stented successfully,
and the paraparesis resolved later on in this patient. And of course the patient I just mentioned before, with his left and right renal artery occlusion. So to conclude, the T-branch has wide applicability as we've seen also before, up to 80% especially with adjuvant procedures.
Longer, more flexible bridging stent grafts will expand the use of this device. Also the TBE proximal extensions allows aortic treatment of diameters for more than 30 mm and I think the limitations are still the diameter at reno visceral segment,
previous EVAR or open AAA repair and having of course multiple visceral arteries. Thank you.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- Thank you very much. So this is more or less a teaser. The outcome data will not be presented until next month. It's undergoing final analysis. So, the Vici Stent was the stent in the VIRTUS Trial. Self-expanding, Nitinol stent,
12, 14, and 16 in diameter, in three different lengths, and that's what was in the trial. It is a closed-cell stent, despite the fact that it's closed-cell, the flexibility is not as compromised. The deployment can be done from the distal end
or the proximal end for those who have any interest, if you're coming from the jugular or not in the direction of flow, or for whatever reason you want to deploy it from this end versus that end, those are possible in terms of the system. The trial design is not that different than the other three
now the differences, there are minor differences between the four trials that three completed, one soon to be complete, the definitions of the endpoints in terms of patency and major adverse events were very similar. The trial design as we talked about, the only thing
that is different in this study were the imaging requirements. Every patient got a venogram, an IVUS, and duplex at the insertion and it was required at the completion in one year also, the endpoint was venographic, and those who actually did get venograms,
they had the IVUS as well, so this is the only prospective study that will have that correlation of three different imagings before, after, and at follow-up. Classification, everybody's aware, PTS severity, everybody's aware, the endpoints, again as we talked about, are very similar to the others.
The primary patency in 12 months was define this freedom from occlusion by thrombosis or re-intervention. And the safety endpoints, again, very similar to everybody else. The baseline patient characteristics, this is the pivotal, as per design, there were 170 in the pivotal
and 30 in the feasibility study. The final outcome will be all mixed in, obviously. And this is the distribution of the patients. The important thing here is the severity of patients in this study. By design, all acute thrombotic patients, acute DVT patients
were excluded, so anybody who had history of DVT within three months were excluded in this patient. Therefore the patients were all either post-thrombotic, meaning true chronic rather than putting the acute patients in the post-thrombotic segment. And only 25% were Neville's.
That becomes important, so if you look at the four studies instead of an overview of the four, there were differences in those in terms on inclusion/exclusion criteria, although definitions were similar, and the main difference was the inclusion of the chronics, mostly chronics, in the VIRTUS study, the others allowed acute inclusion also.
Now in terms of definition of primary patency and comparison to the historical controls, there were minor differences in these trials in terms of what that historical control meant. However, the differences were only a few percentages. I just want to remind everyone to something we've always known
that the chronic post-thrombotics or chronic occlusions really do the worst, as opposed to Neville's and the acute thrombotics and this study, 25% were here, 75% were down here, these patients were not allowed. So when the results are known, and out, and analyzed it's important not to put them in terms of percentage
for the entire cohort, all trials need to report all of these three categories separately. So in conclusion venous anatomy and disease requires obviously dedicated stent. The VIRTUS feasibility included 30 with 170 patients in the pivotal cohort, the 12 months data will be available
in about a month, 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.
- [Professor Veith] Laura, Welcome. - Thank you Professor Veith, thank you to everybody and good morning. It's a great pleasure, to have the possibility to present the result of this randomized trial we performed near Rome in Italy.
Risk of CAS-related embolism was maximal during the first phases of the second procedure, the filter positioning predilation and deployment and post dilatation. But it continues over time with nithinol expansion so that we have an interaction between the stent struts
and the plaque that can last up to 28 or 30 days that is the so called plaque healing period. This is why over time different technique and devices have been developed in order to keep to a minimum the rate of perioperative neurological embolization.
This is why we have, nowadays, membrane-covered stent or mesh-covered stent. But a question we have to answer, in our days are, "are mesh covered stents able to capture every kind of embolism?" Even the off-table one.
This is why they have been designed. That is to say the embolism that occurs after the patient has left the operating room. This is why we started this randomized trial with the aim of comparing the rate of off-table subclinical neurological events
in two groups of patients submitted to CAS with CGuard or WALLSTENT and distal embolic protection device in all of them. We enrolled patient affected by asymptomatic carotid stenosis more than 70% and no previous brain ischemic lesion
detected at preoperative DW-MRI. The primary outcome was the rate of perioperative up to 72 hour post peri operatively in neurological ischemic events detected by DW-MRI in the two CAS group. And secondary outcome measure were the rise of (mumbles)
neuro biomarker as one on the better protein in NSE and the variation in post procedural mini mental state examination test in MoCA test score We enrolled 29 patients for each treatment group. The study protocol was composed by a preoperative DW-MRI and neuro psychometrics test assessment
and the assessment of blood levels of this two neuro biomarkers. Then, after the CAS procedure, we performed an immediate postoperative DW-MRI, we collect this sample up to 48 hours post operatively to assess the level of the neuro biomarkers
then assess 72 hour postoperatively we perform a new DW-MRI and a new assessment of neuro psychometric tests. 58 patient were randomized 29 per group. And we found one minor stroke in the CGuard group together with eight clinically silent lesion detected at 72 hours DW-MRI.
Seven patient presented in WALLSTENT group silent 72 DW-MRI lesion were no difference between the two groups but interestingly two patients presented immediately postoperatively DW-MRI lesions. Those lesion were no more detectable at 72 hours
this give doubts to what we are going to see with DW-MRI. When analyzing the side of the lesion, we found four ipsilateral lesion in the CGuard patient and four contra or bilateral lesion in this group while four ipsilateral were encountered in WALLSTENT patient and three contra or bilateral lesion
in the WALLSTENT group were no difference between the two groups. And as for the diameter of the lesion, there were incomparable in the two groups but more than five lesion were found in five CGuard patients, three WALLSTENT patient
with no significant difference within the two groups. A rise doubled of S1 of the better protein was observed at 48 hours in 24 patients, 12 of them presenting new DW-MRI lesions. And this was statistically significant when comparing the 48 level with the bars of one.
When comparing results between the two groups for the tests, we found for pre and post for MMSE and MoCA test no significant difference even if WALLSTENT patients presented better MoCA test post operatively and no significant difference for the postoperative score for both the neuro psychometric test between the two groups.
But when splitting patients not according to the treatment group but according to the presence of more or less than 5 lesion at DW-MRI, we found a significant difference in the postoperative score for both MMSE and MoCA test between both group pf patients.
To conclude, WALLSTENT and CGuard stent showed that not significant differences in micro embolism rate or micro emboli number at 72 postoperative hours DW-MRI, in our experience. 72 hour DW-MMRI lesion were associated to an increase in neuro biomarkers
and more than five lesion were significantly associated to a decrease in neuro psychometric postoperative score in both stent groups. But a not negligible number of bilateral or contralateral lesions were detected in both stent groups This is very important.
This is why, probably, (mumbles) are right when they show us what really happened into the arch when we perform a transfer more CAS and this is why, maybe,
the future can be to completely avoid the arch. I thank you for your attention.
- These are my disclosures. So central venous access is frequently employed throughout the world for a variety of purposes. These catheters range anywhere between seven and 11 French sheaths. And it's recognized, even in the best case scenario, that there are iatrogenic arterial injuries
that can occur, ranging between three to 5%. And even a smaller proportion of patients will present after complications from access with either a pseudoaneurysm, fistula formation, dissection, or distal embolization. In thinking about these, as you see these as consultations
on your service, our thoughts are to think about it in four primary things. Number one is the anatomic location, and I think imaging is very helpful. This is a vas cath in the carotid artery. The second is th
how long the device has been dwelling in the carotid or the subclavian circulation. Assessment for thrombus around the catheter, and then obviously the size of the hole and the size of the catheter.
Several years ago we undertook a retrospective review and looked at this, and we looked at all carotid, subclavian, and innominate iatrogenic injuries, and we excluded all the injuries that were treated, that were manifest early and treated with just manual compression.
It's a small cohort of patients, we had 12 cases. Eight were treated with a variety of endovascular techniques and four were treated with open surgery. So, to illustrate our approach, I thought what I would do is just show you four cases on how we treated some of these types of problems.
The first one is a 75 year-old gentleman who's three days status post a coronary bypass graft with a LIMA graft to his LAD. He had a cordis catheter in his chest on the left side, which was discovered to be in the left subclavian artery as opposed to the vein.
So this nine French sheath, this is the imaging showing where the entry site is, just underneath the clavicle. You can see the vertebral and the IMA are both patent. And this is an angiogram from a catheter with which was placed in the femoral artery at the time that we were going to take care of this
with a four French catheter. For this case, we had duel access, so we had access from the groin with a sheath and a wire in place in case we needed to treat this from below. Then from above, we rewired the cordis catheter,
placed a suture-mediated closure device, sutured it down, left the wire in place, and shot this angiogram, which you can see very clearly has now taken care of the bleeding site. There's some pinching here after the wire was removed,
this abated without any difficulty. Second case is a 26 year-old woman with a diagnosis of vascular EDS. She presented to the operating room for a small bowel obstruction. Anesthesia has tried to attempt to put a central venous
catheter access in there. There unfortunately was an injury to the right subclavian vein. After she recovered from her operation, on cross sectional imaging you can see that she has this large pseudoaneurysm
coming from the subclavian artery on this axial cut and also on the sagittal view. Because she's a vascular EDS patient, we did this open brachial approach. We placed a stent graft across the area of injury to exclude the aneurism.
And you can see that there's still some filling in this region here. And it appeared to be coming from the internal mammary artery. We gave her a few days, it still was patent. Cross-sectional imaging confirmed this,
and so this was eventually treated with thoracoscopic clipping and resolved flow into the aneurism. The next case is a little bit more complicated. This is an 80 year-old woman with polycythemia vera who had a plasmapheresis catheter,
nine French sheath placed on the left subclavian artery which was diagnosed five days post procedure when she presented with a posterior circulation stroke. As you can see on the imaging, her vertebral's open, her mammary's open, she has this catheter in the significant clot
in this region. To manage this, again, we did duel access. So right femoral approach, left brachial approach. We placed the filter element in the vertebral artery. Balloon occlusion of the subclavian, and then a stent graft coverage of the area
and took the plasmapheresis catheter out and then suction embolectomy. And then the last case is a 47 year-old woman who had an attempted right subclavian vein access and it was known that she had a pulsatile mass in the supraclavicular fossa.
Was noted to have a 3cm subclavian artery pseudoaneurysm. Very broad base, short neck, and we elected to treat this with open surgical technique. So I think as you see these consults, the things to factor in to your management decision are: number one, the location.
Number two, the complication of whether it's thrombus, pseudoaneurysm, or fistula. It's very important to identify whether there is pericatheter thrombus. There's a variety of techniques available for treatment, ranging from manual compression,
endovascular techniques, and open repair. I think the primary point here is the prevention with ultrasound guidance is very important when placing these catheters. Thank you. (clapping)
- 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.
- 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.
- Thanks Frank, for inviting me again. We know very well that CAS and CEA are, and will remain, emboli-generating. This is an algorithm in which we can see the microembolic profile during unprotected carotid stenting. But I am a vascular surgeon, oriented to an endovascular approach, and I believe strongly
in carotid artery stenting renaissance, when we use tips, tricks and new devices. So the real difference between the two procedures are between 0 and 30 days, and this is demonstrated by the result of 10 year by CREST and by ACT 1. So, but the procedure must be protected.
Because as the Kastrup metanalisys said, the unprotected procedure are three, four-fold increase for cerebral protection embolic. And these are the recommendations from European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association, regarding
the use of embolic protection devices. But what kind of embolic protection device? We know very well that the cerebral distal protection have some strengths and some weaknesses. And the same is for the cerebral proximal protection with the strengths and weaknesses.
So, but this is rarely used, both in the rest of Europe and in Italy. But what about dissent? We are four studies with only prospective, including a population cohort larger than 100 patients. From Italy, from Germany, from Piotr Michalik,
from Poland, again from Italy. As these are the results that are near with the rod centered stent, with very satisfactory results. With very low rate of... This is the CLEAR-ROAD study, with very low rate of complication.
This is a total of 556 patients who underwent stenting with the new generation of stent. This is the incidence of adverse events at 30 days. So, how we can apply the benefit to our procedures with OCT? And OCT demonstrated the safety of new stent design. And why I use OCT in carotids?
With two main issues. A high definition of carotid plaque, and the correct interaction between plaque and stent. With the high definition of carotid dark in order to identify the plaque type. The degree and area of stenosis,
the presence of ulceration, and the thrombus. I study the interaction between plaque and stent. In order to study the stent apposition, the stent malapposition, the fibrous cap rupture, and the plaque micro-prolaps. So this data I published last year on
EuroIntervention, with the conclusion that in relation to the slice-based analysis, we have the correct comparison with conventional stents, and the incidence of plaque prolapse was absolutely lower. So in conclusion, why I strongly believe in a reinvigoration of carotid stenting?
For the use of better embolic protection device. For the use of newer mesh covered stents, and definitively, OCT proves it as shown. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you, chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I've not this conflict of interest on this topic. So, discussion about double-layer stent has been mainly focused about the incidence of new lesions, chemical lesions after the stenting, and because there are still some issue
about the plaque prolapse, this has still has been reduced in a comparison to conventional stent that's still present. We started our study two years ago to evaluate on two different set of population of a patient who underwent stent, stenting,
to see if there is any different between the result of two stents, Cguard from Inspire, and Roadsaver from Terumo in term of ischemic lesion and if there is a relationship between the activity of the plaque evaluated with the MRI
and new ischemic lesion after the procedure. So, the population was aware of similar what we found, and that there's no difference between the two stent we have had, and new ischemic lesions is, there's a 38%, for a total amount of 34 lesions,
and ipsilateral in 82% of cases. The most part of the lesion appeared at the 24 hours, for the 88.2% of cases, while only the 12% of cases, we have a control at our lesion. According to the DWI, we have seen that
the DWI of the plaque is positive, or there is an activity of the plaque. There's a higher risk of embolization with a high likelihood or a risk of 6.25%. But, in the end, what we learned in the beginning, what there have known,
there's no difference in the treatment of the carotid stenosis with this device, and the plaque activity, when positive at the DWI MR, is a predictive for a higher risk of new ischemic lesions at 24 hours. But, what we are still missing in terms of information,
where something about the patency of the stents at mid-term follow-up, and the destiny of external carotid artery at mid-term follow-up. Alright, we have to say we have an occlusion transitory, occlusion of the semi-carotid artery
immediately after the deployment of the Terumo stent. The ECA recovery completely. But in, what we want to check, what could happen, following the patient in the next year. So, we perform a duplicate ultrasound, at six, at 12, and 24 months after the procedure,
in order to re-evaluate the in-stent restenosis and then, if there was a new external carotid artery stenosis or occlusion. We have made this evaluation according to the criteria of grading of carotid in-stent restenosis proposed on Stroke by professors attache group.
And what we found that we are an incidence of in-stent restenosis of 10%, of five on 50 patient, one at six month and four at one year. And we are 4% of external carotid artery new stenosis. All in two patient, only in the Roadsaver group.
We are three in-stent restenosis for Roadsaver, two in-stent restenosis for Cguard, and external new stenosis only in the Roadsaver group. And this is a case of Roadsaver stent in-stent restenosis of 60% at one year. Two year follow-up,
so we compare what's happening for Cguard and Roadsaver. We see that no relation have been found with the plaque activity or the device. If we check our result, even if this is a small series, we both reported in the literature for the conventional stent,
we've seen that in our personal series, with the 10% of in-stent restenosis, that it's consistent with what's reported for conventional CAS. And the same we found when we compared our result with the result reported for CAS with conventional stent.
So in our personal series, we had not external carotid artery occlusion. We have 4% instance, and for stenosis while with conventional CAS, occlusion of external carotid artery appear in 3.8% of cases.
So, what can we add to our experience now in the incidence, if, I'm sorry, if confirmed by larger count of patient and longer study? We can say that the incidence of in-stent restenosis for this new double-layer stent and the stenosis on the external carotid artery,
if not the different for all, with what reported for conventional stent. Thank you.
- Thanks Bill and I thank Dr. Veith and the organizers of the session for the invitation to speak on histology of in-stent stenosis. These are my disclosures. Question, why bother with biopsy? It's kind of a hassle. What I want to do is present at first
before I show some of our classification of this in data, is start with this case where the biopsy becomes relevant in managing the patient. This is a 41 year old woman who was referred to us after symptom recurrence two months following left iliac vein stenting for post-thrombotic syndrome.
We performed a venogram and you can see this overlapping nitinol stents extending from the..., close to the Iliocaval Confluence down into Common Femoral and perhaps Deep Femoral vein. You can see on the venogram, that it is large displacement of the contrast column
from the edge of the stent on both sides. So we would call this sort of diffuse severe in-stent stenosis. We biopsy this material, you can see it's quite cellular. And in the classification, Doctor Gordon, our pathologist, applies to all these.
Consisted of fresh thrombus, about 15% of the sample, organizing thrombus about zero percent, old thrombus, which is basically a cellular fibrin, zero percent and diffuse intimal thickening - 85%. And you can see there is some evidence of a vascularisation here, as well as some hemosiderin deposit,
which, sort of, implies a red blood cell thrombus, histology or ancestry of this tissue. So, because the biopsy was grossly and histolo..., primarily grossly, we didn't have the histology to time, we judged that thrombolysis had little to offer this patient The stents were angioplastied
and re-lined with Wallstents this time. So, this is the AP view, showing two layers of stents. You can see the original nitinol stent on the outside, and a Wallstent extending from here. Followed venogram, venogram at the end of the procedure, shows that this displacement, and this is the maximal
amount we could inflate the Wallstent, following placement through this in-stent stenosis. And this is, you know, would be nice to have a biological or drug solution for this kind of in-stent stenosis. We brought her back about four months later, usually I bring them back at six months,
but because of the in-stent stenosis and suspecting something going on, we brought her back four months later, and here you can see that the gap between the nitinol stent and the outside the wall stent here. Now, in the contrast column, you can see that again, the contrast column is displaced
from the edge of the Wallstent, so we have recurrent in-stent stenosis here. The gross appearance of this clot was red, red-black, which suggests recent thrombus despite anticoagulation and the platelet. And, sure enough, the biopsy of fresh thrombus was 20%,
organizing thrombus-75%. Again, the old thrombus, zero percent, and, this time, diffuse intimal thickening of five percent. This closeup of some of that showing the cells, sort of invading this thrombus and starting organization. So, medical compliance and outflow in this patient into IVC
seemed acceptable, so we proceeded to doing ascending venogram to see what the outflow is like and to see, if she was an atomic candidate for recanalization. You can see these post-thrombotic changes in the popliteal vein, occlusion of the femoral vein.
You can see great stuffiness approaching these overlapping stents, but then you can see that the superficial system has been sequestered from the deep system, and now the superficial system is draining across midline. So, we planned to bring her back for recanalization.
So biopsy one with diffuse intimal thickening was used to forego thrombolysis and proceed with PTA and lining. Biopsy two was used to justify the ascending venogram. We find biopsy as a useful tool, making practical decisions. And Doctor Gordon at our place has been classifying these
biopsies in therms of: Fresh Thrombus, Organizing Thrombus, Old Thrombus and Diffuse Intimal thickening. These are panels on the side showing the samples of each of these classifications and timelines. Here is a timeline of ...
Organizing Thrombus here. To see it's pretty uniform series of followup period For Diffuse Intimal thickening, beginning shortly after the procedure, You won't see very much at all, increases with time. So, Fresh Thrombus appears to be
most prevalent in early days. Organizing Thrombus can be seen at early time points sample, as well as throughout the in-stent stenosis. Old Thrombus, which is a sort of a mystery to me why one pathway would be Old Thrombus and the other Diffuse Intimal thickening.
We have to work that out, I hope. Calcification is generally a very late feature in this process. Thank you very much.
- (speaks French) liver surgeon I perform hepatobiliary surgery and liver transplantation. Maybe I don't belong here, I so probably more rested than anybody in the room here. But today I will present about liver surgery and hepatectomy. I work at The Royal Free where I have the honor and pleasure to have seen Krassi. We are in the
little island in the North Sea. There is many things going wrong there including Brexit but, the guys uh, we have a major advantage. The NHS favors centralization. Centralization look there: London is bigger than New York Uh, eight million, 50 million greater London
and we drain about six millions of people with our HPB center. In the center we perform about 2,000 operations, of major surgery. In five years, half of them are liver surgery. And most of them have uh, benign, malignant tumor. A very small percentage have benign tumor.
I count here for complications uh, and mortality look there, 3.1% of only the malignant because the benign are young people and we perform a different strategy, they have no mortality. Today Hepatic Hemangioma, look there it is uh, 1898 is a key year. Not only the first description
of the lady that died after bleeding out in an autopsy but also, Hermann Pfannenstiel uh, Professor Pfannenstiel. I will introduce you to him. He described the first operation. Now, we're talking of congenital malformations, they uh, lesions occur in the liver and they may grow,
but only 20% they grow. They have a chaotic network of vessels and they have fibrotic, fibrotic development within it. I introduce you Hermann Pfannenstiel, he was a gynecologist, famous, famous, important incision that we still use today.
Remember him, we'll talk to him later. Microscopically, the microscopic is our well-circumscribed lesion, they're compressible. Important you see down there that they compress the liver that is normal close to it. This has an implication because if you operate,
you fill find a blood duct or a vessel and it will bleed or leak by. Microscopically, they are ectatic blood vessels and they are fed by arteries. This is also an important point, for therapy. Separated by fibrous septa, this is also important
because they become harder and they become bigger. And they have distorted blood vessels. They're more frequent uh, benign tumor. Prevalence up to 7%, they have non-neoplastic this must be clear, they are non-cancer. The proliferation of endothelial cells, women
have more and particularly pregnant women, more pregnancy or contraceptive. We divide them in cavernous and capillary and we'll have a word on that. Symptomatic being half of the cases, multiple in 10%, they rarely bleed and they rarely rupture.
Capillary Hemangiomas cells small, I show you an MRI here. The differential with HCC liver cancer is most important. They both are theorized but they continue to appear on late face. They are asymptomatic please, do not touch them, they do no harm.
And so we will not speak of them. We speak only of the cavernous hemangioma. And here, the cavernous hemangioma bleeds Oh my God, no, it's not true. There are 83 reports of bleeding since the report of Hermann Pfannenstiel. Uh, 97 cases, adenomas bleed more frequently.
Frequently, in the past they were confused. Hemangioma and adenoma, adenoma does bleed. There are only true cases, 46 in the literature. Size is not important and they are very rare in elderly people.
This is what we see when they are giant cavernous hemangiomas, they're serious, they are rather easy to diagnose. Diagnostic criteria, uh, look up typical for uh, cavernous hemangioma. How do you point here? Yep, you stop. If you then see that you have
an atypical hemangioma, you jump over to an MRI. MRI is too nowadays, diagnostic and uh, the important thing is you stop. Once you have the diagnosis with MRI, you stop, do nothing yet, do not follow, bye-bye. Treatment modalities surgery: Selective TAE, Radiotherapy, Medication: two classes,
Propranolol, to decrease the hyper circulation. Bevacizumab as a class of drugs of inhibitors of inferior growths and endories, eventually are cold. This is seminal paper, about 35 years ago "Do not treat asymptomatic patients." This is a key: do not bother with hemangioma.
If you do have the algorithm, you look at complaints that can present incidentally when they have complained, not complained, no treatment of abdominal pain. Unrelated to no treatment, we have to eventually make sure that the pain is not related to the cavernous hemangioma. If there is other futures
like compression giant, you can do surgery. If you have a doubt in diagnosis, today rare with MRI, then you can perform a biopsy. The surgical indication then remain progress, severe, disabling symptoms. Diagnostic uncertainty nowadays not the case, with MRI.
Consumptive coagulopathy or Kasabach-Merritt syndrome is a serious, we will see when you perform human transplants. Spontaneous rupture with bleeding as an emergency. Rapid growth in 25%. This is a paper that shows that the size of the cavernous hemangioma is here,
and you can see that operation has been performed for larger size, however, look that even in non-symptomatic or partially asymptomatic patients, you can reach sizes up to 15 centimeters. And this a review of the literature from a Chinese group where they revised a thousand to a hundred cases,
no mortality in the series and enucleation versus the anatomic resection is better. Less complications, less blood less, less time of surgery, and less hospital stay. So please, in this case of surgery, we do enucleation. I was asked by my society the HPBA to speak
about transplantation for liver tumor. You can that an indication is unresectable disease, severe symptoms and mass occupying effects. Pre-cancerous behavior is not for hemangioma only for adenoma differential diagnosis with HCC. And you have to be attentive that you avoid
liver insufficiency during your resection. So, in conclusion, for benign lesions, hemangioma technically is the only indication. And now the systematic review that shows around several emothing United States UNOS and the ELTR Several, several benign tumors but if you break down
for type of tumors you see that most of them are Polycystic disease or partly cavernous hemangioma are very low. 77 in Europe, out of 97,000 operation of transplantation. So, let's get an old paper. The pioneer of transplantation again, extremely low,
one out of 3,200. An extremely low percentage. It's my personal experience I was working at Essen, Germany. Almost a thousand transplants we performed. Unfortunately most of them I did and we never transplanted one hemangioma, my experience for transplantation is zero because it should not be done.
So, my advice for hemangioma. Biopsy not advised, see a liver surgeon in a serious center, diagnosis is done my MRI, observe doubt symptoms and observe. Let the patient beg you for surgery, if significant increase in size and symptoms, we can do surgery. Embolization is possible.
Sometimes it's harmful. The role of the surgeon is to confirm the diagnosis, differentiate it from cancer, exclude causes of other symptoms and avoid unnecessary surgery that's the main thing. Surgery for severe symptoms of Kasabach-Merritt. Only for complicated symptomatic lesions, or where the
diagnosis is uncertain. Ladies and gentleman, I will conclude with a couple of questions. If you have a daughter or son with a liver tumor, would you go to a center or a competent surgeon or to a gynecologist. Professor Pfannenstiel for instance or another doctor. If your car has a problem,
would you go to a good mechanic once for all, or to a small shop for 20-40 times. It is a matter of experience and a matter of costs. And with this, I am ready for your questions. - [Audience Member #1] When have you personally operated on these lesions?
- [Speaker] I am. And the experience that I have in the past I seemed young but I practiced for many years. When I started 25-30 years ago, we were operating many of these because we were not so certain. Then MRI came, and MRI basically made the diagnosis so easy and straight-forward and we started observing
patients. We still do operate today, but they are very large tumors and when I do personally, I avoid the androbolization before because you have more skylotec reaction, just (grainy sound effect) to peel it away from the normal parenchymal.
This is our experience. - [Audience] Thank you. - [Speaker] Thank you very much, yes? - [Audience Member #2] Yes, one question. When you operate, and with all of the experience you have, what are the complications of
(mumbles) - [Speaker] The main, so first of all, there has been also an evolution in the type of operation we don't do anymore the resections where you have some bi-leaks. If you operate correctly, it's bleeding and one infection not one born. If you have to watch bi-leak is the one
that you have to watch and that's because the tissue is pushed away and you may miss something during the enucleation.
- Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, thank you very much for the podium. Right, my opponent Professor Hogan, has just given his statement asking you to abandon two fenestrated endovascular repairs in favor of three and four fenestrations, but this picture proves to you that during his spare time,
he's actively promoting single fenestration devices, actually. Just keep that in mind. My contention is that three and four branch fenestrated EVARs result in higher complications and higher mortality, which means that they should be avoided if at all possible.
What exactly are the critical issues that are at question here? Do four fenestrated endovascular repairs carry higher risk of complications compared to simpler devices? If they do, are the worth it? However, my opponent is also one of the world's
experts in this area. We've definitely learned quite a lot from him in the early stage of our program about 10-13 years ago. So, he usually has something sensible to say, has he got a point? My plan for this debate is to give you a very balanced view
based on multicenter data. Don't forget, the very compelling data Eric showed you are his single-center series. It is not easy to replicate his results in most other centers. I also would like to keep the debate clean.
Now, coming to the facts, four fenestrated repairs, beyond a doubt, just take more operating time than simpler devices. They're also technically one of the most challenging of aneurysm repairs that you do. They do test your center and team's experience.
Definitely in extricating oneself from intra-operator difficulties, and also, experience gives you the confidence through the operation that you will see the day through. It's also the case that the greater length of aorta is covered by stent graft fabric,
the more lumbars are taken, compromising the spinal cord blood supply further, which is a significant factor. This is a multicenter series from UK, from Terumo Aortic, their Anaconda Fenestrated platform multicenter series of their first 101 devices.
You notice that when the seals are extended to above celiac axis, which means four fenestrated devices, they had a much higher mortality compared to simpler devices. There's also the British Society of Endovascular Therapies Globalstar registry, which I run, currently has got
just over 850 patients registered, and we had data adequate for analysis in 533 patients. Being a much more spread out multicenter series, the results are worse. And you notice that three and four fenestrated devices in this pragmatic multicenter nationwide series
have got a much higher, substantially higher, death rate compared to simpler devices, which is statistically significant. In the long run, up to about four to five years, you notice that four fenestrated do carry a higher, slightly higher risk of re-intervention,
but the overall mortality is not hugely different. The numbers do dwindle. There are very few numbers up to ten years. So, it's not worth looking after 40 years of research. Paraplegia, the Globalstar registry had a total of six paraplegia occurrences reported.
Five of those are in patients who had four fenestrated devices put in. This is definitely worth remembering. It is a complication that really sinks you hard. So, in conclusion, the complexity of device should actually not be compared
without the context of anatomy. Frequently, to get an adequate and durable seal, you do need four fenestrations. However, remember, multicenter series do conclusively show that four fenestrateds are definitely more dangerous compared to the simpler of the devices.
However, this increased risk has to be compared against the perceived risk of alternative treatments such as open repair. So to conclude, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the primary aim of fenestrated repair is actually to achieve satisfactory seal zone, which I would say,
which I would say probably at least 20 millimeters of aorta, which is relatively free from calcification or thrombus. That is the bare minimum we should be looking at to get a durable seal. While that is the primary concern, and we need to incorporate as many number of fenestrations
as are technically required depending on your platform that you wish to use. The number of fenestrations themselves are, in fact, secondary and less important. However, if you are able to achieve such a good durable seal without using three or four fenestrations,
more complex devices are certainly not worth it. Thank you very much for your attention.
- 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
- Thank you. I have two talks because Dr. Gaverde, I understand, is not well, so we- - [Man] Thank you very much. - We just merged the two talks. All right, it's a little joke. For today's talk we used fusion technology
to merge two talks on fusion technology. Hopefully the rest of the talk will be a little better than that. (laughs) I think we all know from doing endovascular aortic interventions
that you can be fooled by the 2D image and here's a real life view of how that can be an issue. I don't think I need to convince anyone in this room that 3D fusion imaging is essential for complex aortic work. Studies have clearly shown it decreases radiation,
it decreases fluoro time, and decreases contrast use, and I'll just point out that these data are derived from the standard mechanical based systems. And I'll be talking about a cloud-based system that's an alternative that has some advantages. So these traditional mechanical based 3D fusion images,
as I mentioned, do have some limitations. First of all, most of them require manual registration which can be cumbersome and time consuming. Think one big issue is the hardware based tracking system that they use. So they track the table rather than the patient
and certainly, as the table moves, and you move against the table, the patient is going to move relative to the table, and those images become unreliable. And then finally, the holy grail of all 3D fusion imaging is the distortion of pre-operative anatomy
by the wires and hardware that are introduced during the course of your procedure. And one thing I'd like to discuss is the possibility that deep machine learning might lead to a solution to these issues. How does 3D fusion, image-based 3D fusion work?
Well, you start, of course with your pre-operative CT dataset and then you create digitally reconstructed radiographs, which are derived from the pre-op CTA and these are images that resemble the fluoro image. And then tracking is done based on the identification
of two or more vertebral bodies and an automated algorithm matches the most appropriate DRR to the live fluoro image. Sounds like a lot of gobbledygook but let me explain how that works. So here is the AI machine learning,
matching what it recognizes as the vertebral bodies from the pre-operative CT scan to the fluoro image. And again, you get the CT plus the fluoro and then you can see the overlay with the green. And here's another version of that or view of that.
You can see the AI machine learning, identifying the vertebral bodies and then on your right you can see the fusion image. So just, once again, the AI recognizes the bony anatomy and it's going to register the CT with the fluoro image. It tracks the patient, not the table.
And the other thing that's really important is that it recognizes the postural change that the patient undergoes between the posture during the CT scan, versus the posture on the OR table usually, or often, under general anesthesia. And here is an image of the final overlay.
And you can see the visceral and renal arteries with orange circles to identify them. You can remove those, you can remove any of those if you like. This is the workflow. First thing you do is to upload the CT scan to the cloud.
Then, when you're ready to perform the procedure, that is downloaded onto the medical grade PC that's in your OR next to your fluoro screen, and as soon as you just step on the fluoro pedal, the CYDAR overlay appears next to your, or on top of your fluoro image,
next to your regular live fluoro image. And every time you move the table, the computer learning recognizes that the images change, and in a couple of seconds, it replaces with a new overlay based on the obliquity or table position that you have. There are some additional advantages
to cloud-based technology over mechanical technology. First of all, of course, or hardware type technology. Excuse me. You can upgrade it in real time as opposed to needing intermittent hardware upgrades. Works with any fluoro equipment, including a C-arm,
so you don't have to match your 3D imaging to the brand of your fluoro imaging. And there's enhanced accuracy compared to mechanical registration systems as imaging. So what are the clinical applications that this can be utilized for?
Fluoroscopy guided endovascular procedures in the lower thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, so that includes EVAR and FEVAR, mid distal TEVAR. At present, we do need two vertebral bodies and that does limit the use in TEVAR. And then angioplasty stenting and embolization
of common iliac, proximal external and proximal internal iliac artery. Anything where you can acquire a vertebral body image. So here, just a couple of examples of some additional non EVAR/FEVAR/TEVAR applications. This is, these are some cases
of internal iliac embolization, aortoiliac occlusion crossing, standard EVAR, complex EVAR. And I think then, that the final thing that I'd like to talk about is the use with C-arm, which is think is really, extremely important.
Has the potential to make a very big difference. All of us in our larger OR suites, know that we are short on hybrid availability, and yet it's difficult to get our institutions to build us another hybrid room. But if you could use a high quality 3D fusion imaging
with a high quality C-arm, you really expand your endovascular capability within the operating room in a much less expensive way. And then if you look at another set of circumstances where people don't have a hybrid room at all, but do want to be able to offer standard EVAR
to their patients, and perhaps maybe even basic FEVAR, if there is such a thing, and we could use good quality imaging to do that in the absence of an actual hybrid room. That would be extremely valuable to be able to extend good quality care
to patients in under-served areas. So I just was mentioning that we can use this and Tara Mastracci was talking yesterday about how happy she is with her new room where she has the use of CYDAR and an excellent C-arm and she feels that she is able to essentially run two rooms,
two hybrid rooms at once, using the full hybrid room and the C-arm hybrid room. Here's just one case of Dr. Goverde's. A vascular case that he did on a mobile C-arm with aortoiliac occlusive disease and he places kissing stents
using a CYDAR EV and a C-arm. And he used five mils of iodinated contrast. So let's talk about a little bit of data. This is out of Blain Demorell and Tara Mastrachi's group. And this is use of fusion technology in EVAR. And what they found was that the use of fusion imaging
reduced air kerma and DSA runs in standard EVAR. We also looked at our experience recently in EVAR and FEVAR and we compared our results. Pre-availability of image based fusion CT and post image based fusion CT. And just to clarify,
we did have the mechanical product that Phillip's offers, but we abandoned it after using it a half dozen times. So it's really no image fusion versus image fusion to be completely fair. We excluded patients that were urgent/emergent, parallel endographs, and IBEs.
And we looked at radiation exposure, contrast use, fluoro time, and procedure time. The demographics in the two groups were identical. We saw a statistically significant decrease in radiation dose using image based fusion CT. Statistically a significant reduction in fluoro time.
A reduction in contrast volume that looks significant, but was not. I'm guessing because of numbers. And a significantly different reduction in procedure time. So, in conclusion, image based 3D fusion CT decreases radiation exposure, fluoro time,
and procedure time. It does enable 3D overlays in all X-Ray sets, including mobile C-arm, expanding our capabilities for endovascular work. And image based 3D fusion CT has the potential to reduce costs
and improve clinical outcomes. Thank you.
- Thank you, Ulrich. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith so kindly, for this invitation. These are my disclosures and my friends. I think everyone knows that the Zenith stent graft has a safe and durable results update 14 years. And I think it's also known that the Zenith stent graft
had such good shrinkage, compared to the other stent grafts. However, when we ask Japanese physicians about the image of Zenith stent graft, we always think of the demo version. This is because we had the original Zenith in for a long time. It was associated with frequent limb occlusion due to
the kinking of Z stent. That's why the Spiral Z stent graft came out with the helical configuration. When you compare the inner lumen of the stent graft, it's smooth, it doesn't have kink. However, when we look at the evidence, we don't see much positive studies in literature.
The only study we found was done by Stephan Haulon. He did the study inviting 50 consecutive triple A patients treated with Zenith LP and Spiral Z stent graft. And he did two cases using a two iliac stent and in six months, all Spiral Z limb were patent. On the other hand, when you look at the iliac arteries
in Asians, you probably have the toughest anatomy to perform EVARs and TEVARs because of the small diameter, calcification, and tortuosity. So this is the critical question that we had. How will a Spiral Z stent graft perform in Japanese EIA landing cases, which are probably the toughest cases?
And this is what we did. We did a multi-institutional prospective observational study for Zenith Spiral Z stent graft, deployed in EIA. We enrolled patients from June 2017 to November 2017. We targeted 50 cases. This was not an industry-sponsored study.
So we asked for friends to participate, and in the end, we had 24 hospitals from all over Japan participate in this trial. And the board collected 65 patients, a total of 74 limbs, and these are the results. This slide shows patient demographics. Mean age of 77,
80 percent were male, and mean triple A diameter was 52. And all these qualities are similar to other's reporting in these kinds of trials. And these are the operative details. The reason for EIA landing was, 60 percent had Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm.
12 percent had Hypogastric Artery Aneurysm. And 24 percent had inadequate CIA, meaning short CIA or CIA with thrombosis. Outside IFU was observed in 24.6 percent of patients. And because we did fermoral cutdowns, mean operative time was long, around three hours.
One thing to note is that we Japanese have high instance of Type IV at the final angio, and in our study we had 43 percent of Type IV endoleaks at the final angio. Other things to notice is that, out of 74 limbs, 11 limbs had bare metal stents placed at the end of the procedure.
All patients finished a six month follow-up. And this is the result. Only one stenosis required PTA, so the six months limb potency was 98.6 percent. Excellent. And this is the six month result again. Again the primary patency was excellent with 98.6 percent. We had two major adverse events.
One was a renal artery stenosis that required PTRS and one was renal stenosis that required PTA. For the Type IV index we also have a final angio. They all disappeared without any clinical effect. Also, the buttock claudication was absorbed in 24 percent of patients at one month, but decreased
to 9.5 percent at six months. There was no aneurysm sac growth and there was no mortality during the study period. So, this is my take home message, ladies and gentlemen. At six months, Zenith Spiral Z stent graft deployed in EIA was associated with excellent primary patency
and low rate of buttock claudication. So we have most of the patients finish a 12 month follow-up and we are expecting excellent results. And we are hoping to present this later this year. - [Host] Thank you.
- Great, thanks Jeff. Welcome everyone. I was actually going to more talk about a wish list for ZFEN plus after some discussion with our industry partners. There's still not quite a final lock yet on the final device so due to various reasons we'll go over kind of a
review of the U.S. fenestrated data and then some of the things that I hope are some of the current limitations. This is our personal experience right now since the approval. 159 commercial ZFEN devices.
Still a reasonable proportion of parallel grafting for urgent or challenging cases. I think everybody acknowledges that obviously creating a seal zone above the renal arteries provides more seal for a standard infrarenal strategy. In fact because the U.S. device the instructions for use
call for a four to 14 millimeter infrarenal neck you wind up adding that in addition to the space that's across the renal arteries as well as the seal generally up to the scallop, or if you're building a large fenestration for the SMA, all the way up to the celiac.
Graft diameters from 22 to 36, the 36 millimeter device being on a 22 French system. The remainder of them being on a 20 French system. Remember that in the U.S. that we can only build three of these holes, if you will, and you can only have two maximum of one of the types meaning the general build
is two small fenestrations for the renals and either a scallop or large fenestration for the superior mesenteric artery. The results of the U.S. prospective trial have been presented and published multiple times in the past but basically in the original study
most of them under general anesthesia. Total amount of procedure time about three to four hours. The device implant time about two hours. Technical success achieved in everyone with all visceral vessels patent on the completion run. 30 day mortality excellent, the one problem
was with bowel ischemia. Major adverse events sort of immediately post op also related to bowel ischemia but no conversion, ruptures, or renal function decline. And at pre-discharge CTA all target vessels patent without any type one or junctional endoleaks.
Hospital stay two to three days. The later follow up paper, follow up out to three years with excellent outcomes related to problems with type one or type three endoleaks and the renal outcomes also excellent. Three patients with renal function deterioration.
But, a reasonable number of renal stent exclusions and stenoses which I do believe should be counted against the technology. And the reninterventions needed in a reasonable number of patients. So a primary patency of 81%
on the Capellan Meyer out to five years. When you look at then sort of early post approval outcomes, which is what we would consider more real world studies, when we looked at the first seven or eight sites that had early access right after approval we looked at this data and it turned out much like
what we would all do if we get our hands on newer technology now. More than two thirds, or just under two thirds of patients actually did not meet the recommended anatomic criteria of a four to 14 millimeter infrarenal neck but despite this the 30 day outcomes
compared to the U.S. data. This is a paper that just came out from the University of Indiana. First hundred patients since the ZFEN approval excellent outcomes but again still a reasonable reintervention rate mainly going after these renal branches.
This was our first one, a very sort of standard infrarenal short neck with a scallop and such built. Most of our builds now are with a large fenestration and bilateral renals. So what do we really need? I think in the newer device.
Well I think everybody wants something that's a little smaller access. We've had to use a reasonable number of both endo and open iliac conduits. I still think the angulation makes things difficult. These cases that have the SMA close to the renals
in the current construct do not allow us to build a device that makes it work for that. We've had to come up with various strategies when the SMA is lower than the higher renal. So I think really the future devices we need to work on the wait time, something with better renal branches
and a smaller access. Thanks.
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.