- I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for this kind invitation and the committee as well. So these are my disclosures, there's none. So for a quick background regarding closure devices. Vascular closure devices have been around
for almost 20 years, various types. Manual compression in most studies have always been shown to be superior to vascular closure devices mainly because there's been no ideal device that's been innovated to be able
to handle all sorts of anatomies, which include calcified vessels, soft plaque, etc. So in this particular talk we wanted to look at to two particular devices. One is the Vascade vascular closure device
made by Cardiva and the other is the CELT arterial closure device made by Vasorum in Ireland. Both these devices are somewhat similar in that they both use a disc. The Vascade has a nitinol disc
as you can see here that's used out here to adhere to the interior common femoral artery wall. And then once tension is applied, a series of steps is involved to deploy the collagen plug
directly on to the artery which then allows it to expand over a period of time. The CELT is similar in that it also uses a stainless steel disc as you can see here. Requires tension up against the interior wall of the common femoral artery.
Nice and tight and then you screw on the top end of the device on to the interior wall of the artery creating a nice little cylinder that compresses both walls of artery. As far as comparability is concerned between the two devices you can see
here that they're both extravascular, one's nitinol, one's stainless steel. One uses a collagen material, the other uses an external clip in a spindle-type fashion. Both require about, anywhere between three to seven minutes of pressure
to essentially stop the tract ooze. But the key differences between the two devices, is the amount of time it takes for patients to ambulate. So the ambulation time is two hours roughly for Vascade, whereas for a CELT device
it's anywhere from being immediate off the table at the cath lab room to about 20 minutes. The data for Vascade was essentially showing the RESPECT trial which I'll summarize here, With 420 patients that was a randomized trial
to other manual compression or the device itself. The mean points of this is that the hemostasis time was about three minutes versus 21 minutes for manual compression. And time to ambulation was about 3.2 hours versus 5.7 hours.
No major complications were encountered. There were 1.1% of minor complications in the Vascade versus 7% in the manual compression arm. This was actually the first trial that showed that a actual closure devices
had better results than manual compression. The main limitations in the trial didn't involved complex femoral anatomy and renal insufficiency patients which were excluded. The CELT ACD trial involved 207 patients that were randomized to CELT or to manual
compression at five centers. Time to hemostasis was anywhere between zero minutes on average versus eight minutes in the manual compression arm. There was one complication assessed at 30 days and that was a distal embolization that occurred
early on after the deployment with a successfully retrieved percutaneously with a snare. So complication rate in this particular trial was 0.7% versus 0% for manual compression. So what are some pros and cons with the Vascade device?
Well you can see the list of pros there. The thing to keep in mind is that it is extravascular, it is absorbable, it's safe, low pain tolerance with this and the restick is definitely possible. As far as the cons are involved.
The conventional bedrest time is anywhere between two to three hours. It is a passive closure device and it can create some scarring when surgical exploration is necessary on surgical dissections.
The key thing also is you can not visualize the plug after deployment. The pros and cons of the CELT ACD device. You can see is the key is the instant definitive closure that's achieved with this particular device, especially in
calcified arteries as well. Very easy to visualize under fluoroscopy and ultrasound. It can be used in both antegrade and retrograde approaches. The key cons are that it's a permanent implant.
So it's like a star closed devised, little piece of stainless steel that sits behind. There's a small learning curve with the device. And of course there's a little bit of discomfort associated with the cinching under the (mumbles) tissue.
So we looked at our own experience with both devices at the Christie Clinic. We looked at Vascade with approximately 300 consecutive patients and we assessed their time to hemostasis, their time to ambulation,
and their time to discharge, as well as the device success and minor and major complications. And the key things to go over here is that the time to hemostasis was about 4.7 minutes for Vascade, at 2.1 hours for ambulation, and roughly an average
of 2.4 hours for discharge. The device success was 99.3% with a minor complication rate of .02% which we have four hematomas and two device failures requiring manual compression. The CELT ACD device we also similarly did
a non-randomized perspective single center trial assessing the same factors and assessing the patients at seven days. We had 400 consecutive patients enrolled. And you can see we did 232 retrograde. We did a little bit something different
with this one, we did we 168 antegrade but we also did direct punctures to the SFA both at the proximal and the mid-segments of the SFA. And the time to hemostasis in this particular situation was 3.8 minutes,
ambulation was 18.3 minutes, and discharge was at 38.4 minutes. We did have two minor complications. One of which was a mal-deployment of the device requiring manual compression. And the second one was a major complication
which was an embolization of the device immediately after deployment which was done successfully snared through an eighth front sheath. So in conclusion both devices are safe and effective and used for both
antegrade and retrograde access. They're definitely comparable when it comes, from the standpoint of both devices (mumbles) manual compression and they're definitely really cost effective in that they definitely do increase the
throughput in the cath lab allowing us to be able to move patients through our cath lab in a relatively quick fashion. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you. 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.
- 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 Dr. Albaramum, it's a real pleasure to be here and I thank you for being here this early. I have no disclosures. So when everything else fails, we need to convert to open surgery, most of the times this leads to partial endograft removal,
complete removal clearly for infection, and then proximal control and distal control, which is typical in vascular surgery. Here's a 73 year old patient who two years after EVAR had an aneurism growth with what was thought
to be a type II endoleak, had coiling of the infermius mesenteric artery, but the aneurism continued to grow. So he was converted and what we find here is a type III endoleak from sutures in the endograft.
So, this patient had explantations, so it is my preference to have the nordic control with an endovascular technique through the graft where the graft gets punctured and then we put a 16 French Sheath, then we can put a aortic balloon.
And this avoids having to dissect the suprarenal aorta, particularly in devices that have super renal fixation. You can use a fogarty balloon or you can use the pruitt ballon, the advantage of the pruitt balloon is that it's over the wire.
So here's where we removed the device and in spite of the fact that we tried to collapse the super renal stent, you end up with an aortic endarterectomy and a renal endarterectomy which is not a desirable situation.
So, in this instance, it's not what we intend to do is we cut the super renal stent with wire cutters and then removed the struts individually. Here's the completion and preservation of iliac limbs, it's pretty much the norm in all of these cases,
unless they have, they're not well incorporated, it's a lot easier. It's not easy to control these iliac arteries from the inflammatory process that follows the placement of the endograft.
So here's another case where we think we're dealing with a type II endoleak, we do whatever it does for a type II endoleak and you can see here this is a pretty significant endoleak with enlargement of the aneurism.
So this patient gets converted and what's interesting is again, you see a suture hole, and in this case what we did is we just closed the suture hole, 'cause in my mind,
it would be simple to try and realign that graft if the endoleak persisted or recurred, as opposed to trying to remove the entire device. Here's the follow up on that patient, and this patient has remained without an endoleak, and the aneurism we resected
part of the sack, and the aneurism has remained collapsed. So here's another patient who's four years status post EVAR, two years after IMA coiling and what's interesting is when you do delayed,
because the aneurism sacks started to increase, we did delayed use and you see this blush here, and in this cases we know before converting the patient we would reline the graft thinking, that if it's a type III endoleak we can resolve it that way
otherwise then the patient would need conversion. So, how do we avoid the proximal aortic endarterectomy? We'll leave part of the proximal portion of the graft, you can transect the graft. A lot of these grafts can be clamped together with the aorta
and then you do a single anastomosis incorporating the graft and the aorta for the proximal anastomosis. Now here's a patient, 87 years old, had an EVAR,
the aneurism grew from 6 cm to 8.8 cm, he had coil embolization, translumbar injection of glue, we re-lined the endograft and the aneurism kept enlarging. So basically what we find here is a very large type II endoleak,
we actually just clip the vessel and then resected the sack and closed it, did not remove the device. So sometimes you can just preserve the entire device and just take care of the endoleak. Now when we have infection,
then we have to remove the entire device, and one alternative is to use extra-anatomic revascularization. Our preference however is to use cryo-preserved homograft with wide debridement of the infected area. These grafts are relatively easy to remove,
'cause they're not incorporated. On the proximal side you can see that there's a aortic clamp ready to go here, and then we're going to slide it out while we clamp the graft immediately, clamp the aorta immediately after removal.
And here's the reconstruction. Excuse me. For an endograft-duodenal fistula here's a patient that has typical findings, then on endoscopy you can see a little bit of the endograft, and then on an opergy I series
you actually see extravasation from the duodenal. In this case we have the aorta ready to be clamped, you can see the umbilical tape here, and then take down the fistula, and then once the fistula's down
you got to repair the duodenal with an omental patch, and then a cryopreserved reconstruction. Here's a TEVAR conversion, a patient with a contained ruptured mycotic aneurysm, we put an endovascular graft initially, Now in this patient we do the soraconomy
and the other thing we do is, we do circulatory support. I prefer to use ECMO, in this instances we put a very long canula into the right atrium, which you're anesthesiologist can confirm
with transassof forgeoligico. And then we use ECMO for circulatory support. The other thing we're doing now is we're putting antibiotic beads, with specific antibiotic's for the organism that has been cultured.
Here's another case where a very long endograft was removed and in this case, we put the device offline, away from the infected field and then we filled the field with antibiotic beads. So we've done 47 conversions,
12 of them were acute, 35 were chronic, and what's important is the mortality for acute conversion is significant. And at this point the, we avoid acute conversions,
most of those were in the early experience. Thank you.
- 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)
- Mr Chairman, dear colleagues. I've nothing to disclose. We know that aneurysm or dilation of the common iliac artery is present in almost 20% of cases submitted to endovascular repair and we have a variety of endovascular solution available. The first one is the internal iliac artery
embolization and coverage which is very technically easy but it's a suboptimal choice due to the higher risk of thrombosis and internal iliac problems. So the flared limbs landing in the common iliac artery is technically easy,
however, the results in the literature are conflicting. Iliac branch devices is a more demanding procedure but has to abide to a specific anatomical conditions and is warranted by good results in the literature such as this work from the group in Perugia who showed a technical success of almost 100%
as you can see, and also good results in other registries. So there are unresolved question about this problem which is the best choice in this matter, flared limbs or iliac branch devices. In order to solve this problem, we have looked at our data,
published them in Journal Vascular Interventional Neurology and this is our retrospective observational study involving treatment with either flared limbs or IBD and these are the flared limbs devices we used in this study. Anaconda, Medtronic, Cook and Gore.
And these are the IFU of the two IBD which were used in this study which were Gore-IBE and Cook-ZBS. So we looked at the 602 EVAR with 105 flared limbs which were also fit for IBD. And on the other side, we looked at EVAR-IBD
implanted in the same period excluding those implanted outside the IFU. So we ended up with 57 cases of IBD inside the IFU. These are the characteristics of the two groups of patients. The main important finding was the year age which was a little younger in the IBD group
and the common iliac artery diameter which was greater, again in the IBD group. So this is the distribution of the four types of flared limbs devices and IBD in the two groups. And as you can see, the procedural time and volume of contrast medium was significantly
higher in the IBD group. Complications did not differ significantly however, overall there were four iliac complication and all occurred in the flared limbs group. When we went to late complications, putting together all the iliac complication, they were significantly
greater in the flared limbs group compared with the IBD with zero percent complication rate. Late complications were always addressed by endovascular relining or relining and urokinase in case of infusion, in case of thrombosis. And as you can see here, the late outcome
did not differ significantly in the two groups. However, when we put together all the iliac complication, the iliac complication free survival was significantly worse in the flared limbs group. So in conclusion, flared limbs and IBD have similar perioperative outcomes.
IBD is more technically demanding, needs more contrast medium and time obviously. The complications in flared limbs are all resolvable by endovascular means and IBD has a better outcome in the long term period. So the take-home message of my presentation
is that we prefer IBD in young patients with high life expectancy and in the presence of anatomical risk factors of flared limbs late complications. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I have no disclosures. I'm going to start by quickly going over two cases. The first is a 48-year-old morbidly obese male with a known history of aortic dissection that was being treated medically who presented to the ED with chest and back pain.
As we can see here, on the CT scan, he has a chronic dissection beginning just distal to the subclavian and ending above the celiac. He also had an aneurysm up to 7.1 cm. He was treated by our cardiac colleagues with a TEVAR As you can see they landed
just distal to the left common carotid artery and had a persistent Type 1A endoleak. Postop, he continued to have pain, due to the lack of any further proximal landing zoning re-site to proceed with the next plan.
This was done using standard preoperative techniques including a spinal drain. He was placed on femorofemoral cardiopulmonary bypass and underwent deep hypothermic arrest. Under arrest, we were able to explant the TEVAR without using aortic clamp and then we finally placed
a clamp between the left common carotid and subclavian, restarted cardiopulmonary bypass, and we were able to sew the graft just distal to the subclavian artery. The patient technically did well in the operating room, however, upon coming off of bypass
we were unable to oxygenate him and he was replaced on ECMO, sent to the ICU and eventually passed from failure to wean from ECMO. The second case is a 61-year-old female, with a history of aortic dissection, and was treated about a year ago with TEVAR
and was being followed with CT scans. And as we can see here, her latest CT scan showed an aneurysm up to 5.4 cm, with a Type 1B endoleak. We underwent an explantation of this graft again using standard preoperative techniques, including a spinal drain.
Here we used femorofemoral bypass, but no circulatory arrest. We clamped the aorta between the left common carotid and subclavian, opened the aorta and used wire cutters to cut across the graft, leaving a cuff. Unfortunately there, we noted a large inflammatory
component and some pus coming out. The patient became hemodynamically unstable and had a cardiac arrest. Anesthesia resuscitated the patient and because of this we were unable to completely remove the cuff and instead sewed the graft to the cuff
just distal to the subclavian. The patient actually did well for two months, however, represented with an aortoesophageal fistula and eventually died from mediastinitis. Looking at indications for explant. These are very commonly due to thoraco-abdominal aneurysms
or Type B aortic dissections, with subsequent Type 1A or 1B leaks with dilation around the stents. Second indication is an infected TEVAR. What we learned from these cases is a lot, starting off with preparation. The first thing is anesthesia time.
Its going to take a long time to get the patient properly ready to go. Start as early as humanly possible and help them with lines. The incision the arch is always going to be higher than you think so take the time to enter the chest
in the right position, usually the 5th intercostal space. Using bypass arterial cannulation bypass lines may be difficult if there's an aortic dissection so assure you have appropriate wires and fluoroscopy in the OR to place your lines. Circulatory arrest allows for complete graft removal,
but at the consequence of difficult hemodynamics and ventilation afterwards. The actual procedure using open repair versus a TEVAR does allow for smaller grafts and landing zones distal to the subclavian where most of the time TEVARs will cover the subclavian.
Make sure you have a good pair of wire cutters if you're going to cut across a graft. And due to the bleeding consequences of bypass use, the proximal anastomosis always needs to be reinforced. When closing, prepare for oxygenation problems, have ECMO available and prepare
for a rocky postoperative course at best. The main precaution is really patient selection in talking to the family of the patient about what difficult operation this will be for recovery and going through it. And again, best precaution is prevention. The initial TEVAR procedure needs to be appropriate.
Have an appropriate proximal and distal landing zone that will provide seal. If not, consider an open primary repair. Again, this is based on patient selection. You may also consider a hybrid approach with aortic debranching.
- Good morning everybody. Here are my disclosures. So, upper extremity access is an important adjunct for some of the complex endovascular work that we do. It's necessary for chimney approaches, it's necessary for fenestrated at times. Intermittently for TEVAR, and for
what I like to call FEVARCh which is when you combine fenestrated repair with a chimney apporach for thoracoabdominals here in the U.S. Where we're more limited with the devices that we have available in our institutions for most of us. This shows you for a TEVAR with a patient
with an aortic occlusion through a right infracrevicular approach, we're able to place a conduit and then a 22-french dryseal sheath in order to place a TEVAR in a patient with a penetrating ulcer that had ruptured, and had an occluded aorta.
In addition, you can use this for complex techniques in the ascending aorta. Here you see a patient who had a prior heart transplant, developed a pseudoaneurysm in his suture line. We come in through a left axillary approach with our stiff wire.
We have a diagnostic catheter through the femoral. We're able to place a couple cuffs in an off-label fashion to treat this with a technically good result. For FEVARCh, as I mentioned, it's a good combination for a fenestrated repair.
Here you have a type IV thoraco fenestrated in place with a chimney in the left renal, we get additional seal zone up above the celiac this way. Here you see the vessels cannulated. And then with a nice type IV repaired in endovascular fashion, using a combination of techniques.
But the questions always arise. Which side? Which vessel? What's the stroke risk? How can we try to be as conscientious as possible to minimize those risks? Excuse me. So, anecdotally the right side has been less safe,
or concerned that it causes more troubles, but we feel like it's easier to work from the right side. Sorry. When you look at the image intensifier as it's coming in from the patient's left, we can all be together on the patient's right. We don't have to work underneath the image intensifier,
and felt like right was a better approach. So, can we minimize stroke risk for either side, but can we minimize stroke risk in general? So, what we typically do is tuck both arms, makes lateral imaging a lot easier to do rather than having an arm out.
Our anesthesiologist, although we try not to help them too much, but it actually makes it easier for them to have both arms available. When we look at which vessel is the best to use to try to do these techniques, we felt that the subclavian artery is a big challenge,
just the way it is above the clavicle, to be able to get multiple devices through there. We usually feel that the brachial artery's too small. Especially if you're going to place more than one sheath. So we like to call, at our institution, the Goldilocks phenomenon for those of you
who know that story, and the axillary artery is just right. And that's the one that we use. When we use only one or two sheaths we just do a direct puncture. Usually through a previously placed pledgeted stitch. It's a fairly easy exposure just through the pec major.
Split that muscle then divide the pec minor, and can get there relatively easily. This is what that looks like. You can see after a sheath's been removed, a pledgeted suture has been tied down and we get good hemostasis this way.
If we're going to use more than two sheaths, we prefer an axillary conduit, and here you see that approach. We use the self-sealing graft. Whenever I have more than two sheaths in, I always label the sheaths because
I can't remember what's in what vessel. So, you can see yes, I made there, I have another one labeled right renal, just so I can remember which sheath is in which vessel. We always navigate the arch first now. So we get all of our sheaths across the arch
before we selective catheterize the visceral vessels. We think this partly helps minimize that risk. Obviously, any arch manipulation is a concern, but if we can get everything done at once and then we can focus on the visceral segment. We feel like that's a better approach and seems
to be better for what we've done in our experience. So here's our results over the past five-ish years or so. Almost 400 aortic interventions total, with 72 of them requiring some sort of upper extremity access for different procedures. One for placement of zone zero device, which I showed you,
sac embolization, and two for imaging. We have these number of patients, and then all these chimney grafts that have been placed in different vessels. Here's the patients with different number of branches. Our access you can see here, with the majority
being done through right axillary approach. The technical success was high, mortality rate was reasonable in this group of patients. With the strokes being listed there. One rupture, which is treated with a covered stent. The strokes, two were ischemic,
one hemorrhagic, and one mixed. When you compare the group to our initial group, more women, longer hospital stay, more of the patients had prior aortic interventions, and the mortality rate was higher. So in conclusion, we think that
this is technically feasible to do. That right side is just as safe as left side, and that potentially the right side is better for type III arches. Thank you very much.
- 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.
- 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, Tim, and thank you, Frank, for giving me the opportunity to address this specific problem of the gutter endoleaks, which has been described up to 30% after ChEVAR and parallel grafting. But I have to say that in the most papers, not only gutter endoleaks were included,
but also new onset of type Ia endoleak. One paper coming from Stanford addressed specifically the question, how we should deal with the gutter-related type Ia endoleak, and they conclude that in the vast majority of the cases, these gutter endoleaks disappear
and the situation is benign. And based on my own experience, I can confirm this. This is one of the first cases treated with parallel grafts for symptomatic thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And I was a bit concerned as I saw this endoleak at the end of the angiography,
but the lady didn't have any pains and also no option for open or for other type of repair, so we waited. We waited and we saw that the endoleak disappeared after one month. And we saw also shrinkage of the aneurysm after one year.
So now, the next question was how to prevent this. And from the PERICLES registry, but also from the PROTAGORAS, we learned how to deal with this and how to prevent. And it's extremely important to oversize enough the aortic stent graft,
more than treating with the EVAR, normal EVAR. We should reach a sealing zone of at least 15, 20 millimeters. And we should avoid also to use more than two chimney grafts in such patients. The greater the number of the chimney used,
the higher is the risk of type Ia endoleak. And last but not least, we should use the right stent graft. And you see here the CT scan after using a flexible nitinol skeleton endograft on the left, and the gutters if you use a very stiff,
stainless steel skeleton in such situations. The last question was how to treat these patients. And based on the PERICLES, again, we should distinguish three different patterns. One is due to an excessive oversizing of the graft with infolding.
I have only one case, one professor of pathology, treated six years ago now without any endoleak due to this problem. The most are due to an undersized aortic endograft. And in the pattern C, we have an insufficient sealing zone and migration of the graft.
Now, we should consider the pattern B. And with an undersized aortic endograft and if the gutter is small, one possible solution would be to treat this patient with coiling, using coils or Onyx to occlude this gutter endoleaks,
like in this patient. And for the pattern C, if the sealing zone is insufficient, well, we should extend the sealing zone using the chimney parallel technique, as you can see in this case. So in conclusion, ladies and gentle,
gutters are usually benign and more than 95% disappeared in the follow-up. But in case of persistence, we should evaluate the CT scan exactly. And in case of oversizing and not enough oversizing and not enough length,
we should treat this patient accordingly. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- 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.
- Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here today and I wanted to let you know that a lot of this work that was being done earlier were really driven by physician need. As you can see, the trial as well as the EXCEL registry is finally on the way, so it's very exciting.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this but everybody knows the primary predictor of EVAR failure is really short necks and angulated necks. The first generations have been pretty good but they were really not intended for this type of anatomy. We see a lot of patients with really distorted anatomy
but they still have a relatively lengthy or 10 mm neck. In fact, about 80% of the EVARs treated in the United States have at least a 10 mm proximal neck. They may not be of the highest quality but they're there. So, how could be achieve better results? Basically we need to use every millimeter
of this landing zone, so that we can use the 10 mm neck to its fullest advantage and I believe when you do that, the results are fairly comparable to doing any type of above renal repair, like a fenestrated or branch graft. The stabilization of the device
during delivery is absolutely crucial. So essentially what you want to do is have a device that is able to utilize every neck angle and every millimeter of that available neck. And we know that 80% of all the patients, do have that neck. So, the new conformable endovascular device
has been around for the last five years or so but recently went into trial in December of last year. It's very different proximally than the current EXCLUDER in that the fixation system is single and it has a series of nested stents very similar to a conformable C-TAC device.
As you can see, this allows the device to conform to the anatomy, but not only that you're able to adjust the device inside too and that's actually Frank Veith's terminology, is that you're able to adjust this so that you can inch it up and utilize the entire neck.
16 French, proximal fixation, trunk length's a little bit longer than the current EXCLUDER at 5.5 to 6.5. This allows further treatment in the future going forward if you need to do a fenestrated device or branch graft device above it.
This device was designed to conform up to 90 degree angles and it's designed to seal at 10 mm necks. And, the most important aspect of it is, you're able to reposition the device once you deploy it. The mechanism is really one of being able to angle the device with a steering system
before the deployment and also afterwards and also be able to restrain the device up and down. Another major difference is that it has a 30% restraining secondary sleeve just like a ZFEN device so you're able to move this device up and down the angulated neck
and I'll show that with a case. The clinical trial in the U.S. began in December of last year and so far, I'll show you the update but unfortunately the FDA disallows us to give you any data. I can give you some of the demographics but I'll show you
that the preliminary results look excellent. The goal is to implant 80 patients in the short arm which is complete and 110 patients in the high neck arm is partially complete at almost 30 patients. The trial update objective is as outlined, there are 48 U.S. sites
and the current study enrollment is 106 patients, the short neck arm again I said is complete. Primary safety endpoints, not unlike any other device. Primary effectiveness endpoints, again freedom from all of these aspects. The first device was in 2017,
this was a relatively straightforward patient. The device performed well, this is a six month follow-up. The device had no migration issues, confirmed beautifully. But this is not really what the device was designed for. So, I'm going to give you a case of a patient that was enrolled in the high risk arm.
This patient had an 8.5 cm aneurism, 82 degree angulation, 11 mm proximal neck, turned down for EVAR or fenestrated at two other institutions in the New York City area and basically came for a third opinion as most New Yorkers do.
The aneurism looks like this and it's kind of a very angulated proximal neck with extremely torturous iliacs. This is the case that we did. You can see the device being configured here with the steering wire and when you do this,
you can see the device being able to be easily moved proximally and distally and the next portion of the video shows that steering wire kind of implanting the device into the lesser curve. - [Moderator] The device is deconstrained right? - Yes.
You can restrain it and it's a combination of being able to restrain it and open it which allows you the flexibility and as you can see with this maneuver, the device looks like it's perfectly opposed but in fact, the posterior aspect did not oppose very well.
So, we adjusted it further by increasing the posterior coverage and this is the post-op and we got a seal. There was no ballooning. This device, the ballooning is optional. So, the results have been excellent so far
with the highly angulated neck arm and we'll only see, there's only 30 patients so far but the results have been excellent so far. - [Panel Member] Rob and for you and for also Mark who presented that last case last week. When you deploy this device
it seems that you have a stiff wire, you're almost fighting the very advantage you're proposing. Do you ever consider swapping out for a floppier wire so you can then really get the native anatomy configuration? Because now that fusion image is presumably the pre-op fusion without the stiff wire.
So, I just wondered whether there's any value to that. - That's a great question. In fact, if you look at this video again, not this one but, let me see, this one, there's no wire, that the tip of the Amplatz wire is right at the tip of the device.
So that device is almost unsupported at this level, so you're able to freely flex that device back and forth without the constraints of a stiff wire. - [Panel Member] Is that your personal style or is that something that's part of it. - It's actually a recommended
and the part of the deployment process is to bring the floppy wire. So, you can use like a Glidewire Advantage or an Amplatz Super Stiff or whatever wire you like to use but it has to have a very floppy unsupported section in the proximal segments
to be able to get this kind of maneuverability. - [Moderator] So for the panel who've used this device, with all this manipulation of the proximal neck and especially in a diseased neck, is there any evidence of embolization of thrombus into the renals or distally?
- [Panel Member] Of course there is the potential for that but we haven't seen it yet and I think that the FDA IDE Trial and the registry will address that. I think that you should be careful. If there is a lot of neural thrombus in that neck
then this manipulation could be a potential risk. Actually what you're doing is, it's not that easy to get it into position in just one angulation. Sometimes you have to angulate, push it a little bit, restrain it again and reposition it to come in the perfect position,
especially for high angulation. - Yes. There's definitely a learning curve here but the learning curve actually can be achieved with just a couple of cases to be able to see how the device behaves
in the human anatomy.
- So, I'd like to thank Dr.Veith again for the privilege of the podium. So, upper extremity access is frequently required when you're performing complex endovascular aortic procedures. Most reported complications come from a cardiac and peripheral vascular procedures.
There is a paper from Tim Moran's group demonstrating the access complications incidents as listed here when doing more complex endoaortic procedures. The need for upper extremity access is particularly for branch treatment
of caudally orientated branch cuffs in branch EVAR. Body floss technique to facilitate navigation in tortuous vessel anatomy. And for re-interventions after previous endoaortic procedures.
This left brachial-femoral wire is particularly helpful. It's basically a body floss wire that goes from your upper extremity access to the femoral artery and can serve as a rail for particularly tortuous anatomy, and also in delivering various branch components
to a branch graft. The access options are shown here. Axillary upper and lower brachial as well as radial. I won't discuss radial access today. And the various sheath sizes that can be used throughout upper extremity access.
For brachial access, you really looking at a maximum of six to seven French devices, I mean sheaths. You can do a cut down either at the antecubital fossa or the mid to upper brachial. For larger sheaths such as the 12 French sheath an upper brachial cut down is ideal.
This provides the 12 French sheaths will provide multi-sheath access. Usually you need an axillary or high brachial access for that. Either a parapuncture or buddy wire technique. We've now started to transition
to using a percutaneous axillary approach where previously we did most of this open. We do heparinize for type three, two and three arches prior to needle access, and yeah, ultrasound is obviously key. That's the axillary artery,
that's the vein, and those are the brachial plexus trunks which of course are very close to the artery itself. Micropuncture kit with the initial puncture and ultrasound guidance. Sheath being placed with ProGlide sutures
for closure subsequently. You can use multiple wires and sheaths through this axillary approach to deliver your branches. Prior to removal of the sheath and delivering your ProGlides, you need a balloon proximally to inflate, to control the axillary artery
and then subsequently following ProGlide deployment. You can then shoot an angiogram to make sure that there's no leak in the area and the case is completed. There is a study, fourteen consecutive patients from Milan. 100% technical success with no neurologic issues, no occlusion, and Darren Schneider also has an impressive
series of percutaneous axillary access. So, it's something to consider. Special considerations for upper extremity access is you might want to keep that brachial femoral wire when you have type two and three arches for sheath stability,
because you can often have prolapse of that sheath into the ascending aorta with the passage of multiple sheaths to deliver branches. And if you do have a LIMA-LAD consideration, a conduit and using parallel sheaths
as opposed to a single sheath is advisable. The vascular complications, we looked at our own series. I'll go through this quickly. We had 18% right-sided, median sheath size are shown here. Complications by location including two strokes. The strokes were a patient with previous
subclavian-carotid transpositions for a prior TEVAR. And a carotid-subclavian bypass for a prior TEVAR. So, we've actually moved to, when we do perform a TEVAR procedure, we do not debranch anymore, but use a periscope technique of the subclavian artery. Show you that here.
Basically, you put the proximal stent graft periscope through the subclavian axillary artery and then a subsequent stent graft to sandwich and provide access then, to the distal aorta. This preserves and sets up for future use of the left subclavian artery when required
and is really quite helpful. And we have small series with basically very good results with patency of that periscope for up to a four month follow up. So, upper extremity access facilitates antegrade renal and mesenteric cannulation.
That brachial femoral wire is important. Larger sheaths require more upper proximal access. And the periscope technique is something to consider in your strategy for treating these complex patients. Thank you.
- [Doctor] Good morning, thank you Mr. Chairman. Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Dr. Veed for the very kind invitation and I really apologize for not being able to be able to be here today due to family reasons. These are our disclosures.
And obviously bust opened endovascular repair can fail over time and most commonly this difficult clinical scenario to deal with. Our group and also other institutions have already shown that FEVAR is a feasible technique to repair failed previous open or endovascular repair.
And here we see due to indications of secondary FEVAR. So after previous EVAR the main indication is actually to repair proximal endoleak into different several reasons as for example, into extension of disease over time, or migration, or even poor initial planning to start with. Now over open repair, the two main cases of FEVAR
are basically proximal extension of disease or anastomotic aneurysm for main. So FEVAR is indeed to feasible to repair failed EVAR and open repair. I want us to consider some additional technicalities used. For example, we have as we see here short working length
to work to use pre-existing stent raft or (mumbles) raft of things inside. One way to deal with this issue is to use only a short fenestrated tube and stay on approximately, but if one needs to go all the way down to have a complete relining and sealing, then we can design a bifurcated graft
with an inverted limb which enables us to work also in very short working lengths. And of course, maybe the best thing here is to try to be proactive, using a long body surgical graft during the primary operate. And the same goes for the primary lever procedure.
Using an endograft with a longer body provides a longer working length so second-graft FEVAR repair is needed in the future. Catheterization of the previous stent-graft can be also cumbersome, especially inoculated and nautilus, and also grafts with inner stent-graft.
Our suggestion, actually here, is to use always an inflated balloon, and by withdrawing this inflated balloon, we can easily confirm that we're behind the struts of the stent-graph as we see in the image. Now for oculated anatomy like this,
stretching the previous stent-graft can be also very challenging and how we do this through and through wire, and apply the wired plastic technique, we gain upper access and the femoral access can really helpful to stress aorta and finally enable position of the graft in the desired place.
Now catheterisations target vessels through previous stent-grafts is also not without problems. And as you see here, visualizations of marks is not quite easy due to the pre-existing grafts. So the rotation of this (mumbles) might be helpful in order to make more room for the catheter to follow
when sometimes we have to either catheterise again and again until we finally find a better entry that will enable advancement of the preexisting graphs. Here we see the summary of our experiencing Nuremberg. Up to June of 2018, we have performed a total of 92 secondary FEVAR procedures, 50 after open repair,
and 42 after (mumbles) endovascular. Technical success goes at 96 percent of the patients in the after open repair group, first of 93 percent in after EVAR group, including (mumbles) conversion of the (mumbles) required into seen here technical progress. 30 day mortality was two percent in the after open repair
group, while there was no mortality in the after EVAR group. Now major complications were four percent in the after open repair group, and seven percent in the after EVAR group with most of this complications in the after EVAR group been associated clearly with in comparative technical difficulties.
Finally, if we have a look at the preemptive primary advances, we see a cracked door to more advances over time in the FEVAR after EVAR group compared to FEVAR after open repair group, implying that probably FEVAR's open repair might be more stable background for a secondary FEVAR compared to previous EVAR.
So the concluders summarized their colleagues, ladies and gentleman, FEVAR for failed open and endovascular repair is probably the best option that is technically feasible but one has to consider that additional technical difficulties both in planning and execution. Results appear to be similar after open after
and endovascular repair, but FEVAR after EVAR is clearly more solid in (mumbles). Again, thank you very much, and I apologize for not being here today, thank you.
- Thank you for asking me to speak. Thank you Dr Veith. I have no disclosures. I'm going to start with a quick case again of a 70 year old female presented with right lower extremity rest pain and non-healing wound at the right first toe
and left lower extremity claudication. She had non-palpable femoral and distal pulses, her ABIs were calcified but she had decreased wave forms. Prior anterior gram showed the following extensive aortoiliac occlusive disease due to the small size we went ahead and did a CT scan and confirmed.
She had a very small aorta measuring 14 millimeters in outer diameter and circumferential calcium of her aorta as well as proximal common iliac arteries. Due to this we treated her with a right common femoral artery cutdown and an antegrade approach to her SFA occlusion with a stent.
We then converted the sheath to a retrograde approach, place a percutaneous left common femoral artery access and then placed an Endologix AFX device with a 23 millimeter main body at the aortic bifurcation. We then ballooned both the aorta and iliac arteries and then placed bilateral balloon expandable
kissing iliac stents to stent the outflow. Here is our pre, intra, and post operative films. She did well. Her rest pain resolved, her first toe amputation healed, we followed her for about 10 months. She also has an AV access and had a left arterial steel
on a left upper extremity so last week I was able to undergo repeat arteriogram and this is at 10 months out. We can see that he stent remains open with good flow and no evidence of in stent stenosis. There's very little literature about using endografts for occlusive disease.
Van Haren looked at 10 patients with TASC-D lesions that were felt to be high risk for aorta bifem using the Endologix AFX device. And noted 100% technical success rate. Eight patients did require additional stent placements. There was 100% resolution of the symptoms
with improved ABIs bilaterally. At 40 months follow up there's a primary patency rate of 80% and secondary of 100% with one acute limb occlusion. Zander et all, using the Excluder prothesis, looked at 14 high risk patients for aorta bifem with TASC-C and D lesions of the aorta.
Similarly they noted 100% technical success. Nine patients required additional stenting, all patients had resolution of their symptoms and improvement of their ABIs. At 62 months follow up they noted a primary patency rate of 85% and secondary of 100
with two acute limb occlusions. The indications for this procedure in general are symptomatic patient with a TASC C or D lesion that's felt to either be a high operative risk for aorta bifem or have a significantly calcified aorta where clamping would be difficult as we saw in our patient.
These patients are usually being considered for axillary bifemoral bypass. Some technical tips. Access can be done percutaneously through a cutdown. I do recommend a cutdown if there's femoral disease so you can preform a femoral endarterectomy and
profundaplasty at the same time. Brachial access is also an alternative option. Due to the small size and disease vessels, graft placement may be difficult and may require predilation with either the endograft sheath dilator or high-pressure balloon.
In calcified vessels you may need to place covered stents in order to pass the graft to avoid rupture. Due to the poor radial force of endografts, the graft must be ballooned after placement with either an aortic occlusion balloon but usually high-pressure balloons are needed.
It usually also needs to be reinforced the outflow with either self-expanding or balloon expandable stents to prevent limb occlusion. Some precautions. If the vessels are calcified and tortuous again there may be difficult graft delivery.
In patients with occluded vessels standard techniques for crossing can be used, however will require pre-dilation before endograft positioning. If you have a sub intimal cannulation this does put the vessel at risk for rupture during
balloon dilation. Small aortic diameters may occlude limbs particularly using modular devices. And most importantly, the outflow must be optimized using stents distally if needed in the iliac arteries, but even more importantly, assuring that you've
treated the femoral artery and outflow to the profunda. Despite these good results, endograft use for occlusive disease is off label use and therefor not reimbursed. In comparison to open stents, endograft use is expensive and may not be cost effective. There's no current studies looking
into the cost/benefit ratio. Thank you.
- Great, thank you Tim and Dan, and thank you Dr. Veith, this is the first time actually we're presenting this. This is work that's been done between my fellow who's really the sophisticated one with this with his PhD, Luka Pocivavsek. Here's my disclosures, Luka doesn't have any.
Really three goals in mind when we looked at this methodology to try to assess the value and efficacy of long-term durability of necks. To identify patients that are high risk for device failure, potentially type one endoleak, device migration, failure of our proximal seal zone.
This is an example that this patient will come up through this entire presentation but someone that I treated with a rupture. Initially successful result, then developed a dilation of the neck and then needed an additional procedure
to treat a type one endoleak. Second goal is maybe to look at appropriate device selection and sizing so we can prevent these complications from happening. So as an example, I'll show you this case, which for many of us is challenging
to select the right size proximal aortic endograft. You have a reverse taper of this neck, the cone, trying to figure out whether a 36 device is best because of the 32 diameter, but you're 23 proximally and maybe this technology will be able to help us identify which devices
will do better in certain anatomy. And finally evaluate the mechanisms of the interface, the adhesion that we see between the device and aortic wall for the current technology and potentially evaluate new device development. So what is this?
What we did is extrapolate from what was known from finite element analysis and this patient, as I mentioned earlier, presented with a rupture. We were able to look at her pre-rupture CT scan and with our technique predict the area of rupture
which is what we saw on CT scan and you can see this high-stress area. So we were able to define the aortic wall that was in the danger zone for rupture, and then took that analysis and started to extrapolate that understanding to looking
at the interface between the device and the aortic neck. So what we see here is post-implant with slightly challenging anatomy. A short neck, a little bit of angulation, and with Luka's expertise, we were able to really start doing
what we call this cohesive zone method and look at doing a really statistical analysis of what happens with the device and I'll show you that a little bit more. So when you look at this equation, it tells you what is the available literature
that we know for device displacement looking at the displacement of the interface of the graft to the aortic wall, and then the contact zone. And we can alter that in the computer model to change the Newton force that exists
and get a lower adhesion and then a stricter tight adhesion between the device and the wall and see the impact that has. So this is just showing you from the CT scan looking at the vector of stress and strain that we're able to look at in this model.
And then specifically what we see when there's separation of the device and the wall, there's areas that are higher strain and stress and you can see the vector differences here versus this area where there's a stiff contact and we're able to create,
it's much less and the risk of separation of device and wall is much lower. So we're able to take certain understandings and look at different geometries, change our pressurization, have the boundary conditions appropriate
and then start to really look at the zone mechanics. So what this looks like is you have two different adhesion models here. One is with weak adhesions of the device to the wall and one is where we can specifically create stronger adhesion and how this would be done down the road
would be potentially something that you could look at with device design, development, and with the weak adhesion you can see how the device basically falls out of the this challenging anatomy and with strong adhesion it does a little bit better.
There is some migration but not to the same extent. So what we're trying to predict is who has loss of seal and can we prevent this? And one of the mechanisms that we've started to look at is whether or not when you add endoanchor technology to the proximal seal zone to prevent that migration
if we can prevent this loss of seal. This is way too complicated but you get it, this is what we're looking at computationally, and this is what we see clinically. This patient who a year and a half later, develops a type one endoleak,
it's systolic pressures that are elevated, it's more extreme, and we think that there's some loss of seal that happens just when patients' pressure goes up too high. So in conclusion, we think that this is a nice extrapolation
of what we know from finite element analysis. Can be applicable to not just understanding if we've successfully treated patients but to potentially even size appropriately and evaluate new devices. Thank you.
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- Thank you Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. These are my disclosure. Open repair is the gold standard for patient with arch disease, and the gupta perioperative risk called the mortality and major morbidity remain not negligible.
Hybrid approach has only slightly improved these outcomes, while other off-the-shelf solution need to be tested on larger samples and over the long run. In this scenario, the vascular repair would double in the branch devices as emerging, as a tentative option with promising results,
despite addressing a more complex patient population. The aim of this multi-center retrospective registry is to assess early and midterm results after endovascular aortic arch repair. using the single model of doubling the branch stent graft in patient to fit for open surgery.
All patient are treated in Italy, with this technique. We're included in this registry for a total of 24 male patient, fit for open surgery. And meeting morphological criteria for double branch devices.
This was the indication for treatment and break-down by center, and these were the main end points. You can see here some operative details. Actually, this was theo only patient that did not require the LSA
re-revascularization before the endovascular procedure, because the left tibial artery rising directly from the aortic arch was reattached on the left common carotid artery. You can see here the large window in the superior aspect of the stent graft
accepting the two 13 millimeter in the branches, that are catheterized from right common carotid artery and left common carotid artery respectively. Other important feature of this kind of stent graft is the lock stent system, as you can see, with rounded barbs inside
the tunnels to prevent limb disconnection. All but one patient achieved technical success. And two of the three major strokes, and two retrograde dissection were the cause of the four early death.
No patient had any type one or three endoleak. One patient required transient dialysis and four early secondary procedure were needed for ascending aorta replacement and cervical bleeding. At the mean follow-up of 18 months,
one patient died from non-aortic cause and one patient had non-arch related major stroke. No new onset type one or three endoleak was detected, and those on standard vessel remained patent. No patient had the renal function iteration or secondary procedure,
while the majority of patients reported significant sac shrinkage. Excluding from the analysis the first six patients as part of a learning curve, in-hospital mortality, major stroke and retrograde dissection rate significant decrease to 11%, 11% and 5.67%.
Operative techniques significantly evolve during study period, as confirmed by the higher use of custom-made limb for super-aortic stenting and the higher use of common carotid arteries
as the access vessels for this extension. In addition, fluoroscopy time, and contrast median's significantly decrease during study period. We learned that stroke and retrograde dissection are the main causes of operative mortality.
Of course, we can reduce stroke rate by patient selection excluding from this technique all those patient with the Shaggy Aorta Supra or diseased aortic vessel, and also by the introduction and more recent experience of some technical points like sequentIal clamping of common carotid arteries
or the gas flushing with the CO2. We can also prevent the retrograde dissection, again with patient selection, according to the availability of a healthy sealing zone, but in our series, 6 of the 24 patients
presented an ascending aorta larger than 40 millimeter. And on of this required 48-millimeter proximal size custom-made stent graft. This resulted in two retrograde dissection, but on the other hand, the availability on this platform of a so large proximal-sized,
customized stent graft able to seal often so large ascending aorta may decrease the incidence of type I endoleak up to zero, and this may make sense in order to give a chance of repair to patients that we otherwise rejected for clinical or morphological reasons.
So in conclusion, endovascular arch repair with double branch devices is a feasible approach that enrich the armamentarium for vascular research. And there are many aspects that may limit or preclude the widespread use of this technology
with subsequent difficulty in drawing strong conclusion. Operative mortality and major complication rates suffer the effect of a learning curve, while mid-term results of survival are more than promising. I thank you for your attention.
- Thank you 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, 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.
- Good morning. I'd like to thank everybody who's in attendance for the 7 A.M. session. So let's talk about a case. 63 year old male, standard risk factors for aneurismal disease. November 2008, he had a 52 mm aneurism,
underwent Gore Excluder, endovascular pair. Follow up over the next five, relatively unremarkable. Sac regression 47 mm no leak. June 2017, he was lost for follow up, but came back to see us. Duplex imaging CTA was done to show the sac had increased
from 47 to 62 in a type 2 endoleak was present. In August of that year, he underwent right common iliac cuff placement for what appeared to be a type 1b endoleak. September, CT scan showed the sac was stable at 66 and no leak was present. In March, six months after that, scan once again
showed the sac was there but a little bit larger, and a type two endoleak was once again present. He underwent intervention. This side access on the left embolization of the internal iliac, and a left iliac limb extension. Shortly thereafter,
contacted his PCP at three weeks of weakness, fatigue, some lethargy. September, he had some gluteal inguinal pain, chills, weakness, and fatigue. And then October, came back to see us. Similar symptoms, white count of 12, and a CT scan
was done and here where you can appreciate is, clearly there's air within the sac and a large anterior cell with fluid collections, blood cultures are negative at that time. He shortly thereafter went a 2 stage procedure, Extra-anatomic bypass, explant of the EVAR,
there purulent fluid within the sac, not surprising. Gram positive rods, and the culture came out Cutibacterium Acnes. So what is it we know about this case? Well, EVAR clearly is preferred treatment for aneurism repair, indications for use h
however, mid-term reports still show a significant need for secondary interventions for leaks, migrations, and rupture. Giles looked at a Medicare beneficiaries and clearly noted, or at least evaluated the effect of re-interventions
and readmissions after EVAR and open and noted that survival was negatively impacted by readmissions and re-interventions, and I think this was one of those situations that we're dealing with today. EVAR infections and secondary interventions.
Fortunately infections relatively infrequent. Isolated case reports have been pooled into multi-institutional cohorts. We know about a third of these infections are related to aortoenteric fistula, Bacteremia and direct seeding are more often not the underlying source.
And what we can roughly appreciate is that at somewhere between 14 and 38% of these may be related to secondary catheter based interventions. There's some data out there, Matt Smeed's published 2016, 180 EVARs, multi-center study, the timing of the infection presumably or symptomatic onset
was 22 months and 14% or greater had secondary endointerventions with a relatively high mortality. Similarly, the study coming out of Italy, 26 cases, meantime of diagnosis of the infection is 20 months, and that 34.6% of these cases underwent secondary endovascular intervention.
Once again, a relatively high mortality at 38.4%. Study out of France, 11 institutions, 33 infective endographs, time of onset of symptoms 414 days, 30% of these individuals had undergone secondary interventions. In our own clinical experience of Pittsburgh,
we looked at our explants. There were 13 down for infection, and of those nine had multiple secondary interventions which was 69%, a little bit of an outlier compared to the other studies. Once again, a relatively high mortality at one year. There's now a plethora of information in the literature
stating that secondary interventions may be a source for Bacteremia in seeding of your endovascular graft. And I think beyond just a secondary interventions, we know there's a wide range of risk factors. Perioperative contamination, break down in your sterile technique,
working in the radiology suite as opposed to the operating room. Wound complications to the access site. Hematogenous seeding, whether it's from UTIs, catheter related, or secondary interventions are possible.
Graft erosion, and then impaired immunity as well. So what I can tell you today, I think there is an association without question from secondary interventions and aortic endograft infection. Certainly the case I presented appears to show causation but there's not enough evidence to fully correlate the two.
So in summary, endograft infections are rare fortunately. However, the incidence does appear to be subtly rising. Secondary interventions following EVAR appear to be a risk factor for graft infection. Graft infections are associated without question
a high morbidity and mortality. I think it's of the utmost importance to maintain sterile technique, administer prophylactic antibiotics for all secondary endovascular catheter based interventions. Thank you.
- Thank you. Here are my disclosures. Our preferred method for zone one TAVR has evolved to a carotid/carotid transposition and left subclavian retro-sandwich. The technique begins with a low transverse collar incision. The incision is deepened through the platysma
and subplatysmal flaps are then elevated. The dissection is continued along the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid entering the carotid sheath anteromedial to the jugular vein. The common carotid artery is exposed
and controlled with a vessel loop. (mumbling) The exposure's repeated for the left common carotid artery and extended as far proximal to the omohyoid muscle as possible. A retropharyngeal plane is created using blunt dissection
along the anterior border of the cervical vertebra. A tunneling clamp is then utilized to preserve the plane with umbilical tape. Additional vessel loops are placed in the distal and mid right common carotid artery and the patient is systemically anticoagulated.
The proximal and distal vessel loops are tightened and a transverse arteriotomy is created between the middle and distal vessel loops. A flexible shunt is inserted and initially secured with the proximal and middle vessel loops. (whistling)
It is then advanced beyond the proximal vessel loop and secured into that position. The left common carotid artery is then clamped proximally and distally, suture ligated, clipped and then transected. (mumbling)
The proximal end is then brought through the retropharyngeal tunnel. - [Surgeon] It's found to have (mumbles). - An end-to-side carotid anastomosis is then created between the proximal and middle vessel loops. If preferred the right carotid arteriotomy
can be made ovoid with scissors or a punch to provide a better shape match with the recipient vessel. The complete anastomosis is back-bled and carefully flushed out the distal right carotid arteriotomy.
Flow is then restored to the left carotid artery, I mean to the right carotid artery or to the left carotid artery by tightening the middle vessel loop and loosening the proximal vessel loop. The shunt can then be removed
and the right common carotid artery safely clamped distal to the transposition. The distal arteriotomy is then closed in standard fashion and flow is restored to the right common carotid artery. This technique avoids a prosthetic graft
and the retropharyngeal space while maintaining flow in at least one carotid system at all times. Once, and here's a view of the vessels, once hemostasis is assured the platysma is reapproximated with a running suture followed by a subcuticular stitch
for an excellent cosmetic result. Our preferred method for left subclavian preservation is the retro-sandwich technique which involves deploying an initial endograft just distal to the left subclavian followed by both proximal aortic extension
and a left subclavian covered stent in parallel fashion. We prefer this configuration because it provides a second source of cerebral blood flow independent of the innominate artery
and maintains ready access to the renovisceral vessels if further aortic intervention is required in the future. Thank you.
- Thank you, Dr. Veith, for this kind invitation. Aberrant origin of the vertebral artery is the second most common aortic arch anomaly. It is more common in patients with thoracic aortic disease when compared to the general population. It's usually of no clinical significance,
except when encountered while treating cerebro-vascular disease or aortic arch pathology. And that's when critical decision-making to preserve its perfusion becomes necessary. This picture illustrates the most common
types of aortic arch anomalies. Led by bovine arch, isolated vertebral artery, and aberrant right side. In this study, it shows a significant correlation with thoracic aortic disease. We first should evaluate the origin
of the vertebral artery. On the right side of the screen you can see the most common type and it's when it's between the left subclavian and the left common carotid artery origin. This is an example of the left vertebral artery
aberrant associated with a mycotic aneurysm of the aortic arch. And this one is a right aberrant vertebral artery associated with a descending thoracic aneurysm and center retroesophageal location. We then look at the variation of
the vertebral artery and posterior circulation. Most commonly dominant left or hypoplasia of the right vertebral artery as shown in the picture. For termination in the posterior inferior cerebellar artery, or PICA.
Or occlusive lesion on the right side, which necessitates perfusion of the left side. This study shows that vertebral artery variations that could need perfusion is up to 30% of patients
with thoracic aortic disease. There are, unfortunately, minimal literature in the vascular, mostly case reports or series. And most of this says procedure data comes from the neurosurgical literature for occlusive disease that shows in this study,
for example, low morbidity, mortality. Complications include thoracic duct injury, recurrent laryngeal nerve, Horner's and CVAs. And they showed high patency rates. The SVS guidelines for left subclavian revasculatization, although low quality,
shows they indicated routine revascularization and they mention some of the indications for left vertebral artery revasculatization. And extrapolating from that, from those guidelines, we summarize the indications for vertebral artery
revascularization dominant ipsilateral left or hypoplastic right. Incomplete circle of Willis, or termination of the left in the PICA artery. Diseased or occluded contralateral vertebral artery.
Extensive aortic coverage or inability to evaluate the circle of Willis prior to intervention. Some technical tips, we use a routine supraclavicular incision. We identify the vertebral artery posterior-medial
location to the common carotid. We carefully preserve the recurrent laryngeal nerve or non-recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is common in aortic arch anomalies. Thoracic duct on the left side. Transpose it to the posterior surface
of the common carotid. And then clamp distal to the anastomosis and to avoid prolonged ischemia to the posterior circulation. This is a completion aortagram that shows patent left vertebral artery transposed
to the common carotid. And then one month follow-up shows that the left vertebral artery is patent with a complete repair of the aorta. So in our experience, we did six vertebral transpositions over
the last couple years, four on the left, two on the right. No perioperative complications. One lost follow-up. And up to 27 months of the patent vessels. In summary, aberrant vertebral artery is uncommon
finding, but associated with thoracic aortic disease. The origin and the course of the vertebral artery should be thoroughly evaluated prior to treatment. Revascularization should be considered in certain situations to avoid
posterior circulation ischemia. But more data is needed to establish guidelines. Thank you.
- Our group has looked at the outcomes of patients undergoing carotid-subclavian bypass in the setting of thoracic endovascular repair. These are my obligatory disclosures, none of which are relevant to this study. By way of introduction, coverage of the left subclavian artery origin
is required in 10-50% of patients undergoing TEVAR, to achieve an adequate proximal landing zone. The left subclavian artery may contribute to critical vascular beds in addition to the left upper extremity, including the posterior cerebral circulation,
the coronary circulation if a LIMA graft is present, and the spinal cord, via vertebral collaterals. Therefore the potential risks of inadequate left subclavian perfusion include not only arm ischemia, but also posterior circulation stroke,
spinal cord ischemia, and coronary insufficiency. Although these risks are of low frequency, the SVS as early as 2010 published guidelines advocating a policy of liberal left subclavian revascularization during TEVAR
requiring left subclavian origin coverage. Until recently, the only approved way to maintain perfusion of the left subclavian artery during TEVAR, with a zone 2 or more proximal landing zone, was a cervical bypass or transposition procedure. As thoracic side-branch devices become more available,
we thought it might be useful to review our experience with cervical bypass for comparison with these newer endovascular strategies. This study was a retrospective review of our aortic disease database, and identified 112 out of 579 TEVARs
that had undergone carotid subclavian bypass. We used the standard operative technique, through a short, supraclavicular incision, the subclavian arteries exposed by division of the anterior scalene muscle, and a short 8 millimeter PTFE graft is placed
between the common carotid and the subclavian arteries, usually contemporaneous with the TEVAR procedure. The most important finding of this review regarded phrenic nerve dysfunction. To exam this, all pre- and post-TEVAR chest x-rays were reviewed for evidence of diaphragm elevation.
The study population was typical for patients undergoing TEVAR. The most frequent indication for bypass was for spinal cord protection, and nearly 80% of cases were elective. We found that 25 % of patients had some evidence
of phrenic nerve dysfunction, though many resolved over time. Other nerve injury and vascular graft complications occurred with much less frequency. This slide illustrates the grading of diaphragm elevation into mild and severe categories,
and notes that over half of the injuries did resolve over time. Vascular complications were rare, and usually treated with a corrective endovascular procedure. Of three graft occlusions, only one required repeat bypass.
Two pseudoaneurysms were treated endovascularly. Actuarial graft, primary graft patency, was 97% after five years. In summary then, the report examines early and late outcomes for carotid subclavian bypass, in the setting of TEVAR. We found an unexpectedly high rate
of phrenic nerve dysfunction postoperatively, although over half resolved spontaneously. There was a very low incidence of vascular complications, and a high long-term patency rate. We suggest that this study may provide a benchmark for comparison
with emerging branch thoracic endovascular devices. Thank you.
- Thank you. I have a little disclosure. I've got to give some, or rather, quickly point out the technique. First apply the stet graph as close as possible to the hypogastric artery.
As you can see here, the end of distal graft. Next step, come from the left brachial you can lay the catheter in the hypogastric artery. And then come from both
as you can see here, with this verge catheter and you put in position the culver stent, and from the femoral you just put in position the iliac limb orthostatic graft.
The next step, apply the stent graft, the iliac limb stent graft, keep the viabahn and deployed it in more the part here. What you have here is five centimeter overlap to avoid Type I endoleak.
The next step, use a latex balloon, track over to the iliac limb, and keep until the, as you can see here, the viabahn is still undeployed. In the end of the procedure,
at least one and a half centimeters on both the iliac lumen to avoid occlusion to viabahn. So we're going to talk about our ten years since I first did my first description of this technique. We do have the inclusion criteria
that's very important to see that I can't use the Sandwich Technique with iliac lumen unless they are bigger than eight millimeters. That's one advantage of this technique. I can't use also in the very small length
of common iliac artery and external iliac artery and I need at least four millimeters of the hypogastric artery. The majority patients are 73 age years old. Majority males. Hypertension, a lot of comorbidity of oldest patients.
But the more important, here you can see, when you compare the groups with the high iliac artery and aneurismal diameter and treat with the Sandwich Technique, you can see here actually it's statistically significant
that I can treat patient with a very small real lumen regarding they has in total diameter bigger size but I can treat with very small lumen. That's one of the advantages of this technique. You can see the right side and also in the left side. So all situations, I can treat very small lumen
of the aneurysm. The next step so you can show here is about we performed this on 151 patients. Forty of these patients was bilateral. That's my approach of that. And you can see, the procedure time,
the fluoroscope time is higher in the group that I performed bilaterally. And the contrast volume tends to be more in the bilateral group. But ICU stay, length of stay, and follow up is no different between these two groups.
The technical success are 96.7%. Early mortality only in three patients, one patient. Late mortality in 8.51 patients. Only one was related with AMI. Reintervention rate is 5, almost 5.7 percent. Buttock claudication rate is very, very rare.
You cannot find this when you do Sandwich Technique bilaterally. And about the endoleaks, I have almost 18.5% of endoleaks. The majority of them was Type II endoleaks. I have some Type late endoleaks
also the majority of them was Type II endoleaks. And about the other complications I will just remark that I do not have any neurological complications because I came from the left brachial. And as well I do not have colon ischemia
and spinal cord ischemia rate. And all about the evolution of the aneurysm sac. You'll see the majority, almost two-thirds have degrees of the aneurysm sac diameter. And some of these patients
we get some degrees but basically still have some Type II endoleak. That's another very interesting point of view. So you can see here, pre and post, decrease of the aneurysm sac.
You see the common iliac artery pre and post decreasing and the hypogastric also decreasing. So in conclusion, the Sandwich Technique facilitates safe and effective aneurysm exclusion
and target vessel revascularization in adverse anatomical scenarios with sustained durability in midterm follow-up. Thank you very much for attention.
- So, my topic today is: Antegrade In Situ Fenestration for Fenestrated EVAR: How To Do It. Here are my disclosures. So, Jean Panneton has shown already the validity of retrograde laser fenestration. That is a feasible technique,
an effective option for acute thoracic pathology, with an excellent midterm patency, which it is very easy to do retrograde laser fenestration compared to an anterograde technique. We have done a lot of bench tests to perform all like this (mumbles).
So, the in situ laser fenestration technique is an off-label procedure. It is a bailout solution, and dedicated to emergent cases, patient unfit to open repair, or unfit to CMD device.
And we use this technique for left subclavian arch, and the anterograde technique for visceral arteries, and in a few cases of TEVAR. This is a technique. I use a Heli-FX 16 French. And I use
a 0.9 laser probe. We don't need to use another laser probe for this technique to avoid any larger hole. This is the steps for the technique. I do a primary stenting of the arteries using your effusion.
And then I do the endovascular exclusion. I position the steerable sheath at the level of the targeted artery and then do laser fenestration. This is a pre-stenting. And then the graft deployment
at the level of the seating zone. This was a type 1A endoleak after EVAR. The next step is to do the laser fenestration. You can see the tip of the laser probe. (Mumbles)
You could see the tip of the laser probe coming in the lumen of the SMA. And, we'll then, after this laser fenestration, quite easy, we'll then do
an enlargement of the ULL, using first a small cutting balloon and then do a progressive dilation using a bigger balloon, four millimeter, and then a six millimeter balloon.
The next step is to do, like, what we do for fenestrated cases, we do the bridging covered stent. Yeah, at the level of the SMA, and then the flairing, to have a good sealer
of the proximal part of the bridging stent. After the SMA, we then do the renal fenestration. And we used to stop with the celiac trunk. Our main indications are juxta para renal aneurysm, or type 1A Endoleak when there is a straight aorta. And in a few cases, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.
This is an example of a type 1A endoleak, as I have presented. This is our first trial with 16 patients, treated on between three years. And we have now 29 patients with laser fenestration EVAR,
66 fenestrations, 5% of aortic aneurysm treated in our center. The median ischemic time is 12 minutes for the SMA, one hour for the renal arteries, and around two hours for the celiac trunk. The fenestration success rate is 95%.
Here are the outcomes. There was no mortality, even for very old patients. 16% of transitory dialysis. No spinal cord ischemia, one case of pneumonia, and the short follow-up of 22 months with 24 re-operations
in seven patients. Here are my conclusion. The laser fenestration EVAR must not be used for elective cases. In our strategy, the best options for urgent thoracoabdominal is to use
an off-the-shelf graft, like the T-branch. If a custom-made device graft is not available, the laser fenestration will be our reference treatment, and you don't need any brachial or axillary approach for this technique. Thank you very much.
Disclaimer: Content and materials on Medlantis are provided for educational purposes only, and are intended for use by medical professionals, not to be used self-diagnosis or self-treatment. It is not intended as, nor should it be, a substitute for independent professional medical care. Medical practitioners must make their own independent assessment before suggesting a diagnosis or recommending or instituting a course of treatment. The content and materials on Medlantis should not in any way be seen as a replacement for consultation with colleagues or other sources, or as a substitute for conventional training and study.