- Yeah, thank you very much. We all know that DCBs are kind of a workhorse right now for SFA-PA disease but when it comes, this has been proven randomized controlled studies, but when it comes to real world patients this might not have been included in the randomized conduit study and therefore
these registries are very available. And I present on this BIOLUX P-III study [Unintelligible] the standard versus the non-standard sub-group. This is just a quick overlook about the Passeo-18 Lux DCB it's an O-18 platform, has three micrograms
[Unintelligible] Paclitaxel on the balloon The excipient is a BTHC and this is an hydrophobic excipient and the sizes available are from two to seven millimeter in diameter and four 80 and 100 millimeter in length. This is the overlooks about the Passeo-18 Lux
they are out there, we have from phase one to phase three studies, randomized controlled and global registries. 1,600 patients including in this clinical program. With regard to the full cohort at 12 month we have now 878 patients available, you see with regard to the clinical characteristics
heavy smokers... a high percentage of smokers, high percentage of diabetes, more than 40% of CLI, 76% calcified lesions, the lesion length was around 9 centimeter and one-third of the patients had TASC C or D lesions. This is a higher payload stenting rate
this is not surprising with this complex cohort about 20% and with that the primary patency of the full cohort at 12 months is 84.3% and the freedom from clinical driven TLR is 93.5%. So this is the overlook of the full cohort at 12 months. With regard to the different subgroups you see
you have a consistent freedom from clinical driven TLR primary patency and freedom from major target limb amputation throughout all the subgroups. And I just now want to highlight the bail-out stented versus the DCB only group because this follows the concept of the so-called leave, at least leave less behind
as possible, this so-called spot-stenting concept. Out of this 878 patients we had 715 treated with a DCB only and in the bail-out stent group we had 163 patients. The patients in the bail-out stented group had a longer lesion length... 11 compared to 8 centimeters
in the DCB only group. With regard to all the others correctors there was no difference besides TASC C and D lesions there had been a higher percentage of TASC C and D lesions in the bail-out stented group than in the DCB only group.
We did the same vessel prep for both arms and with that we had the freedom from clinical driven TLR in the bail-out stented group of 92.8 compared to 92.2% in DCB only group. Primary patency was a little bit lower but freedom from a major adverse event
at 12 months was the same. When we bring this into context to other randomized, other real-world data out there freedom from clinical driven TLR in comparison to the In.Pact global stented group is the same as well as in the Lutonix global stented group.
With regard to freedom from major adverse event we can only refer to the In.Pact global stented group which is the same. So just let me conclude the Passeo-18 Biolux P-III study continues to show consistent, clinical performance of the Passeo-18 Lux Drug Coated Balloon
throughout all subgroups. There is no difference in clinical performance between DCB only versus payload stented even for the bail-out stented group had more complex lesions and the results of the Biolux P-III payload stenting subgroups are in line with the results
of current Global registries stented subgroups. Thank you very much.
- Good morning, I would like to thank Dr. Veith, and the co-chairs for inviting me to talk. I have nothing to disclose. Some background on this information, patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are at least three times more likely to suffer a thrombo-embolic event, when compared to the general population.
The incidence is 0.1 - 0.5% per year. Overall mortality associated with these events can be as high as 25%, and postmortem exams reveal an incidence of 39-41% indicating that systemic thrombo-embolism is probably underdiagnosed. Thrombosis mainly occurs during disease exacerbation,
however proctocolectomy has not been shown to be preventative. Etiology behind this is not well known, but it's thought to be multifactorial. Including decrease in fibrinolytic activity, increase in platelet activation,
defects in the protein C pathway. Dyslipidemia and long term inflammation also puts patients at risk for an increase in atherosclerosis. In addition, these patients lack vitamins, are often dehydrated, anemic, and at times immobilized. Traditionally, the venous thrombosis is thought
to be more common, however recent retrospective review of the Health Care Utilization Project nationwide inpatient sample database, reported not only an increase in the incidence but that arterial complications may happen more frequently than venous.
I was going to present four patients over the course of one year, that were treated at my institution. The first patient is 25 year old female with Crohn's disease, who had a transverse colectomy one year prior to presentation. Presented with right flank pain, she was found to have
right sided PE, a right sided pulmonary vein thrombosis and a left atrial thrombosis. She was admitted for IV heparin, four days later she had developed abdominal pains, underwent an abdominal CTA significant for SMA occlusion prompting an SMA thrombectomy.
This is a picture of her CAT scan showing the right PE, the right pulmonary vein thrombosis extending into the left atrium. The SMA defect. She returned to the OR for second and third looks, underwent a subtotal colectomy,
small bowel resection with end ileostomy during the third operation. She had her heparin held post-operatively due to significant post-op bleeding, and over the next three to five days she got significantly worse, developed progressive fevers increase found to have
SMA re-thrombosis, which you can see here on her CAT scan. She ended up going back to the operating room and having the majority of her small bowel removed, and went on to be transferred to an outside facility for bowel transplant. Our second patient is a 59 year old female who presented
five days a recent flare of ulcerative colitis. She presented with right lower extremity pain and numbness times one day. She was found to have acute limb ischemia, category three. An attempt was made at open revascularization with thrombectomy, however the pedal vessels were occluded.
The leg was significantly ischemic and flow could not be re-established despite multiple attempts at cut-downs at different levels. You can see her angiogram here at the end of the case. She subsequently went on to have a below knee amputation, and her hospital course was complicated by
a colonic perforation due to the colitis not responding to conservative measures. She underwent a subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy. Just in the interest of time we'll skip past the second, third, and fourth patients here. These patients represent catastrophic complications of
atypical thrombo-embolic events occurring in IBD flares. Patients with inflammatory disease are at an increased risk for both arterial and venous thrombotic complications. So the questions to be answered: are the current recommendations adequate? Currently heparin prophylaxis is recommended for
inpatients hospitalized for severe disease. And, if this is not adequate, what treatments should we recommend, the medication choice, and the duration of treatment? These arterial and venous complications occurring in the visceral and peripheral arteries
are likely underappreciated clinically as a risk for patients with IBD flares and they demonstrate a need to look at further indications for thrombo-prophylaxis. Thank you.
- It's my pleasure on behalf of the Sentury Trial investigators to present the two year data on the BTG Novate Sentry filter. These are my disclosures. Well, as we have heard this afternoon, it's no surprise to anyone the topic of IVC filter placement is controversial.
We know that IVC filters can protect patients by preventing PE. We also know that retrievable filters that are not retrieved have been reported to have, be associated with some complications. And we talked about FDA advisory,
obviously that has resulted somewhat in a decrease in filter use in this country. Obviously complication rates we've also heard about increase with implant time and include tilting, migration, fracture, perforation and embolization. And retrieval success reduces with implant time.
What's not controversial, and we have heard also about this, is the frequency of PE in this country and the expense associated with it. Obviously, survival benefits have been shown in appropriate populations, that are selected based on known indications. And existing retrieval technology, unfortunately,
as we've heard from Dr. Askandari, has not met the needs of patients when up to 40 to 50 percent are not coming back for retrieval. That was sort of the impetus behind the design of the Sentry Bioconvertible IVC Filter, which is designed to protect patients at transient risk
from PE and reduce complications of existing technologies. It employs a stable frame with filter arms held together by a bioabsorbable filament and designed to provide PE protection during a transient risk period, reduce IVC filter complications, including tilting, migration, fracture, perforation and embolization.
And this just shows an example in vitro and with a CT scan of the filter in the so-called filtering configuration. The filter then automatically bioconverts after the PE risk period is past. That's guaranteed to be in the
filtering position for at least 60 days. It bioconverts by hydrolysis of the bioabsorbable element, which allows the filter arms to retract to the IVC wall, leaving a patent lumen and reducing the risk for IVC occlusion or thrombosis later on, and obviously, the cost of IFC filter retrieval.
Here you can see filters that are in the bioconverted configuration. This just shows the deployment. It's a simple pin and pull seven French delivery system. These stable arms allow this to be placed almost always without any tilting
and is quite easy and accurate to deploy. This is in an ovine modeled pre-clinical study shows in a bioconverted configuration all of the filter elements become endothelialized and in this angioscopic view, really can't even see any of the filter elements.
This is again sort of predicated on something that I believe we're not all that familiar with and that's when the timing of PE occurs. And you can see here, from the trauma literature, orthopedic literature, other literature, on 500,000 patients and in these groups you can see
that over 90 percent of PEs take place in less than 10 days after an initial event and 99 percent of PEs within 20 days. That led the FDA to write a position decision analysis paper, which recommend filter retrieval between
29 and 54 days after implantation. So, on s, 23 sites, 63 operators. You can see this was a relatively imaging-intense protocol with 24 month CT Venogram and CT Venograms also at one month and six months.
Long term follow up, 94 percent of the eligible subjects were imaged at 24 months. You can see that 67.5 percent of the subjects had current PE and/or DVT at the time of enrollment, and 100 percent had contraindication to anticoagulation for some or all of the protection period.
In terms of the composite primary endpoint, there was a high degree of technical success, 100 percent of the patients received the device. 100 percent freedom from new symptomatic PE to 60 days. Two patients had symptomatic caval thrombosis at 8
by angiojet, one by EKOS. And there was no tilting, migration, embolization, fracture or perforation. At 12 months there were no new symptomatic PEs and there were no device related complications out to 12 months.
And at 24 months, two new symptomatic PEs, days 581 and 632,in patients with fully bioconverted filters. There were no device related out to 24 months. Both of these were adjudicated by a clinical events committee as not being device related.
And again, you can see that the bioconversion rate of 96.5 percent compares favorably to published retrieval rates, and we've talked about that. So, in conclusion, the primary endpoint at six months was met with clinical success of 97.4 percent. No new symptomatic PEs at 12 months.
2.4 new symptomatic PEs at 24 months, but no tilting, migration, perforation, fracture or embolization. And the 96.5 percent bioconversion rate compares favorably to published retrieval rates. Thanks very much.
- Thank you, thank you. Dear Colleagues, I have no Financial Disclosures. If we look at the old randomized stroke trials, mainly NASCET and ECST, we had a combined any stroke and death rate within 30 days of 7%, and there were some clinical and morphological arrivals that were associated
with an higher or a lower risk. The Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration was established to perform pooled individual patient data analysis from the major carotid randomized trials of the last year, ICSS, SPACE, EVA-3S, CREST and now also GALA.
And the aim of this study was to look at the impact of clinical characteristics and perioperative measures on the 30-day risk of stroke and death, and whether the risk of CEA for symptomatic patients has changed since since ECST and NASCET. And I'll jump directly into the results,
the primary outcome, any stroke or death within 30 days occurred in 4.3% of the patients, disabling stroke and death, 2.1, any stroke 4%, all-cause death 0.8%. If we looked at the multi-variable analyses, these are the impact of the clinical characteristics,
no clinical factor was associated with the lower or bigger risk, with the exception of a contralateral stenosis or occlusion. This was statically significant, with an risk increase of almost 60% relative risk increase. We looked at the clinical signs of the patients.
There was a tendency that stroke patients had a bit worse results, but again, statistically not significant, however patients who had an disabling stroke, namely a modified Rankin scale of 3 to 5, had a significantly higher risk of a repetitive stroke or death.
Time interval didn't play a role, at any time interval, nothing there, and also the in-trial center volume. The techniques, a tendency that CR without patch, and interestingly Eversion-CEA had worse results in this big data cohort, but again, statistically not significant.
Shunt use was a bit biased, that was associated with an increased risk, and we looked also at the type of anesthesia, this is I think the most important result of this study, and we were able to show that local anesthesia had better outcomes as compared
to general anesthesia, with a 30% relative risk reduction in these patients. So, summing up and comparing the data with the ECST and NASCET trial, we had a reduction from 7% down to 4.3% and also for the other single end points, disabling stroke, death, any stroke, all-cause death, et cetera.
There was a reduction in the overall complication rate with the exception of, in most cases Passager cranial nerve palsy. So in conclusion, we found a higher surgical risk in patients with a contralateral high grade stenosis or occlusion, we also found a higher risk in patients
with a modified Rankin Scale of 3 to 5 at randomization, so disabling strokes. Lower surgical risk if surgery was done under loco-regional anesthesia, and no significant effects for surgical technique, co-morbidities, gender or age. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you very much. So this is more or less a teaser. The outcome data will not be presented until next month. It's undergoing final analysis. So, the Vici Stent was the stent in the VIRTUS Trial. Self-expanding, Nitinol stent,
12, 14, and 16 in diameter, in three different lengths, and that's what was in the trial. It is a closed-cell stent, despite the fact that it's closed-cell, the flexibility is not as compromised. The deployment can be done from the distal end
or the proximal end for those who have any interest, if you're coming from the jugular or not in the direction of flow, or for whatever reason you want to deploy it from this end versus that end, those are possible in terms of the system. The trial design is not that different than the other three
now the differences, there are minor differences between the four trials that three completed, one soon to be complete, the definitions of the endpoints in terms of patency and major adverse events were very similar. The trial design as we talked about, the only thing
that is different in this study were the imaging requirements. Every patient got a venogram, an IVUS, and duplex at the insertion and it was required at the completion in one year also, the endpoint was venographic, and those who actually did get venograms,
they had the IVUS as well, so this is the only prospective study that will have that correlation of three different imagings before, after, and at follow-up. Classification, everybody's aware, PTS severity, everybody's aware, the endpoints, again as we talked about, are very similar to the others.
The primary patency in 12 months was define this freedom from occlusion by thrombosis or re-intervention. And the safety endpoints, again, very similar to everybody else. The baseline patient characteristics, this is the pivotal, as per design, there were 170 in the pivotal
and 30 in the feasibility study. The final outcome will be all mixed in, obviously. And this is the distribution of the patients. The important thing here is the severity of patients in this study. By design, all acute thrombotic patients, acute DVT patients
were excluded, so anybody who had history of DVT within three months were excluded in this patient. Therefore the patients were all either post-thrombotic, meaning true chronic rather than putting the acute patients in the post-thrombotic segment. And only 25% were Neville's.
That becomes important, so if you look at the four studies instead of an overview of the four, there were differences in those in terms on inclusion/exclusion criteria, although definitions were similar, and the main difference was the inclusion of the chronics, mostly chronics, in the VIRTUS study, the others allowed acute inclusion also.
Now in terms of definition of primary patency and comparison to the historical controls, there were minor differences in these trials in terms of what that historical control meant. However, the differences were only a few percentages. I just want to remind everyone to something we've always known
that the chronic post-thrombotics or chronic occlusions really do the worst, as opposed to Neville's and the acute thrombotics and this study, 25% were here, 75% were down here, these patients were not allowed. So when the results are known, and out, and analyzed it's important not to put them in terms of percentage
for the entire cohort, all trials need to report all of these three categories separately. So in conclusion venous anatomy and disease requires obviously dedicated stent. The VIRTUS feasibility included 30 with 170 patients in the pivotal cohort, the 12 months data will be available
in about a month, thank you.
- Thank you very much both. It was a great pleasure to see you. I continue to be grateful for the guidance you have given me over the years. Thank you to the organizers for advising me to speak. These are my disclosures. So really there are two questions posed by this topic.
One is, is the patent popliteal vein necessary? I would assume from this is it necessary for patency and symptom relief to be achieved in treating patients with both acute DVT and potentially chronic. And has the evolution formic mechanical therapy
led to over stenting. Which means we have to ask the question what is an appropriate rate for stenting. I am not sure we know the answer to that. So being able to answer over stenting requires us to know how many patients
actually need the stent in the first place in acute DVT treatments. The problem is essentially this. Is that when we form lithic therapies and this is a classic case of treatment formed with formic and mechanical device
but without a follow up using lithic in the patient for whom lithic was not feasible. You end up opening up a vessel but you can see from the image on the left hand side that there is a degree still of luminol contrast deficit suggesting some cult left behind
in the external iliac vein. Well there is obviously a May-Thurner legion at the top. The question of over stenting is one of do we just stent the May-Thruner and extend it down into the external iliac vein to trap that thrombus
or would a period of time of lithic have resulted in this clot resolving and not needed a stent at the end of it. To get to the question of how many people should be stented. The only way we can really do this
is try and exstipulate from the literature to some extent. This is the short and long term outcome from the Kevin study. Where there is ultrasound follow up of patients underwent standard treatment only.
And a additional group in the patients had catheter-directed thrombolysis. We can see there that the patients did six months in catheter-directed thrombolysis group is around 60%. And the patency seen with the non treated group
is around 40%. If we kind of use these numbers as a guide we probably expect therefore that the stent rate would be somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. To account for treating the outflow structure that presumably patients see at six months.
But this is clearly not a very rebost method of being absolutely clear on who needs stents. Additional method is we don't really have and answer for who should be stented at the end of a procedure. So if you look at the massive variability
in the other studies. We see that attract stent rate is approximately 28% for the study. Which is obviously a operative discretion and has been criticized for that reason. But there is no comment on the Popliteal vein
or Popliteal vein patency. Cavent did an stent rate of 15% again with no real comment on whether the Popliteal vein was open and it wasn't a prerequisite for treatment in the study. This contrast with the Ansberg Aspirex Registry.
Which is a registry of a purely mechanical device to aspirex clot and the stent rate is 100%. Baekgaard Copenhagen used a catered-directed thrombolysis with a mandated open popliteal vein for purpose to be in the study. He has a stent rate of 60%.
My own personal experience of 160 odd patients is that were stenting around 80% of patients with outflow legion at the end of treatment. And were not really bothered by whether the popliteal vein is clear or not. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question
whether it makes a difference in the long run. So its very difficult even looking at the data we have because there is no standard definition of what a outflow stenosis is. There is no objective measure for an outflow stenosis. So stenting becomes and operative discretion decision.
But you would have to say that if your taking purely mechanical devices and the stent rates are going up to 100% that the inclination would be that there is potential for formic mechanical therapy to lead to overstenting and increase use
for stents for sure. In our experience then we had 81 patients who had CDT alone verse 70 patients who had AngioJet Thrombectomy. The basic characteristics of the group are pretty much identical.
With similar ages and no difference between whether the thrombus with left side or right side of body or so on. And these are the patency curves for the different groups with equivalent primary, primary assisted and secondary patency over two yeas.
We had no difference in stent rates with the median stenting of 80% in both groups with two stents used in average for each of those patients. However in our practice AngioJet is rarely used alone. So we had 70 patients for whom AngioJet was used. 24 of those where AngioJet was used up front
as the first line of treatment followed by some CDT. We have tended find that if we wanted full clock clearance. We have always had omit to some extent. And single stage therapy is quite difficult to achieve unless you spent a lot of time in it.
Patency in the popliteal vein is clearly affected by some extent. These are our follow up results if we don't have a patent popliteal vein at the end. It does drop off in stent patency. So the conclusions then I think.
Is that patent popliteal vein is necessary for long term results. But you can still treat patients that have acute popliteal vein for larsons that is not a contraindication. Pure mechanical therapies may well lead to higher stent rate.
But is this a bad thing or a good thing? We don't really know this at this stage as to what the long term outcomes will be. Thank you very much.
- Thank you much, Mr. Chairman, and I think that you have seen a lot of stuff that's not correct. That's my disclosure, doesn't affect any part of my talk today. Use of Patches in Large Trials. In NASCET and ECST,
patching was left to operator preference. In the NASCET, 83% of patients had primary closure, 9% had vein patch closure and 8% had synthetic patch closure. We've been trained to do the primary closure for all our patients,
and we were happy with that until the new relation came up by Professor Aborahma, and he told us that we have to start putting patches. So, we'll put a Dacron patch or we'll put a Vascu-Guard patch or we start doing a lot of eversion endarterectomy.
The only trick in all of that is the hemostasis that you have to put a lot of time in it because there's no different between the three of them. Then the systemic review of randomized control trial being published about the different part of patch and what we discovered,
that selective patching in narrow arteries hasn't been studied in any randomized control trials. There is no clear indication for selective patching. Despite limitation of data, results of the review support a recommendation in favor of routine patching. We couldn't find anything, but we just said to go, so...
Surgeon always understand the evidence differently, and it's up to the surgeon to decide whether to patch or not. A Cochrane review level one evidence, quality of trial were generally poor, and believe it or not,
this is how the guidelines have been built on in 2011 for the SVS and 2017 for the European Society. Carotid vein patch do rupture with potentially fatal consequences. Synthetic material are vulnerable to infection. And later on, variation of eversion
of carotid endarterectomy in the regional variation of the vascular quality initiative showed that there's 1% eversion (mumbles) up to 23% in primary closure, and the use of patch varied between 87 to 99 depend on the surgeon preference.
Bovine pericardium. Bovine pericardium demonstrates statistically significant decrease in intraoperative suture line bleeding compared with Dacron. I have no problem with that. Handling characteristics were judged by the surgeon
to be superior and we believe it's an alternative to Dacron in all cases of carotid endarterectomy as the previous presenter have shown. However, in 2007, the publication was that Never to bovine carotid patch in symptomatic patients or the young because of the catastrophic complications.
So the group in Yale under Alan Dardik decided to study this by getting the patch put in antibiotic to prevent this reaction, and the whole idea of macrophage and arterial stem cell infiltrates bovine patch, they hypothesized that antibiotic pre-treatment
of the patch before implantation would decrease infiltrating cells and prevent neointimal formation. However, they found that low level of antibiotics adsorbed and have off-target effect and didn't make any difference. And then we looked again and again.
Long-term clinical results reported several alarming issues regarding the bovine patch, mainly accelerated restenosis, patch rupture, cartilaginous metaplasia, pseudoaneurysm infection and acute thrombosis. Moreover, later on, the 10 years follow-up
have shown that post-operative complication were 6% in bovine pericardium with 2% aneurysmal dilatation. And in 2018, something very interesting, if you got a bovine patch in your neck, you're more likely to die rather than having any other patch
at 38 versus 45%. Then they compare the bovine patch to other type of patches, and what they find, that when you put the bovine patch in your neck, you have 6% re-exploration if using the Vascu-Guard. You have shown that,
but you didn't show that the bovine patch, the publication depended on only 149 patients for the whole meta-analysis. And additional randomized trials with adequate follow-up periods are needed to compare its effect.
And let's look at the prospective randomized control trial of the Hemashield versus the PTFE. There was higher restenosis in the Hemashield Finesse patch and, later on prospective (mumbles) of ACUSEAL was Professor Aborahma. Mean hemostasis time was higher for ACUSEAL
but Vascu-Guard bovine patch had more re-exploration for neck, as previously shown. And then, the long-term effect of prosthetic material disintegration with failure in the absence of infection, and moreover, seromas and tissue reaction
related to Dacron with no evidence of infection. So, start looking at our own experience and what we found, that if we do a primary closure, the stenosis rate is 4%. If we used a bovine patch, the stenosis rate is 43% and 1/3 of that goes for carotid angioplasty and stenting. And if you'd like to know more, this is our publication.
Never reach out your hand unless you are willing to extend an arm. Never to do that in patient coming through your practice ever. This is a patient that came to us with a meta-cartilaginous problem,
and we have to excise it completely. He had a bovine pericardial patch, and as you can see in here, that huge amount of reaction, and when you open it, after putting a hemoband into the common carotid to the ICA in order to control that, the dissection is so difficult and sometimes impossible.
And we replaced that later on with a reverse saphenous vein in order to get the blood flow going back. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentleman, there is no evidence of superiority of any patch type. Late catch up phenomena of patch disintegration is a call for a concern.
Bovine patches had shown accelerated restenosis rate in diabetic symptomatic young women. Vascular surgeon must get better at eversion endarterectomy. Primary closure is an alternative option in the five millimeter ICA or larger and only if we use 7/0 proline.
I advise you that this is the commonest procedure that we do. However, there's no evidence for superiority for any closure method for the most performed that we ever have done. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present today.
- Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Professor Veith, thank you for the opportunity to present our data here. I have no disclosure. Surgical site infections are quite common in vascular surgical patients, reaching an incidence up to 30%, and up to 6% the vessels are involved.
The majority are late infections and comorbidities such as diabetes, obesity, and tissue necrosis, are additional risk factors for infection. Closed-incision Negative Pressure Therapy has proved to avoid, or to minimize the rate of
surgical site infections. And this Prevena device, which we are using, is especially developed for these kind of wounds. The dressing is applied intraoperatively on the closed incision under sterile conditions, and a special polyester layer protects the skin
from contact with the foam bolster, while at the same time allowing delivery of negative pressure and removal of the fluid. The aim of the study was to investigate whether this negative pressure therapy can reduce the risk of groin wound infections after vascular surgery.
The primary end point was the incidence of infections in the first six weeks after surgery, and secondary end points were the handling of the Prevena system and the influence of the risk factors. It was a randomized controlled trial. After giving written consent, the patient's were...
All patient's was a planned Femoral cut down randomized into a negative pressure group and the control group. In surgery, all patients received a subfascial suction drainage and the wounds were closed primarily with single stitch sutures.
In the negative pressure group, the Prevena was applied and in the other group, an absorbent dressing. The second to third day, the drain was removed and the dressing was changed in the control group on the second day.
And after five days, Prevena and the dressing were removed and the wound was inspected, documented, and classified. A second classification followed after six weeks. We used the Szilagyi classification. Grade I is limited to the dermis, Grade II extends down to the subcutaneous tissue
without involving the vessels, and Grade III involved the vessels. In total, we randomized 141 patients. 67 were allocated to the negative pressure group, and 74 to the control group. After excluding the drop outs, we had 64 patients
to analyze in the negative pressure group, and 68 in the control. The groups did not differ for demographic data, for indications, and the use of alloplastic material. And you can see here the results. Overall, we had 10% early infections in both groups,
15% in the control group, and 6% in the negative pressure group. Late infections, there were twice as much in the control group than in the negative pressure group, 28 versus 14%. But although this difference are quite clear,
this data did not reach statistical significance. Same in analyzing the risk factors. We could not find that any group benefits more than the others from the use of Prevena. Some conclusion. The device was easy to handle,
no complications there, we didn't have any adverse side effects we could observe. Despite the clear difference between both groups, we could not prove that the negative pressure therapy is better. And the same is true for the risk factors.
Now, how do that fit to the literature? Here you have five recently published studies of a very similar in study assigned in patients and procedure. And you can see that three studies could prove a reduction of surgical site infections to the groin, and two studies including ours, could not.
But at least showed a strong trend. So, we believe there is evidence that negative pressure therapy can reduce a number of groin infections. But, the evidence is still poor, and it needs more and bigger studies to justify
this very expensive therapy. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you to the moderators, thank you to Dr. Veith for having me. Let's go! So my topic is to kind of introduce the ATTRACT trial, and to talk a little bit about how it affected, at least my practice, when it comes to patients with acute DVT.
I'm on the scientific advisory board for a company that makes IVC filters, and I also advise to BTG, so you guys can ask me about it later if you want. So let's talk about a case. A 50-year-old man presents
from an outside hospital to our center with left lower extremity swelling. And this is what somebody looks like upon presentation. And pulses, motor function, and sensation are actually normal at this point.
And he says to us, "Well, symptoms started "three days ago. "They're about the same since they started," despite being on anticoagulation. And he said, "Listen guys, in the other hospital, "they wouldn't do anything.
"And I want a procedure because I want the clot "out of me." so he's found to have this common femoral vein DVT. And the question is should endovascular clot removal be performed for this patient?
Well the ATTRACT trial set off to try and prevent a complication you obviously all know about, called the post-thrombotic syndrome, which is a spectrum from sort of mild discomfort and a little bit of dyspigmentation and up
to venous ulcerations and quite a lot of morbidity. And in ATTRACT, patients with proximal DVT were randomized to anticoagulation alone or in combination with pharma mechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis.
And the reason I put proximal in quotes is because it wasn't only common sort of femoral vein clots, but also femoral vein clots including the distal femoral vein were included eventually. And so patients with clots were recruited,
and as I said, they were randomized to those two treatments. And what this here shows you is the division into the two groups. Now I know this is a little small, but I'll try and kind of highlight a few things
that are relevant to this talk. So if you just read the abstract of the ATTRACT trial published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, it'll seem to you that the study was a negative study.
The conclusion and the abstract is basically that post-thrombotic syndrome was not prevented by performing these procedures. Definitely post-thrombotic syndrome is still frequent despite treatment. But there was a signal for less severe
post-thrombotic syndrome and for more bleeding. And I was hoping to bring you all, there's an upcoming publication in circulation, hopefully it'll be online, I guess, over the weekend or early next week, talking specifically about patients
with proximal DVT. But you know, I'm speaking now without those slides. So what I can basically show you here, that at 24 months, unfortunately, there was no, well not unfortunately,
but the fact is, it did cross the significance and it was not significant from that standpoint. And what you can see here, is sort of a continuous metric of post-thrombotic syndrome. And here there was a little bit of an advantage
towards reduction of severe post-thrombotic syndrome with the procedure. What it also shows you here in this rectangle, is that were more bleeds, obviously, in the patients who received the more aggressive therapy.
One thing that people don't always talk about is that we treat our patients for two reasons, right? We want to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome but obviously, we want to help them acutely. And so what the study also showed,
was that acute symptoms resolved more quickly in patients who received the more aggressive therapy as opposed to those who did not. Again, at the price of more bleeding. So what happened to this patient? Well you know,
he presented on a Friday, obviously. So we kind of said, "Yeah, we probably are able "to try and do something for you, "but let's wait until Monday." And by Monday, his leg looked like this, with sort of a little bit of bedrest
and continued anticoagulation. So at the end of the day, no procedure was done for this particular patient. What are my take home messages, for whatever that's worth? Well I think intervention for DVT
has several acute indications. Restore arterial flow when phlegmasia is the problem, and reduce acute symptoms. I think intervention for common femoral and more proximal DVT likely does have long-term benefit, and again, just be
on the lookout for that circ paper that's coming out. Intervention for femoral DVT, so more distal DVT, in my opinion, is rarely indicated. And in the absence of phlegmasia, for me, thigh swelling is a good marker for a need
for a procedure, and I owe Dr. Bob Schainfeld that little tidbit. So thank you very much for listening.
- Have nothing to disclose. This is a question we see everyday, we start off with the toe on the left we hope to end up with this, not this and this. And the question is, can we have some
or do we have something in our toolbox that can tell us this will end up here, not here and not here. So, when you look in the literature and most armor materials of vascular oxygen,
we have physical exam the most basic as the ankle break you index which is historically and currently can be inaccurate based on the calcium changes in the diabetic digital pressures are supposed to be
less affected by the cost of five changes in the diabetic, we also duplex which some people use as well as the velocities or the waveform patterns to help to determine blood flow to the foot contrast based imaging although use essentially on all patients with limb savage
really has not provided accurate measurements of whether or not the patient will heal. Over 20 years ago, there was some data to look at two pressures to determine whether or not you heel the toe or in the foot.
At this point, it was felt to be somewhere in the 50 to 60 millimeters of mercury. You saw patients healed statistically better. However, you still see people heal on this side who are under the 50% 50 millimeters of mercury range.
Perspective data has been seen in the literature. This is a paper that it looked at whether or not monitor healing monitoring amputations would heal the toe pressure, the odds ratio was calculated and as you can see
every millimeter of increase in the toe pressure the risk of monitor for an amputation progressing to hire amputation was decreased, and the toe brachial pressure index was also very important in the term of whether or not the patient would heal. This is a meta analysis of the literature
looking at all the different studies that have been used to determine whether or not two blood pressure and to break your index could show predictive value of healing. Unfortunately,
there are a lot of variations in the way these studies are performed. However, it is felt there are some predictive values. One of the things the reason we looked at our data is some people use Doppler waveform. Some of our colleagues,
instead of looking at the actual pressure reading at the level to toe will look at velocities and waveforms and try to use that as a predictive value. In this particular study,
it has been shown in patients on dialysis, looking at their waveform and without wombs, whether or not they'll go on eventually have a major amputation. And in this setting, it may have some impact
but these are patients with wounds but these are patients that you are following who are on dialysis, and waveforms can predict future amputation. Trans cutaneous oximetry and some institutions are readily available.
however, sorry, however, most institutions that I've worked at it's only available in wound healing center and is not readily available in the vascular lab
although this is based on oxygen tension, the numbers are pretty similar to what we expect to find with healing potential with a digital blood pressures. Our experience we looked at this several years ago we presented a vest and also is published in the annuals of vasculature surgery,
we tried to look at whether or not the velocities within the tibia Walgreens the waveforms within the the tibia Walgreens, and or was there a number that was the best number to predict whether or not the patient would heal.
Similar to what is taught in most educational institutions, around 50 millimeters of mercury was statistically significant and that over 90 or close to 90% of patients healed at that level of perfusion. Unfortunately, under 47,
you still had 70 some percent of the people healed. We looked at this when I was in Tampa and fellowship, we had over 90% predictive value whether or not you could heal in the foot or mid foot based on toe pressures.
However, it really doesn't help us that much because there's still a significant portion of patients who will heal in the 30 to 50 millimeter range. Overall, what does all this mean? I'm unsure.
One of the most difficult things we see with patients that we're going to plan amputation and we can improve the revascularization strategies is in the patient who have two pressures in the zero to 20
since we do not going to heal and proceed with major amputation versus those who are in the 30 to 50 it's essentially a coin toss whether or not they will heal and then over 50 is still not a for sure thing.
Like to thank the opportunity to share information. Thank you.
- So again, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith for the opportunity to participate in this interesting debate. So, I have been tasked with the position Intra-operative Completion Study is not mandatory, and in fact I will show you why a selective approach will actually provide better results for our patients. These are my disclosures related to ongoing
clinical research and clinical trials. So again, Professor Eckstein and his colleagues should be very significantly commended for getting the entire German vascular surgery community to look at their data in a very rigorous fashion. However, both he and his co-authors will acknowledge
within the manuscript that there are significant problems with this database. A very large number of 142,000 elective carotid endarterectomy procedures with very ballotable stroke and death rates of 1.4 and 2.5%. However, a typical criticism from outside the
vascular surgery community, these are all self-reported. These are not 30 day outcomes, they're actually in-hospital outcomes. And while in Germany that still may be four days, it's not the 30 days that we see. I'll show you a little bit later on within the Crest data.
And interestingly, within their own manuscript only 50% of the patients actually had neurologic assessment both pre- and post-procedural. So, how can we make a relevant decision in terms of thinking about how we're going to treat these patients if we only have neuro data on half of them.
Lets for the moment assume we can call out those patients. How does this relate to clinical practice? Well the authors also admit that this is an observational study, and that even though there is some association, there clearly is no causal relationship
as my previous debater just admitted. And in fact, they argue that this is perhaps the best method to look at generating hypotheses for future randomized trials, much like Dr. Aborama has done with the use of carotid endarterectomy with patching. So, let's look a little bit more about the data
and see how relevant it is to your current practice. So in the Germany registry, a quarter of the patients are treated under local anesthetic. 40% have no type of neurologic monitoring, and over 40% are performed with aversion endarterectomy. Very, very different than the practice that we see
in our institution, and in the New England region. And I would argue that there's a lot of concern in terms of what the indications are for monitoring, what the indications are for shunt use. Again, that's 43%. But there's absolutely no data in this registry about
indications for shunting, when it was used, or when patients were re-explored and what they found at the time. And a little bit concerning is in 17% of the patients, there was no anti-platelet agent used in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.
And, I would argue that that number is just a little bit high. How about when we go to the univariate analysis? Once again, we see that there's a benefit of 0.4% decrease in stroke and death for a local anesthetic, although we are well aware that there are numerous other
perspectives that have looked at this and not shown that same relationship. Again, there's a benefit for aversion endarterectomy, but I would argue at least in the New England region and perhaps in the United States except for select centers, aversion endarterectomy is used the minority of the time
and that in fact is an indication in my mind to have a lower threshold for either angiogram or completion duplex. Most concerning, there was 0.3% difference in the stroke and death rate with the lack of an intraoperative completion study, but there was no data about indications, findings,
whether that resulted in an intervention, or what the result of that intervention was. And initially in the univariate analysis, neuro-psyche, physiologic monitoring was protective, but later on in the multivariate, it was not. Here is that same multivariate analysis that shows again
that in fact shunting and neuro-physiologic monitoring are increased risk factors for stroke. Certainly there's going to be some bias. My concern is I'm not convinced the authors are able to call out the co founding variables, even in their multivariate regression analysis.
And in fact, in their concluding paragraphs they state there's no information supplied on whether intraoperative completion studies caused an operative revision or not, and no information about cause of death. In fact, they don't even have information about
intraoperative heparin or protamine application. So I would argue I'd be very skeptical about making my final decisions based on this. Thinking about the technical aspects of angiography, there's no doubt that this is very helpful at times, but think about the details of where do you put the needle.
What type of imaging? Is it a C-arm, is it a flat plate? Who interprets it, and what are your thresholds for intervention? So, it certainly may be harmful, may be unnecessary, and may even give you false positives.
Similarly with Completion Duplex studies, there certainly is a false positive rate and then there's risk for re-clamping. I reached out to my friend and colleague Braglol to see if there was any data from Crest that would help us, and unfortunately other than the fact that stroke happens
up to 30 days after our initial endarterectomy, there was no data supporting that. So, perhaps the best study that we have is our current practice in New England where we had 6,000 patients, a third of whom received completion studies. We broke this down into rare, selective, and routine
duplex or angio studies. And in fact, in the selective group we had a very low rate of re-exploration versus the other group, and a much lower incidence of overall stroke and death. In fact, the only benefit that was statistically significant was a decrease one year rate of re-stenosis.
So in conclusion, I would argue that this is probably unnecessary, and in fact maybe harmful. Meticulous technique, intra-procedural monitoring with selective shunt use, and continuous wave doppler use may, in fact, be the way to go. But this does give us an opportunity for prospective,
randomized trial as part of another study to look for completion study indications. Thank you very much.
- 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 for the opportunity to speak. So thirty day mortality following unselected non-cardiac surgery in patients 45 years and older has been reported to be as high as 1.9%. And in such patients we know that postoperative troponin elevation has
a very strong correlation with 30-day mortality. Considering that there are millions of major surgical procedures performed, it's clear that this equates to a significant health problem. And therefore, the accurate identification of patients at risk of complications
and morbidity offers many advantages. First, both the patient and the physician can perform an appropriate risk-benefit analysis based on the expected surgical benefit in relation to surgical risk. And surgery can then be declined,
deferred, or modified to maximize the patient's benefit. Secondly, pre-operative identification of high-risk patients allows physicians to direct their efforts towards those who might really benefit from additional interventions. And finally, postoperative management,
monitoring and potential therapies can be individualized according to predicted risk. So there's a lot of data on this and I'll try to go through the data on predictive biomarkers in different groups of vascular surgery patients. This study published in the "American Heart Journal"
in 2018 measured troponin levels in a prospective blinded fashion in 1000 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Major cardiac complications occurred overall in 11% but in 24% of the patients who were having vascular surgery procedures.
You can see here that among vascular surgery patients there was a really high prevalence of elevated troponin levels preoperatively. And again, if you look here at the morbidity in vascular surgery patients 24% had major cardiac complications,
the majority of these were myocardial infarctions. Among patients undergoing vascular surgery, preoperative troponin elevation was an independent predictor of cardiac complications with an odds ratio of 1.5, and there was an increased accuracy of this parameter
in vascular surgery as opposed to non-vascular surgery patients. So what about patients undergoing open vascular surgery procedures? This is a prospective study of 455 patients and elevated preoperative troponin level
and a perioperative increase were both independently associated with MACE. You can see here these patients were undergoing a variety of open procedures including aortic, carotid, and peripheral arterial. And you can see here that in any way you look at this,
both the preoperative troponin, the postoperative troponin, the absolute change, and the relative change were all highly associated with MACE. You could add the troponin levels to the RCRI a clinical risk stratification tool and know that this increased the accuracy.
And this is additionally shown here in these receiver operator curves. So this study concluded that a combination of the RCRI with troponin levels can improve the predictive accuracy and therefore allow for better patient management.
This doesn't just happen in open-vascular surgery patients. This is a study that studied troponin levels in acute limb ischaemia patients undergoing endovascular therapy. 254 patients all treated with endovascular intervention
with a 3.9% mortality and a 5.1% amputation rate. Patients who died or required amputation more frequently presented with elevated troponin levels. And the relationship between troponin and worse in-hospital outcome remains significant even when controlling for other factors.
In-hospital death or amputation again and amputation free survival were highly correlated with preoperative troponin levels. You can see here 16.9% in patients with elevated troponins versus 6% in others. And the cardiac troponin level
had a high hazard ratio for predicting worse in-hospital outcomes. This is a study of troponins just in CLI patients with a similar design the measurement of troponin on admission again was a significant independent predictor
of survival with a hazard ratio of 4.2. You can see here that the majority of deaths that did occur were in fact cardiac, and troponin levels correlated highly with both cardiac specific and all-cause mortality. The value of the troponin test was maintained
even when controlling for other risk factors. And these authors felt that the realistic awareness of likely long term prognosis of vascular surgery patients is invaluable when planning suitability for either surgical or endovascular intervention.
And finally, we even have data on the value of preoperative troponin in patients undergoing major amputation. This was a study in which 10 of 44 patients had a non-fatal MI or died from a cardiac cause following amputation.
A rise in the preoperative troponin level was associated with a very poor outcome and was the only significant predictor of postoperative cardiac events. As you can see in this slide. This clearly may be a "Pandora's box".
We really don't know who should have preoperative troponins. What is the cost effectiveness in screening everybody? And in patients with elevated troponin levels, what exactly do we do? Do we cancel surgery, defer it, or change our plan?
However, certainly as vascular surgeons with our high-risk patient population we believe in risk stratification tools. And the RCRI is routinely used as a clinical risk stratification tool. Adding preoperative troponin levels to the RCRI
clearly increases its accuracy in the prediction of patients who will have perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality. And you can see here that the preoperative troponin level had one of the highest independent hazard ratios at 5.4. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Thank you, Dr. Ouriel, Dr. Lurie. Ladies and gentlemen. Brian, that was a very fair overview of the ATTRACT trial as it was published in the New England Journal, so thank you. And these are my disclosures. So Dr. DeRubertis did a very nice review of this paper
that was published in the New England Journal December 7th of last year. He went over very nicely that it was NIH sponsored, phase III, randomized, controlled, multicenter, 692 patients randomized, anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation plus catheter-based techniques.
Now one thing I want to call your attention to is the fact that patients with deep venous thrombosis, acute deep venous thrombosis, who were eligible for randomization, were stratified before they were randomized into two different groups, iliofemoral DVT or fem-pop DVT.
So in my opinion, these are not subgroups because the randomization of one group had no effect on the randomization of another, so I would argue that these are independent groups. That makes a big difference when you do statistical analyses.
The other important issue that I want to point out is that the outcomes were pre-determined to what we were going to analyze. We had to choose one as a primary endpoint and the others as secondary, but these were pre-determined end points that were up for analysis, not post hoc analyses.
And post-thrombotic syndrome was determined at the time, 12 years ago when we wrote the protocol, to be the primary end point. I would submit that we would not choose that as a primary end point if we wrote the protocol today. Moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome
certainly would be more appropriate. Leg pain, swelling, health-related quality of life, certainly important. This is the outcome, and unfortunately, it did not reach significance. There was no difference between the two groups
and there was an increased risk of bleeding, but this is the outcome that drove opinion about ATTRACT, but we don't really do catheter-directed thrombolysis for fem-pop DVT. Therefore, the results of the iliofemoral patients will be the most meaningful and that paper was written
and that paper has been accepted by circulation. It should be out shortly, but there were 391 iliofemoral DVT patients and the primary outcome was no different than the primary outcome in the overall trial. But are they?
If we had chosen the Venous Clinical Severity Score in place of the Villalta score for analysis of that primary end point, it would've been a positive study. So if we chose a different tool to analyze, our primary end point would've been positive for the iliofemoral DVT patients.
If we look at moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome, a significant difference. Control patients had a 56% increased risk of moderate to severe PTS versus the control patients. If we look at severe post-thrombotic syndrome, control patients had a 72% increased risk
of severe PTS versus control. If we look at the overall severity of the Villalta score in PTS, we can see that there is a significant difference favoring percutaneous catheter-directed thrombolysis. When we look at pain, the patient's pain was significantly reduced in the PCDT patients compared to control.
We look at edema, significant reduction in edema at day 10 and day 30 in patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis compared to control. Disease-specific quality of life significantly favored patients who had PCDT compared to control. So we look at moderate to severe, severe, pain,
quality of life. There was a price to pay. Major bleeding was increased, but the P-value was no different. I will not argue that patients are not at increased risk. They are at increased risk for bleeding,
but this is an historically low bleeding rate for catheter-directed thrombolysis and there were no intracranial bleeds. No difference in recurrent deep venous thrombosis. No difference in mortality at 24 months between the two groups.
So in conclusion, the primary end point, reduction of any PTS defined by a Villalta score of 5 or more, no difference, but an item that has not reached the level of discussion that we will need to consider is that 14% of our patients had a normal Villalta score coming into the study.
It's impossible to improve upon that, but there is a significant reduction in any PTS if you use the Venous Clinical Severity Score, reduction of moderate and severe post-thrombotic syndrome, reduction of pain and swelling, and improved disease-specific quality of life compared to controls.
And I think these are the meaningful end points that patients appreciate and these are the points of discussion that will be covered in the article in circulation that will be published very soon. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you, I have no conflict of interest. Although less represented in studies, it has been clearly shown that women are less likely to benefit and more likely to suffer carotid procedural stroke or death compared to men. So let's look at procedural benefit for women in particular first, carotid endarterectomy first.
The only women with carotid stenosis who have been shown to receive a statistically significant overall benefit from carotid endarterectomy have been symptomatic women with 70 to 99% NASCET stenosis without near occlusion who had carotid endarterectomy performed within two
to three weeks of their last cerebral event. They also had to satisfy all the trial inclusion and exclusion criteria. So, symptomatic women in the randomized trials did not receive a benefit from endarterectomy compared to medical treatment on its own
if they had 70 to 99% NASCET stenosis, and endarterectomy was performed more than two to three weeks from the last cerebral event. Or if they had 50 to 69% NASCET stenosis no matter the timing of the endarterectomy. Now, symptomatic men in the
randomized trials had more benefit. Symptomatic men with 70 to 99% NASCET stenosis actually had an overall statistically significant benefit from endarterectomy up to at least three months after their last cerebral event. And I haven't seen it published exactly
when that benefit period finished. Also, men with 50 to 69% NASCET stenosis had overall benefit from endarterectomy, but only if the surgery was performed within two to three weeks of their last cerebral ischemic event. With respect to asymptomatic women,
there's been no clear benefit from endarterectomy in randomized trials. So they did not benefit in ACAS, and the closest to benefit ACST were aged less than 75 years of age. But this was only borderline statistically significant. Asymptomatic men also had more benefit in the randomized
trials of endarterectomy versus medical treatment. So, overall, they had a benefit if they had at least 60% NASCET stenosis, and they were aged less than 75 to 80. What about transfemoral, transaortic stenting? Women and men have not been shown to benefit from stenting
compared to medical intervention alone or endarterectomy. Now, I've head some rumors that women in ACT-1 trial had less harm from stenting compared to endarterectomy. But I haven't seen that result published yet. And when it is published they need to include the peri-procedural risk of stroke and death.
Of course, women and men are much less likely to benefit from any carotid procedure now due to advances in medical intervention. What about procedural harm, endarterectomy? Well, in the randomized trials of endarterectomy versus medical treatment and other studies women
are more likely to have peri-operative stroke and death compared to men. That's seen in randomized trials, but also in non-randomized trials. What about trans-femoral/aortic stenting? Randomized trials and other studies
have been underpowered to compare outcomes with stenting in symptomatic women versus men, but across both sexes stenting has significantly more harm associated with it. In a meta-analysis of randomized trials symptomatic women had one and a half times more peri-procedural stroke
and death with stenting compared to endarterectomy. Again, for asymptomatic patients the trials have been underpowered, but a trend to more harm with stenting. And, also, seen in CREST with combined symptomatic and asymptomatic women.
As Cosmas mentioned, more harm with stenting. TCAR, doesn't look like we're planning to do adequate comparisons with current medical treatment, so no current indication. In summary, overall, the only women shown to benefit from endarterectomy were symptomatic
with 70 to 99% stenosis with endarterectomy within two to three weeks of the last event. Overall, all women are more likely to be harmed by endarterectomy compared to men, and to be harmed by stenting compared to endarterectomy. Everyone is less likely to benefit
from these procedures now. So given all this information, why are we doing so many procedures in women? Thank you.
- Thank you and maybe we trying to get rid of women's, I don't know, we'll see. Thank you Dr. Veith. No relevant disclosures to this talk. But we know statin is very beneficial in carotid endarterectomy. Several published data already,
one of them is threefold reduction in the risk of stroke and fivefold reduction in the risk of death done by Dr. Perler over 1,500 patients. Another study by Kennedy, showing 75% reduction in the risk of stroke as well and this is one larger cohort, about 3,300 patients.
So what about carotid stenting? If you look at the data, there's not a lot of data out there so we did a lot of work looking at medication in general in carotid stenting. For instance, we know that dual antiplatelet therapy is very beneficial.
We don't have one, we actually have two randomized trials comparing clopidogrel or ticlopidine with asprin versus Heparin and asprin. Both studies showed significant reduction in the risk of neurological event. In the first study, reduction from 25% to 0%.
In the second one, from 16% to 2%. So beta-blockers, not a lot of people believe this data but this is very powerful study, a large cohort of patients that received beta-blockers. There was a 65% reduction in the risk of stroke and death in carotid artery stentings
and mainly in the group who developed hypertension after the procedure. So how about statin? Statin and carotid artery stenting, if you look in the literature, very poor data. This is one of the largest studies out there,
it has about a thousand patients, a little over a thousand patients, about 40% of them are on statin and in this particular study there was 70% reduction in the risk of stroke and death if you're on a statin versus not.
And that persisted at long term followup. So if you're on statin at five years, your risk of mortality overall was reduced by 50% and your risk of stroke also was reduced by about 60%. We went out to see what happened in real world data so we used the Premier dataset
to represent 20% of all discharges in the United States. And it has more than 700 hospitals. So we have from 2009 to 2015, 17,800 carotid stent, making this the largest retrospective study done to date. 70% of these patients were on statin and as you can expect they're slightly older, more male,
more history of hypertension, diabetes and prior stroke, prior MI and coronary artery disease, there was significantly more CHF, COPD. Bottom line, they were a lot more sicker and that's why they were on statins. But the group that did not receive statin,
were more likely to receive an urgent or emergent carotid artery stenting. Surprising was that actually the risk of stroke and MI was larger in the group who are on statin but the death was half. So that making a case for a rescue phenomenon
and as you can see here, chances of dying, if you're on statin and develop major stroke or MI after carotid stenting was reduced from 26% to 11%. When we did the adjusted analysis, the difference in stroke went away but the difference in MI persisted.
So if you're on statin, twice as much MI. Obviously, this is why you're on statin in the first place because you have a lot of coronary artery disease so it is not surprising why there is more MI. But again, the risk of death was reduced by more than 60% and the risk of death following a major stroke
or major MI was reduced by 63%. Limitation, of course, is a retrospective analysis. We only looking at post-operative outcomes, we don't know really the exact, we do but we didn't analyze the dosage and the type of statin, that's another study.
But this study is published recently in the Journal of Vascular Surgery. And in conclusion, 64% reduction in odd of death, 18% reduction in odd of stroke and death if you're in statin verus not and undergo a carotid artery stenting.
And most interesting finding, 63% reduction in failure to rescue. And I urge you to have all your patients on statin, if you're performing carotid artery stenting based on this and other data but we need further study to look at the dose effect
and the type of statin that need to be used. Thank you so much.
- Thank you chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I have no conflict of interest for this talk. So, basically for vTOS we have the well known treatment options. Either the conservative approach with DOAC or anticoagulation for three months or longer supported by elastic stockings.
And alternatively there's the invasive approach with catheter thrombolysis and decompression surgery and as we've just heard in the talk but Ben Jackson, also in surgeons preference, additional PTA and continuation or not of anticoagulation.
And basically the chosen therapy is very much based on the specific specialist where the patient is referred to. Both treatment approaches have their specific complications. Rethrombosis pulmonary embolism,
but especially the post-thrombotic syndrome which is reported in conservative treatment in 26 up to 66%, but also in the invasive treatment approach up to 25%. And of course there are already well known complications related to surgery.
The problem is, with the current evidence, that it's only small retrospective studies. There is no comparative studies and especially no randomized trials. So basically there's a lack of high quality evidence leading to varying guideline recommendations.
And I'm not going through them in detail 'cause it's a rather busy slide. But if you take a quick look then you can see some disparencies between the different guidelines and at some aspects there is no recommendation at all,
or the guidelines refer to selected patients, but they define how they should be selected. So again, the current evidence is insufficient to determine the most clinically and cost effective treatment approach, and we believe that a randomized trial is warranted.
And this is the UTOPIA trial. And I'm going to take you a bit through the design. So the research question underline this trial is, does surgical treatment, consisting of catheter directed thrombolysis and first rib section, significantly reduce post-thrombotic syndrome
occurrence, as compared to conservative therapy with DOAC anticoagulation, in adults with primary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis? The design is multicenter randomized and the population is all adults with first case of primary Upper Extremity
Deep Venous Thrombosis. And our primary outcome is occurrence of post-thrombotic syndrome, and this the find according the modified Villalta score. And there are several secondary outcomes, which of course we will take into account,
such as procedural complications, but also quality of life. This is the trial design. Inclusion informed consent and randomization are performed at first presentation either with the emergency department or outpatient clinic.
When we look at patients 18 years or older and the symptoms should be there for less than 14 days. Exclusion criteria are relevant when there's a secondary upper extremity deep vein thrombosis or any contra-indication for DOACs or catheter directed thrombolysis.
We do perform imaging at baseline with a CT venography. We require this to compare baseline characteristics of both groups to mainly determine what the underlying cause of the thrombosis being either vTOS or idiopathic.
And then a patient follows the course of the trial either the invasive treatment with decompression surgery and thrombolysis and whether or not PTA is required or not, or conservative treatment and we have to prefer DOAC Rivaroxaban or apixaban to be used.
Further down the patient is checked for one month and the Villalta score is adapted for use in the upper extremity and we also apply quality of life scores and scores for cost effectiveness analysis. And this is the complete flowchart of the whole trial.
Again, very busy slide, but just to show you that the patient is followed up at several time points, one, three, six, and 12 months and the 12 months control is actually the endpoint of the trial
And then again, a control CT venography is performed. Sample size and power calculation. We believe that there's an effect size of 20% reduction in post-thrombotic syndrome in favor of the invasive treatment and there's a two-side p-value of 0.05
and at 80% power, we consider that there will be some loss to follow up, and therefore we need just over 150 patients to perform this trial. So, in short, this slide more or less summarize it. It shows the several treatment options
that are available for these patients with Upper Extremity Venous Thrombosis. And in the trial we want to see, make this comparison to see if anticoagulation alone is as best as invasive therapy. I thank for your attention.
- Thank you very much. It's an hono ou to the committee for the invitation. So, I'll be discussing activity recommendations for our patients after cervical artery dissection. I have no relevant disclosures.
And extracranial cervical artery dissection is an imaging diagnosis as we know with a variety of presentations. You can see on the far left the intimal flap and double lumen in the left vertebral artery
on both coronal and axial imaging, a pseudoaneurysm of the internal carotid artery, aneurysmal degeneration in an older dissection, and an area of long, smooth narrowing followed by normal artery, and finally a flame-tipped occlusion.
Now, this affects our younger patients with really opposity of atherosclerotic risk factors. So, cervical artery dissection accounts for up to 25% of stroke in patients under the age of 45. And, other than hypertension, it's not associated with any cardiovascular risk factors.
There is a male predominance, although women with dissections seem to present about five years younger. And there is an indication that there may be a systemic ateriopathy contributing to this in our patients, and I'll show you some brief data regarding that.
So, in studies that have looked at vessel redundancy, including loops, coils, and in the video image, an S curve on carotid duplex. Patients with cervical artery dissection have a much higher proportion of these findings, up to three to four times more than
age and sex matched controls. They also have findings on histology of the temporal artery when biopsied. So one study did this and these patients had abnormal capillary formation as well as extravasation of blood cells between the median adventitia
of the superficial temporal artery. And there is an association with FMD and a shared genetic polymorphism indicating that there may be shared pathophysiology for these conditions. But in addition, a lot of patients report minor trauma around the time or event of cervical artery dissection.
So this data from CADISP, and up to 40% of cases had minor trauma related to their dissection, including chiropractic neck manipulation, extreme head movements, or stretching, weight lifting, and sports-related injuries. Thankfully, the majority of patients do very well after
they have a dissection event, but a big area of concern for the patient and their provider is their risk for recurrence. That's highest around the original event, about 2% within the first month, and thereafter, it's stable at 1% per year,
although recurrent pain can linger for many years. So what can we tell our patients in terms of reducing their risk for a recurrent event? Well, most of the methods are around reducing any sort of impulse, stress, or pressure on the arteries, both intrinsically and extrinsically,
including blood pressure control. I advise my patients to avoid heavy lifting, and by that I mean more than 30 pounds, and intense valsalva or isometric exercise. So shown here is a photo of the original World's Strongest Man lifting four
adult-sized males in addition to weights, but there's been studies in the physiology literature with healthy, younger males in their 20s, and they're asked to do a double-leg press, or even arm-curls, and with this exercise and repetitions, they can get mean systolic pressures,
or mean pressures up into the 300s, as well as heart rate into the 170s. I also tell my patients to avoid any chiropractic neck manipulation or deep tissue massage of the neck, as well as high G-force activities like a roller coaster.
There are some case reports of cervical artery dissection related to this. And then finally, what can they do about cardio? A lot of these patients are very anxious, they're concerned about re-incorporating exercise after they've been through something like this,
so I try to give them some kind of guidelines and parameters that they can follow when they re institute exercise, not unlike cardiac rehabilitation. So initially, I tell them "You can do light walking, but if you don't feel well,
or something's hurting, neck pain, headache, don't push it." Thereafter, they can intensify to a heart rate maximum of 70-75% of their maximum predicted heart rate, and that's somewhere between months zero and three, and then afterwards when they're feeling near normal,
I give them an absolute limit of 90% of their maximum predicted heart rate. And I advise all of my patients to avoid extreme exercise like Orange Theory, maybe even extreme cycling classes, marathons, et cetera. Thank you.
- Thank you very much. Well this is a series that was actually published five years ago. And it outlined 45,000 patients after carotid endarterectomy, as well as open and closed thoracic abdominal procedures and infrainguinal bypasses.
And you can see here, that the VTE rate, and this is emblematic of a lot of studies. If you take everything together in a ball, you get an average result. And as you can see, the peripheral bypasses had a low incidence.
Carotids, very low incidence. But open procedures had a higher incidence than endovascular procedures. But here is the nub. Here is what's really important and why you need to do risk assessment.
Look at what happened to these percentages if the patients had any morbidity during hospitalization, as high as 7.8%. And here's the list after they went home. Again, it's not the .5 tenths of a percent or 1%, and this is what it's all about.
It's about the extra risk factors that the patient has. So now, anybody that's starting to do work with the Caprini Score, you've got to go to the patient-friendly form. Because we don't just do it,
if the patient comes in for surgery, and somebody does a preoperative evaluation in the holding area, stop it! It's ridiculous! Have you ever been in the holding area? What are you worried about?
You're worried about having the operation. Are they going to find cancer? Will the surgeon have a bad day? How much pain am I going to be in? How long am I going to be out of work? They're not going to talk to you
about their family history or their obstetrical misadventures. So you have them fill a form out ahead of time with their family, and then when they come in, you just double-check it. And we've studied this, it's in five languages,
and it's got perfect correlation with trained observers doing the same thing. And remember, if you fail to carefully interrogate your patients regarding the history or family history of venous thromboembolism, vascular surgery or not, sooner or later you may
be faced with a fatal PE. And the idea that you're giving anticoagulants during your procedure that's going to protect them is not valid. The relative risk of thrombosis increases with the number of risk factors identified.
A combination of genetic and acquired risk factors in a person without a history of a thrombosis personally, but with a family history, has a 60-fold higher chance than those that have a negative family history. And a positive family history increased
the risk of venous thrombosis more than 2-fold, regardless of the other risk factors. Don't forget the history of thrombosis. You won't need to look this article up. It's 183,000 patients over 25 years and it shows that both in first, second,
and third-degree relatives, as well as cohabitants in the household, there's an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Lowering down, getting lower for each degree of a relative.
But a DVT in a cousin, there may also be a thrombopathic condition in that patient. So you better pay attention to that. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, wonderful program. The database has no information on history
or family history of VTE, use of perioperative VTE prophylaxis, intraoperative anticoagulation, or perioperative use of antiplatelet agents. How are you supposed to make any sense out of DVT-related studies?
Finally, due to the lack of routine screening for VTE, the incidence of VTE may be underestimated in this NSQIP database, which only makes the need for further study more pressing. This is an important consideration because
more recent data indicates that two-thirds of the patients are found to have DVT during screening and after vascular operations, have no signs or symptoms of the problem. And I'd like to remind you, so this is based on the Boston data, which is the best data.
Patients with a low score pneumatic compression during hospitalization. Moderate score, of 7-10 days of anticoagulation. Don't make any difference if they're inpatient or outpatient. And 28 days if their score is over nine.
They lowered their incidence on the surgical services from 2.2% to a tenth of a percent at 30 days. And finally, and I think this is really, really important. Take a look at all these risk assessment scores.
To my knowledge, there's only two scores. It's not the Padua, it's not the IMPROVE that have a history of obstetrical misadventures which can reflect antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, as well as family history
in various degrees of relatives. So with that, thank you very much.
- Thank you chairman, ladies, and gentlemen. These are my disclosures. The objective was to asses the prognostic value of a high or immeasurable Ankle-Brachial Index at baseline for major amputation and Amputation Free Survival in patients with CLTI. And, we did this within two randomized control trials,
the PADI trial and the JUVENTAS trial, which I will spend a bit on later. We did a regression analysis of both trials, and had data pooled at a patient level, looking at risk factors such as Diabetes, Cardiovascular Comorbidities,
and Ankle-Brachial-Index. Patients were divided in either low, intermediate, or a high, or immeasurable, ABI. So, in short, the PADI trial was a Multicenter 2-arm randomized clinical trial with controls looking at Rutherford Category over three on
Infrapopliteal Lesions comparing Drug Eluting Stents verses PTA and without bail out stenting, endpoints, patency, major amputation, and mortality. This study was published in 2017. The JUVENTAS Trial, was a stem cells trial with double-blinded placebo controlled giving a
infusion of bone marrow stem cells versus placebo. And again, the endpoints were major amputation and mortality, published in 2015. Overall from these two trials, we were able to collect 260 patients, and this is the baseline table.
You can see that the majority of patients fitted in the Low ABI group, 146 patients. And, 33 patients fitted in the High ABI group. Overall, the prevalence of Diabetes, History of Stroke Coronary Disease, and Impaired Renal Function, was significantly higher in the High ABI group.
Follow-up of these patients with median of 229 weeks, and in this period we observed 59 amputations, and 103 deaths. The majority of this major amputations was performed, actually, in the first year after inclusion within these trials,
which you can see here in this Kaplan Meier Curve, showing that the amputation rate was about double in the High ABI group, as compared to the Low or Intermediate group. Looking at ABI for its Amputation Free Survival, again showed significantly higher rate of amputations
in the High ABI group, as compared to Low or Intermediate. And, at five years, you can see that almost all patients in the High ABI group either had amputation or had died. This was about 50% in the Low or Intermediate group. Looking at the Multivariate Regression Analysis, we observe the Rutherford Category and ABI
in the High or Immeasurable group, related to major amputation, and is same for amputation or death, now adding also age. So, the interrelation between ABI and major events, is J shaped, and actually, there's a higher risk for patients with a high or immeasurable ABI for major events,
as compared to patients with a low ABI. So why is this so? Well, it's not fully elucidated, but it's believed to be related to Medial Arterial Calcifications, being an independent age associated pathway different from Atherosclerosis.
And, the stiffness due to this calcification, may prevent compensatory positive remodeling related to Atherosclerosis when both diseases coincide. And, actually it's coexistence of Medial Calcification Atherosclerosis is not that uncommon, even up to 80%. So, what is the clinical relevance of all this?
Well, we did look at the PREVENT-III prediction model for Amputation Free Survival. You can see on the slide, the included factors in the original PREVENT-III model. We added the I, or Immeasurable ABI to this model, and has lead to an increase in C-statistics from 46% to 72%
Net Reclassification Improvement of 0.38. So, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, a high or immeasurable ABI in patients with CLTI and Infrapopliteal Arterial Obstructive Disease is an independent risk factor of major amputation and of poor Amputation Free Survival.
Incorporating this factor in a PREVENT-III prediction model improves its performance. Thank you very much, also to the research groups.
- Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. And our faculty here. Thank you so much for having me, and I'm thrilled to be here as I think some of the few interventionalists who are here. So, the idea was, what is the, is the stance
being overused after the Orbita Trial? And I bring it up because what is the Orbita Trial? This was a trial that really got a lot of, a lot of attention and I think it's important for you to kind of think about it.
It was actually the very first sham-controlled study of 230 patients who were enrolled, 200 who were randomized. Comparing actually PCI to placebo in patients with severe single vessel disease who were medically optimized but were stable.
Very, very interesting. They followed up these patients and the, based, looked at the change in exercise time in these patients and found absolutely no benefit for PCI in changing the exercise time.
So they said, in medically, in patients with medically-treated angina and severe coronary artery stenosis, PCI did not increase exercise time by by, in any difference from placebos. So, this really, really brought up so much attention
and that we were really, really doing unnecessary procedures and the last thing we heard is the last nail in the coffin of PCI. And so, I think it's important to think about what were the issues with that important disease and where we are with the scope of coronary disease.
Which is not insignificant. At the moment, with 326 million patients in the United States, and prevalence of CAD at 16.5, PCI is being performed in 667,000 patients per year. And I think it is important to note
that for the most part, about 50% of this is for acute coronary syndromes, which is not all the Orbita Trial. It's supportive evidence for routine revascularization with guideline-based therapy, directive therapy.
Very, very important that observational data does show a very important relationship between ischemia and death and MI. Revascularization relieves ischemia and that is what it's supposed to do. Large scale studies have shown
a reduction in spontaneous MI, following revascularization versus guideline-directed therapy. And importantly, continued improvement in both PCI and CABG techniques have really shown excellent relief of symptoms
and that we are not here to really, really think about death and MI in the big, big picture. But more immediate reductions as preferred by patients and importantly, we have to note that ischemia directed therapy with revascularization can have important issues.
Regarding whether or not there is an overuse of PCI's, let me just take a, show you the map of the United States. The heat map. The hotter, the more PCI's. And you can see, it really is very much variable and that there is important appropriate use criteria
for coronary revascularization that continues to be updated on a very, very important issue. And there's no question that the media loves the hysteria about overuse of PCI. But I wanted to put that into the context
of what we were doing. In PCI, we are using FFR guidance and physiology guided PCI to show an enhanced outcome. And more and more, we're incorporating that into the armamentarium of both AUC, Appropriate-Use Criteria, as well as evaluating
the valuable patients. And it is important for you to take a look at what have we shown. So far, based on revascularization versus optimal medical therapy in relieving angina and has been a very, very important
improvement in exercise capacity. Albeit, that the one and only trial of the sham procedure didn't show a change in exercise, but there are a lot of issues in this underpowered study that shouldn't really, really turn you away.
For the fact that PCI does relive symptoms. Because there's a tremendous amount of evidence in, in view of reducing angina with a really, really good p value of 12 randomized clinical trials in this area. It is also important that the freedom of angina is shown.
Not just within the Orbita Trial that actually did show a reduction in angina, but very similar to previous studies. And the guidelines are telling us a very, very important Class 1A indication for patients with CID for both
prognosis and treatment. There is an upcoming ischemia trial in ischemic heart disease that will show in 8,000 patients on their NHLBI, with evidence of ischemia hopefully that we could show
that there is benefits. So to conclude, the current guidelines recommend use of revascularization for relief of symptoms with patients with ischemic, a stable ischemic disease. And while placebo remains an important aspect of this medical management up front,
and making sure that there is an important management, we should really, really understand that there's no question that optimal medical therapy has to stay in the background. And the use of PCI is, continues to be of important value.
Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you Dr. Veith for an invitation to be here. These are our disclosures. We're fortunate to have funding from VA HSR&D for this work. Decision aids help patients make decisions about medical treatment, such as steroids versus biologics for things like arthritis.
Or medical versus surgical treatments for things like degenerative joint disease. Decision aids are uncommonly used for decisions about surgical treatment. Such as the options that face patients facing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair,
which as well all know are options like open surgery, which is invasive, but has a long recovery, but is likely durable over time. Or endovascular repair, which is, of course, less invasive with a shorter recovery, but may have problems with durability.
We design the preferences for open versus endovascular repair or prove AAA trial and this study has two objectives. First was to implement a decision aid, which is designed to help Veterans choose between an open and endovascular repair for their abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Of course, taking place in Veterans Hospitals across the US. And then second, to test if the decision aid makes it more likely for Veterans to receive the type of aneurysm repair that is aligned with their treatment preferences.
We are going to achieve these objectives, we hope, via a randomized clinical trial. I'll tell you briefly about that. We're going to study Veterans who have an existing abdominal aortic aneurysm that measures at least 5.0 cm in diameter that are anatomic and physiologic candidates
for open and endovascular repair. At ten control sites, the Veterans will take a simple survey and have their vascular surgery consultation. And simple surveys for their surgeons will follow thereafter. At 10 intervention sites, the process is identical
with the exception of an introduction of a decision aid. This decision aid was designed in England by Roger Greenhall, Jana Paul and others as part of the Picker Institute and provides a balanced view of the advantages and disadvantages of
both open and endovascular repair. We then followed the Veterans for two years to see what happens when the repair ultimately occurs and our main outcome measure was whether or not they preferred aneurysm repair type turned out to be their actual repair type.
We had performed this study, and I'm very grateful to my colleagues across the country at the 20 sites who are going to perform this trial. We began enrollment a little over a year ago. We're going to enroll 240 patients, I hope. We've enrolled 181 patients thus far,
so we're about 3/4 of the way there. And many of our sites, especially those in Gainesville, Ann Arbor, Buffalo, Salt Lake City, Tampa, Tucson, Pittsburgh and others have either completed their enrollments or are close to doing them. And while our objectives are to answer
these two study questions, I can't do that quite just yet. But we can examine the information sources that Veterans have used thus far when facing this decision. We asked Veterans questions like who have you talked to about if the surgical treatment options available to you if you needed an operation?
52% of our study participants thus far said they didn't talk to anybody. They didn't talk to their PCP at all about their AAA repair options. We asked them who their main source of information was about open surgical repair and again 41% of patients
reported having no information at all about open surgical repair of AAA and while only one in five cited a primary care physician as their main source of information. We asked the Veterans the same question about endovascular repair.
Again, 40% of patients received no information about EVAR, 17% got information from their primary care physician, about 10% of patients, a number lower than we expected, used the internet. Finally, we asked patients, has your view of the different surgical treatment options available been influenced
by anybody in your, among your medical advisors. 50% of patients reported that their view had not been influenced by anyone. We felt this led us be safe to conclude that while our future work will report the actual preferences for repair types
and the effects of this decision support, we found that half the patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm meeting criteria for repair had not yet discussed their treatment methods with anyone prior to meeting with a vascular surgeon. I believe this shows that the burden of explanation
for patients facing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair rests squarely on the shoulders of those of us in the vascular community. Thank you.
- Thank you Dr. Veith, again. So we have a small percentage of patients with contralateral occlusion in some of the earlier randomized trials who might have done a little bit worse than a patient who did not have contralateral occlusion. Then we got studied by Perler, Mattos, and Da Silva
in the early 90s, showing that actually they can do carotid endarterectomy very safely in patients with contralateral occlusion. Sapphire started it all with all the future randomized trial or even the industry sponsored trial showing that contralateral occlusion has a high risk
for carotid endarterectomy, and that's making it an inclusion criteria in carotid stenting. In this particular study for instance you see that patients had about 60% higher risk of stroke, and TIA or death even if they have contralateral occlusion. Further, a newer study by Brewsters and the ICSS,
they really showed no difference as far as the performance of carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy. So the Center of Medicare and Medicaid today actually use contralateral occlusion as an indication for carotid artery stenting and reimburse in the United States as a high-risk criteria.
We wanted to see what happened in a real-world outcome, and comparing the safety and efficiency of carotid endarterectomy versus stenting in patients who have contralateral occlusion. So we used the Vascular Quality Initiative with a cut from 2005, 2016, and we included all patients
who underwent carotid endarterectomy who had stenting who also have contralateral occlusion. Our outcome was 30-day stroke, death, MI in combination of all of the above. We also look at two-year ipsilateral stroke and combination of stroke and death.
We did the usual statistical analysis with a regression model and then also long term with Kaplan-Meier up to two years. So that made it the largest study to date on patients with contralateral occlusion, 4300 patients. 1000 of them approximately got a carotid stent,
and the rest received CEA. As you can see here, not a lot of differences except that there was more congestive heart failure, COPD, as expected in the carotid stent. There were a history of stroke, prior stroke, not acute stroke more in the endarterectomy group.
Again, as expected, more people were on dual antiplatelet therapy as required in the carotid stent group, as well as statin, but there was more beta-blockers for instance preoperatively in the group that got endarterectomy.
There was also more prior revascularization in the carotid stent group. Nothing surprising here, but what you can see is within the endarterectomy only about 70% got shunts, so 30% without even a shunt, but 30% had EEG monitoring. This is what the results showed, you can see
that there was really no difference in the outcome as far as stroke in the asymptomatic group, but a very obvious difference in the symptomatic patients with three-fold increase in the risk of stroke at 30 days and six-fold increase in the risk of mortality. These are patients basically
getting stents versus endarterectomy, and if you combine these, that risk was three-fold. In the regression model, you can see here not much of a difference in the asymptomatic patients, not statistically significant, but 2.9 odd ratio for stroke, and six for death.
When we look at the Kaplan-Meiers and the Cox hazard model, you can see in the asymptomatic group as far as ipsilateral stroke there was really no difference, and same with the symptomatic patients. But when we combine stroke and death, that risk was 40% higher in asymptomatic patients
and 90% higher in the symptomatic group. You can see that obviously on the Kaplan-Meier curve. Of course it's a limited study, by nature of retrospective, and selection biases as well as not completely having accurate data entry with any registry. We don't really have any data on what happened in the brain,
we don't have any information on what happens if you do medical management as well. So in conclusion, symptomatic status was an effect modifier here as far as the performance of carotid endarterectomy and stenting in patients with contralateral occlusion.
The two procedures were equivalent in asymptomatic patients except for two-year ipsilateral stroke where the risk was increased with stenting. Endarterectomy is superior to CAS as far as asymptomatic patients. Thank you so much.
- You already heard about different devices which can finish the treatment of acute DVT in the lab and I would like to add one of the devices which is quite widespread in Europe. And share the first study on this device. This is called the Aspirex device. So what is the objective?
Post traumatic syndrome after proximal DVT, I think that's clear. 25% of the patient are at risk for developing post traumatic syndrome. I think that is clear and some of these patient even expect severe post traumatic syndrome.
We already saw this ATTRACT trial outcome and we learned that especially patient with Iliofemoral DVT might benefit from treatment, invasive treatment of Iliofemoral DVT but of course, we need to know that is catheter-directed thrombolysis causes issues
and therefore our way should be to go away from thrombolytic therapy to a pure mechanical thrombectomy approach. This is a typical case example of a patient, 20 year old female patient who came to the emergency room with that leg on the left side in the morning,
back pain in the evening and this is clear that it is a descending Iliofemoral DVT in that patient caused by May-Thurner syndrome. So, with modern devices like this Aspirex, mechanical thrombectomy device, the 10 French device is able to aspirate up to 130 millimeter,
ml per minute of clots. You see that this can be effectively treated and then stinted within the May-Thurner syndrome within one session approach. So, but, what is clear of course that we need to get data
for these modern Mechanical Thrombectomy devices and therefore, we conducted clinical follow-up study to evaluate safety and efficiency of that Aspirex Mechanical Thrombectomy device. This device is based on the Archimedic principle which you can see here it comes with six up
to 10 French systems and with that you are able, as I already showed to sac 130ml of thrombus per minute. So these are the study details I want to show you. We treated 50 psychs, 56 patients with acute, subacute and acute on chronic which means up to 3 months of symptoms patients with Iliofermal DVT.
We performed IVIS on all these patients. We found May-Thurner syndrome in at least half of these patients as a reason for the Iliofermal DVT. You see the patient demographics. Some of the patients had even malignancy condition. A lot of patients were on oral contraceptives.
Here are the clinical symptoms within our cohort. Most of the patients came with swelling and rest pain. The rVCSS at the beginning was 4.5 within this cohort. Most of the traumatic lesions were on the left side involving even the profunda and the common femoral vein in this cohort.
You see here the excess which we used for treating these Iliofermal DVT, we used in the main part of the cohort, the left popliteal vein access or left femoral vein access. 84% were treated with 10 French system, the Aspirex device. As I mentioned we used IVIS
to analyze underlying pathologies. We found in most of the patients underlying pathologies and this explains why we implanted stents in 100% of the patients. You see the treatment duration which was in mean 94 minutes within this treatment cohort.
These are the patency analysis within one year. You see patency at 12 months, 87% percent in these patients, which we could follow up after 12 months. Here you see the Post-thrombotic syndrome analysis after 12 months so only low PTS
and some kind of moderate PTS were seen in these patients. There were no severe Post-thrombotic syndrome. Most of the patients just had a little bit of swelling after that procedure. Of course, it's important to mention safety and those end points.
There were just some small punctures associated, site being complicationS. Of course re-hospitalization is a severe adverse event which you can see here. But there were of course no bleeding events in this cohort. And to follow up
on this much more multicentric perspective trial, we just started a multicenter trial on this and we'll follow up patients up to five years within this just initiated multicenter registry. And I think we can show some preliminary data next year. Thank you very much.
- Here are my disclosures, none are relevant to today's talks. So what is the role of compressions stockings to prevent Postthrombotic Syndrome for patients with acute DVT? Well it's become rather complicated because as shown by recent studies,
it depends on what question is being asked. Question one is do compression stockings started at the time of DVT diagnosis prevent PTS, such as the Socks trial and other similar trials? Or question two, if you're already worn compression stockings for a period of time after DVT
and have not developed PTS, does stopping them increase the risk of developing PTS, such as the recent OCTAVIA and IDEAL trials? This is a meta-analysis that was done to address question one, namely the role of compression stockings started at the time of DVT diagnosis,
and this meta-analysis considered unblinded studies. The one blinded study, which was the Socks trial, and then attempted to combine that data, and you can see that if one looks at the unblinded studies there's suggestion of a 30% protective effect, or, excuse me, 40% protective effect.
The blinded study showed no effect of compression stockings. And combining all the studies together seemed to show about a 30% protective effect, however the confidence interval crossed one. There's very low confidence in this total estimate because of the substantial heterogeneity across studies.
And indeed, in their discussion, the authors point out the following: "We have very serious concerns about the unblinded studies because such designs may inflate treatment effects". And also, "differing results across studies suggest that the decision to use compression stockings
may be value and preference dependent for our patients". And we'll come back to that shortly. What about question two, if you've already worn compression stockings for a period of time after DVT, and you haven't developed PTS, does stopping them increase the risk of getting PTS?
There've been two new trials. One is the OCTAVIA study, of 518 proximal DVT patients. All wore compression stockings for one year after their DVT. If they were free of PTS at one year, they were randomized to continue for an additional year, or to stop.
And the results of this trial showed that stopping after one year was inferior to continuing for two years for the PTS outcome. On the other hand, we have the IDEAL study, of 865 proximal DVT patients. In this study, all patients wore compression stockings
for six months after proximal DVT, and if they were free of PTS at six months, they were randomized to continue for an additional 18 months, or to tailor continued use of stockings according to the Villalta score that was assessed every three months
at study follow-up visits. And the results of this trial showed that tailoring use after six months, which was the experimental arm, was actually non-inferior to continuing for 18 more months. So these results are interesting but somewhat conflicting. So how do I use compression stockings in 2018?
I don't routinely prescribe stockings to all of my proximal DVT patients. They can be difficult to apply, uncomfortable, expensive, and they need to be replaced every few months. And we all know that many patients won't wear them
in real life, especially if they have no symptoms whatsoever. And also, it's really not clear to me whether stockings prevent Postthrombotic Syndrome versus merely palliate symptoms of Postthrombotic Syndrome that has already developed.
And it may simply be as effective and more convenient and we may achieve better compliance if we ask our patients to start compression stockings at the time they develop symptoms of Postthrombotic Syndrome. I do however prescribe a trial of stockings
to any DVT patient, whether they have proximal or distal DVT who has residual symptoms after their DVT, and I'd continue them for as long as the patient derives symptomatic benefit or is able to tolerate them, and I certainly take patients' values and preferences into account
in making this decision. Moving on to the role of interventional treatment for patients with acute DVT. We have all heard and seen the results of the ATTRACT trial. Just very briefly, we know that the primary study outcome, any Postthrombotic Syndrome was not different
in the PCDT arm versus the No-PCDT arm. However, it did appear that PCDT reduced the risk of developing moderate or severe Postthrombotic Syndrome, and this was driven primarily by the subgroup with Iliofemoral DVT. In terms of short-term results, PCDT caused more
bleeding, major and any bleeding, and it caused statistically significant but clinically modest improvements in leg pain and leg swelling. Based on these results, what's the role of interventional treatment for patients with acute DVT? I would say that it's not indicated for routine use
in proximal DVT, it doesn't prevent Postthrombotic Syndrome, it does increase bleeding, and older patients above the age of 60 to 65 or more appear to be particularly poor candidates because of more bleeding and less efficacy. And further study in clinical use of these modalities
should be targeted. One would still consider PCDT in patients with severe symptoms, Iliofemoral DVT, and the other factors shown here on the slide. And finally, always remember that it's always an option to anticoagulate first for the initial
five to seven days if the limb is not acutely threatened. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the organizers for inviting me. When I started working on this talk, I felt like I was coming to defend that climate change isn't occurring, despite increasing data that suggests it's occurring. - [Woman] (laughing)
- I wasn't quite sure where to take it and I actually wanted to just change the title a little bit, and say DOAC's, I feel, are not indicated for all cancer patients with VTE. I'm going to argue that Low Molecular Weight Heparins are still indicated for substantial
subset of patients with cancer and VTE. These are my disclosures, none of which are relevant to this session. Let's talk about these studies, because these studies give us some insights as we look at them.
This was the Hokusai VTE cancer trial, and showed that Dalteparin and Dioxeapan were the same essentially. But this was a combined outcome of thromboembolism and major bleeding. As Dr. Murley showed you, the patients did better
with the Edoxaban arm as far as preventing recurrent VTE, but there was an increase risk of bleeding in patients who received Edoxaban compared to Dalteparin. The important question then becomes are there subsets of patients that we can identify who we may not want to give Edoxaban to.
They had to go to the supplemental material in the paper to figure this out, and the group subsequently published it... Oops, sorry. Group has subsequently published this, which shows you that if those patients
who had Gastrointestinal cancers had a markedly increased risk of a major bleed, compared to those who received Dalteparin. In contrast, non-gastrointestinal cancers really had no difference. Suggesting that those patients with gastrointestinal cancers
should be looked at as people who probably would benefit more from being on a Low Molecular Weight Heparin. Now, is this specific to Edoxoban? No, the SELECT-D trial also was run. Rivaroxoban for Cancer-Associated VTE,
and as you have already seen, the primary outcome for recurrent VTE was better for Rivaroxoban compared to Dalteparin. However, again, we see this safety signal of increased bleeding in the group that received the Rivaroxoban compared to Dalteparin.
Now if you look as this group as far as which patients had cancers or where did they bleed, the sites of major bleeding, Gastrointestinal was twofold higher in the Riveroxaban arm compared to Dalteparin. Again, a GI cancer related issue.
If you look at clinically relevant non-major bleeding, you also see a threefold increase risk of bleeding in the Riveroxaban arm with GI type bleeding, genital urinary you don't see, genital urinary also had a markedly increased risk of bleeding with Riveroxaban.
However, genital urinary cancers as a whole, were not necessarily associated with the increased risk of bleeding. In contrast, esophagogastric cancers were associated with an increased risk of bleeding. There's also a lot of subsets of patients
with cancer and VTE who are treated. This was an interesting study that just came out looking at Rivaroxoban for central venous catheter associated venous thromboembolism. The enrolled patients greater than 18 years of age, active malignancy and symptomatic proximal,
upper extremity DVT, treated them with Rivaroxoban, this was a prospect of single arm trial, 15mg twice a day for three weeks, and 20mg daily for nine weeks. Primary outcome was achieved,
all of these folks had line preservation at 12 weeks. Interestingly, there was one recurrent event, it was a fatal PE at six weeks, but again the bleeding signal is what stood out. This is the risk of bleeding, you can see by 40 days, slightly more than one month.
About 13% of people had sustained a major bleed or clinically relevant non-major bleed. Again this bleeding issue pops up. Importantly, it wasn't bleeding around the catheter, it was bleeding from GI, GU, and GY insights. Okay?
Again, the bleeding issue becomes important. Gastrointestinal tumors become important. Now if bleeding is an issue, what about Thrombocytopenia? Should we be using this in patients who have Thrombocytopenia,
which is a common problem in the cancer patient population. Now patients with platelet counts less than 50 times 10 to the 9th per liter were excluded from participation in Hokusai VTE Cancer, and SELECT-D required adequate hematologic function.
Both of these trials did have protocols in place for what to do if the platelet count dropped. Never the less, what's come out from the SSC group from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis is that the data on the use of the DOAC's in cancer associated thrombosis patients with severe thrombocytopenia
that less than 50,000 is lacking. The DOAC's may therefore may not be appropriate for most patients with cancer associated thrombosis and platelet counts less than 50,000. Now the last group, and the last thing that you need to think about
which was also just briefly mentioned in one of Dr. Murley's slides was this drug-drug interaction with the DOAC's. This is important because certain drugs do interact with the DOAC's and these are some of the chemotherapy agents.
In fact, certain classes of chemotherapeutic agents interact with CYP3A4, P-glycoprotein, or both. Drugs that interact with these mechanisms can interfere with the effect of the direct oral anticoagulants and potentially cause it to be cleared faster or accumulate.
These included the antimitotic microtubule inhibitors. The taxanes, it included the TKI's which are used in CML and it included a series of immune-modulating agents, including steroids. So in conclusion, who to favor for a Low Molecular Weight Heparin, gastrointestinal malignancy,
severe thrombocytopenia, selected chemotherapies, and then some considerations for following scenarios. Thank you very much.
- Thanks for inviting me to speak one more time. I'm going to just take us through a whirlwind of trials that came out in 2018. 2018 was an incredible year for primary prevention. I hate to say it was an incredible failure, but I'll let you guys decide after I present some of this data.
Again I have no relevant disclosures. So the main focus of this is going to be aspirin. We've had an incredible amount of aspirin trials come out in the last six months. And as of right now, aspirin is very prevalently used for cardiovascular prevention in the community right now.
However the data on that's been very poor. It's been poor for two reasons. One, is we don't know what aspirin does in the era of high potency statins. And two, is we haven't done a good enough job really looking at the side effects of aspirin,
particularly bleeding. And so this was the last recommendations in terms of how to use aspirin and really only in the highest risk patients greater than ten percent risk for a cardiovascular event. And a little bit of a shared decision making saying
that if your willing to accept a bleed, or you might be a little lower risk of bleeding we'll give you an aspirin. Well, what does it look like now? We have a number of trials that came out the most, prevalent, the first one that came out that we've all been waiting for was the Arrive Trial.
This twelve thousand patients. These are patients who are at moderate risk based on risk factors that were decided to be at low risk for bleeding and they were prescribed aspirin a hundred milligrams versus placebo and follow up for six years. These are the captain miles curves.
It was a negative trial. On the left is cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina, stroke, and TIA. And there is no difference during that six years of follow up. And more surprisingly that even in these moderate risk
cardiovascular patients, low bleeding risk patients, they still had an increase risk of bleeding. The red line here is aspirin. So really was a failure. One thing that came out of this trial was the event rate was very low and probably the moderate risk patients,
they thought they enrolled were actually low risk patients. So lets find a higher risk population. The elderly. So maybe a little bit more of a cardiovascular risk, maybe a little bit more bang for your buck. Obviously bleeding is a concern here but hopefully we can
outweigh it. This was the Aspree Trial. Nearly twenty-thousand patients, sixty-five or seventy years old based on your gender. No known cardiovascular disease. And what'd we find?
On the left here, no difference in cardiovascular disease. Not shown here, no difference in disability, no difference in mortality. In increase major hemorrhage driven by gastrointestinal bleeds shown on the right. So another failure for aspirin is a primary preventative
therapy. Okay, best population to test this in is a diabetic population, right? We know they're cardiovascular risk is going to be high. They can be of relative, reasonable age that maybe the bleeding risk won't be terrible.
And, so that is what the Ascend Trial intended to do. This was a fifteen thousand person trial. Diabetes but no cardiovascular disease. And they randomized to aspirin a hundred milligrams daily or placebo. And what does this show?
Well, it was actually a positive trial for the first serious vascular event. There was about a twelve percent relative reduction. However, again, there was an increase risk of bleeding. All driven by serious gastrointestinal bleeding. And when you take these patients, you put them in
different bins of risk. Less than five percent, five to ten percent, and greater than ten percent. You see that for all the vascular vents that your avoiding, your pretty much offset by the major bleeds that your causing.
So even when you try to tailor your therapy to those who may have the benefit, you still have a lot of risk and it's hard to really identify who to give aspirin to as a primary preventive therapy even in diabetics. So really this was the fall of aspirin in 2018. Is there anything else we can do?
Well, we've talked for a long time about fish oils, right? For Omega-3 fatty acids, we should eat more fish, we should buy the tablets over the counter. Finally, we've add a few really large power randamized trials where before we've had a lot of observational data and small trials.
And the two that have been presented recently was the Vital trial on the left, the Ascend Trial on the right. Both of these patients where without cardiovascular disease. On the left was just greater than fifty, on the right with diabetes. And each person got one gram of fatty acids.
Omega-3 fatty acids. That was kind of the recommended dose for cardiovascular prevention. And unfortunately, in both of these trials, it was negative. Major cardiovascular events and first vascular event. So everybody thought fish oil was going away and that
was it until just five days ago at the AHA, we had to reduce a trial. And I won't spend to much time on it but this is kind of the talk of the town right now is, if you take only the EPA which was a minimal component in these tablets, four hundred and sixty milligrams, and
you give it to someone at two grams twice a day, does that make a difference? So this was the reduce-it trial. Eight thousand patients, primary prevention for diabetics. Secondary prevention for cardiovascular disease patients. Mildly elevated triglycerides.
And they got this kind of proprietary dose of high dose EPA. And they were followed for five years. And this was a really win. A big win. Twenty-five percent reduction in risk of cardiovascular death and mild stroke during follow up.
And one problem was the control group got mineral oil that increased the LDL in the placebo arm but still that probably doesn't offset how large this risk is. Just for the sake of time I'm just going to show you what vitamin D looks like. Vital Trial, aside of Omega-3 acids, randomized to vitamin D
two-thousand units daily, and it was another negative trial for cancer and for major adverse cardiovascular events. So take home for primary prevention in 2018, aspirin has kind of fallen off in the era of statins. High concentrated EPA is promising, vitamin D unfortunately not.
Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much Frank and thanks for the invitation. My first thing is to deal with the patient who's awaiting CABG who's had a previous stroke or TIA. This is the only study of it's kind showing that if you proceed with isolated CABG, the risk of stroke is extremely high and if you look at the meta-analysis that we've done of whether you do endarterectomy or
stenting in symptomatic patients, this is all the literature there is. And what you can clearly see is that the death and stroke rates in patients undergoing CAS followed by CABG are much higher than after carotid and endarterectomy. And that lead us to recommend that a stage of
synchronous carotid intervention should be considered in CABG patients with a history of stroke or TIA and who have a 50 to 99% stenosis. But advise that for now, if you're going to do that such an intervention, surgery should probably be considered instead of stenting.
But 96% of all interventions of the CABG and carotid variety are in asymptomatic patients, so what about them? Well, this is all the literature there is on stroke risk in patients undergoing isolated CABG with a unilateral asymptomatic stenosis of 70 to 99 or 80 to 99 and you can see there is an awful lot of zeroes
in that table and if you go at patients with bilateral significant disease, the death and stroke rate is much higher but again there is not too many strokes here. And if you look critically at the literature and ask yourself okay we've had so many strokes, how many of them can be attributable to underlying
carotid disease by looking at the CT scans or the distribution of lesions, you'll see that between 85 and 95% of all strokes cannot be attributed to an underlying significant carotid stenosis. And if you look at all the death and stroke rates and this is a multiple meta-analysis that our
group have done over the last 15 years, these are the death and stroke rates depending on how you treat the patients, and 80% of these are asymptomatic and 80% have got unilateral stenosis and the death and stroke rates are far in excess of the risk of stroke if you just perform an
isolated CABG in patients with unilateral asymptomatic disease. There have been two randomized trials. This is one, the Iluminati trial that Jean-Baptiste was involved in, 30-day death and stroke rates not significantly different.
There is quite an astonishing trial from Germany, which was again unilaterally asymptomatic stenosis with a near 20% death and stroke rate with synchronous carotid CABG and a 10% definite stroke rate with medical therapy, ah isolated CABG, sorry. So the ESVS have advised that a staged synchronous
carotid intervention is not recommended in CABG patients with an asymptomatic unilateral, 70 to 99% stenosis for preventing stroke after CABG. A staged synchronous intervention may be considered in patients with bilateral disease, the evidence is not brilliant but it's such a rare thing that it's
probably not worth arguing about. Now what about patients who are undergoing non-cardiac surgery? This is quite an interesting group, because if say, a gastrectomy, a hip replacement or whatever, if they've had a previous history of stroke or TIA
they should undergo carotid imaging and if they've got a significant stenosis they should undergo prior carotid revascularization prior to undergoing their gastrectomy et cetera. But what about the asymptomatic patient? This is quite interesting.
First of all, let's just look at a very large study by Jorgensen, 4 nearly 500,000 elective non-cardiac operations and 7,000 had suffered a prior stroke or TIA, and the most important thing was, the stroke risk was directly related to the time from the onset of the TIA to doing the operation.
So if you did it within three months of the stroke or TIA there was a 12% peri-operative stroke rate, but if you managed to get out to six months, the stroke rate was only 0.1% so the lesson learned there is that if it's possible to delay surgery in patients who've had a prior stroke or TIA
or a recent one, you should delay it for six months. Only two studies have looked at whether asymptomatic carotid stenosis increased the stroke risk in patients undergoing non-cardiac operations. Ballotta did a randomized trial, and Sonny, which is a very large observational study,
looked at the impact of asymptomatic carotid stenosis on outcome and found that there was no evidence that a pre-existing carotid stenosis increased the risk of stroke in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Similarly, in a huge study on TAVI patients,
no evidence that carotid disease was a risk factor for perioperative stroke. So in our recommendations we advised routine carotid imaging in asymptomatic patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery is not recommended and prophylactics and arterial stenting is not
recommended in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenoses undergoing non-cardiac/vascular procedures. And if you'd like to look at all the literature and data that we came to in using to our conclusions, the guidelines are free to access on the internet.
Thank you very much.
Thanks very much, Tom. I'll be talking about thermal ablation on anticoagula is it safe and effective? I have no disclosures. As we know, extensive review of both RF and laser
ablation procedures have demonstrated excellent treatment effectiveness and durability in each modality, but there is less data regarding treatment effectiveness and durability for those procedures in patients who are also on systemic anticoagulation. As we know, there's multiple studies have been done
over the past 10 years, with which we're all most familiar showing a percent of the durable ablation, both modalities from 87% to 95% at two to five years. There's less data on those on the anticoagulation undergoing thermal ablation.
The largest study with any long-term follow up was by Sharifi in 2011, and that was 88 patients and follow-up at one year. Both RF and the EVLA had 100% durable ablation with minimal bleeding complications. The other studies were all smaller groups
or for very much shorter follow-up. In 2017, a very large study came out, looking at the EVLA and RF using 375 subjects undergoing with anticoagulation. But it was only a 30-day follow-up, but it did show a 30% durable ablation
at that short time interval. Our objective was to evaluate efficacy, durability, and safety of RF and EVLA, the GSV and the SSV to treat symptomatic reflux in patients on therapeutic anticoagulation, and this group is with warfarin.
The data was collected from NYU, single-center. Patients who had undergone RF or laser ablation between 2011 and 2013. Ninety-two vessels of patients on warfarin at the time of endothermal ablation were selected for study. That's the largest to date with some long-term follow-up.
And this group was compared to a matched group of 124 control patients. Devices used were the ClosureFast catheter and the NeverTouch kits by Angiodynamics. Technical details, standard IFU for the catheters. Tumescent anesthetic.
And fiber tips were kept about 2.5 centimeters from the SFJ or the SPJ. Vein occlusion was defined as the absence of blood flow by duplex scan along the length of the treated vein. You're all familiar with the devices, so the methods included follow-up, duplex ultrasound
at one week post-procedure, and then six months, and then also at a year. And then annually. Outcomes were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier plots and log rank tests. The results of the anticoagulation patients, 92,
control, 124, the mean follow-up was 470 days. And you can see that the demographics were rather similar between the two groups. There was some more coronary disease and hypertension in the anticoagulated groups, and that's really not much of a surprise
and some more male patients. Vessels treated, primarily GSV. A smaller amount of SSV in both the anticoagulated and the control groups. Indications for anticoagulation.
About half of the patients were in atrial fibrillation. Another 30% had a remote DVT in the contralateral limb. About 8% had mechanical valves, and 11% were for other reasons. And the results. The persistent vein ablation at 12 months,
the anticoagulation patients was 97%, and the controls was 99%. Persistent vein ablation by treated vessel, on anticoagulation. Didn't matter if it was GSV or SSV. Both had persistent ablation,
and by treatment modality, also did not matter whether it was laser or RF. Both equivalent. If there was antiplatelet therapy in addition to the anticoagulation, again if you added aspirin or Clopidogrel,
also no change. And that was at 12 months. We looked then at persistent vein ablation out at 18 months. It was still at 95% for the controls, and 91% for the anticoagulated patients. Still not statistically significantly different.
At 24 months, 89% in both groups. Although the numbers were smaller at 36 months, there was actually still no statistically significant difference. Interestingly, the anticoagulated group actually had a better persistent closure rate
than the control group. That may just be because the patients that come back at 36 months who didn't have anticoagulation may have been skewed. The ones we actually saw were ones that had a problem. It gets harder to have patients
come back at three months who haven't had an uneventful venous ablation procedure. Complication, no significant hematomas. Three patients had DVTs within 30 days. One anticoagulation patient had a popliteal DVT, and one control patient.
And one control patient had a calf vein DVT. Two EHITs. One GSV treated with laser on anticoagulation noted at six days, and one not on anticoagulation at seven days. Endovenous RF and EVLA can be safely performed
in patients undergoing long-term warfarin therapy. Our experience has demonstrated a similar short- and mid-term durability for RF ablation and laser, and platelet therapy does not appear to impact the closer rates,
which is consistent with the prior studies. And the frequency of vein recanalization following venous ablation procedures while on ACs is not worse compared to controls, and to the expected incidence as described in the literature.
This is the largest study to date with follow-up beyond 30 days with thermal ablation procedures on anticoagulation patients. We continue to look at these patients for even longer term durability. Thanks very much for your attention.
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.