- Yeah, thanks very much. Well, we've already heard that things were going well with the two first EVAS trials in the U.S and Europe predominantly, at one year and then we've seen those events described by both Jeff and Matt at two years. Root cause analysis refined IFU
and then prospectively studying this in the EVAS2 trial in the U.S but also in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific, in the Forward2 trial. I'm going to give you a little bit of an update. As we know there have been some concerning reports on retrospective reviews of experience in the early term,
and we've all heard about the details of the revised IFU, and the useful outcomes or grossly improved outcomes we can expect at two years and now Jeff has just told us at three years. Sorry, we'll just go back. So, as Matt mentioned, there have been several publications
that have retrospectively applied the IFU to center's experience to see if they could replicate the good outcomes that were achieved in the retrospective analysis of the IDE trial. Certainly, what is shown is that if you apply the revised IFU, you significantly reduce
patient applicability with this particular device. It has to be acknowledged that many of the procedures that were performed in these publications were performed, a) with a device that's different to the one that we're now going to use, and b) with a procedure that was very different.
It probably impacts on outcomes. I think the major difference with what we'll call the new Nellix device, is that it has the endobag attached firmly, not only to the top of the stent, but also at the bottom. And in our experience this attachment at the bottom
has had a particular impact on aneurysm sac size. The procedure has also evolved, and the procedure now involves steps such as unfurling of the endobags before stent deployment, and also pre-fill of the endobags with saline prior to filling with the polymer,
as well as the importance, as Matt mentioned, of accurately deploying and using all of the infrenal neck and the iliac sealing zones. We also performed a retrospective analysis of our experience in consecutive cases at Aukland Hospital with considerably longer follow-up.
And you can see that the patients on the modified IFU had a significantly different and improved freedom from type 1A endoleak, and also the composite end point of type one endoleak, sac expansion, and freedom from reintervention was highly significantly improved.
So that's a little bit different to the experience reported, possibly because we've been applying the optimized technique and had access to the new Nellix device for some time. So EVAS FORWARD 2 is being performed in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region.
A 300-patient confirmatory trial with standard parameters. This is the very first case that was done. We did this in Aukland, and you can see something we weren't observing with the earlier Nellix device without the distal seal. We're seeing some cases with significant sac shrinkage.
You can see the earlier, or interim results, I'm just presenting for the first time here today from the FORWARD 2 trial. A very high freedom from type 1A endoleak, and freedom from reintervention, as of July 2018. Just out of interest, we also did a retrospective review
of patients in our own center that has had at least one year of follow-up using the new Nellix device with optimized procedures to see what the outcome would be, and you can see at one year that there's no type one endoleaks. Impressively, absolutely no migration.
We have seen at two years a couple of patients that had some sac growth. Even on IFU we felt that they had degeneration of their iliac arteries with loss of seal. Here you can see a case where you can see the dramatic sac shrinkage we're now seeing
in some cases, and this is the one where we saw some sac growth where we ended up doing a second reintervention to extend the distal seal. Of course, the real driver for us to continue with the Nellix and EVAS technology is this suggestive but very impressive freedom
from all cause in cardiovascular mortality. That really is driving us to use this technology in our patients. So in conclusion, we'll know that, in fact, there's ongoing evolution of this technology, and we're looking forward to being involved
in next generation EVAS that will follow the important EVAS2 and EVAS FORWARD trials sometime later in 2019. Thanks very much. (applause)
- (Speaker) Thank you very much So we're going to try to tackle all of these issues. I do have some disclosures. The indigo system that we're going to talk about does have FDA approval in the vascular system. It is contraindicated for neurovascular and coronary use although there are specific catheters made by this company
for use in those areas, so we're going to talk about the use strictly in the periphery. So we know that Acute Limb Ischemia requires revascularization and we use this Power Aspiration system, we call it XTRACT, using the Indigo system for a number of different therapeutic options.
The device we're talking about, these are reinforced catheters so there's no collapsing of the tip during aspiration. They're atraumatic, this technology was developed and really pirated in some way from stroke work, where we were putting these catheters in the
middle cerebral artery, so these catheters track, it's exceptionally rare to see any vessel damage. We have not dissected any vessels in over 120 cases. The catheters are hooked up to direct tubing to a small handheld pump,
which is easy to use, which sucks, an essentially true vacuum, so that you get maximal aspiration. And, they come in different sizes: 3, 5, 6, and 8 French and you can see there's a large increase in aspiration power as we go up
in size. So this would be a typical case where we have an SFA occlusion, in the distal SFA. There's also a TP trunk occlusion. There's an anterior tib. which is a stump distally. And we don't see any real flow below the TP trunk.
Here we can take a CAT6, we place it in the clot. It's very simple to use. The learning curve here is extremely low. You turn the vacuum on, you just be patient and wait. You don't run this through the clot, and if you suck this way and be patient,
embolization is extremely rare, and I'll show you some of that data. We clean that up as I showed you, then we advance down into this tibioperoneal trunk, and after two or three minutes of aspiration with some gentle catheter moving,
we're able to clear up the TP trunk, we can come back and balloon the underlying lesions and leave this patient who had no runoff, essentially with two vessel runoff. In Press right now, we're actually online, published, and in print, are the results of the PRISM trial,
which is using this system as a retrospective registry, and this is used in 79 patients after failed thrombolysis, as a primary device for acute limb ischemia, for distal emboli caused by other interventional procedures such as angioplasty stem placement.
We looked at patients who had little flow or no flow, TIMI 0-1, and basically we evaluated the flow before. We use this system after we use the system and after any other adjunctive intervention. And along the bottom you can see that we restored flow,
excellent flow, TIMI 2 or 3 flow, and 87% percent of the patients, after the final intervention, so treating the underlying lesion, 96% of patients had essentially normal flow. So, 87% as I say success
just with the device alone, and then using adjunct devices. There were no serious adverse events. The complications from this include vasospasm. We did not have any vessel dissections, or vascular injuries, and
no serious event directly related to the catheter. So where do we use this? Well, we can use this as I mentioned for acute limb ischemia. We can use it as a primary therapy for embolic occlusions. We can use it after iatrogenic emboli.
We use it after incomplete thrombolysis when there's residual clot, so we don't have to lyse someone up further. We can save lysis time and money overnight. And we've expanded our uses out of the arterial and now we're looking at venous, pulmonary, mesenteric,
and dialysis applications. We just published our results in the pulmonary circulation from the single center. There's a retrospective study that's been completed, and now a prospective study which we're just beginning right now.
We actually have our first sites up and ready. We've had experience with DVT, and we're also using this in the mesenteric and portal circulation. A quick image of a before and after on a pulmonary embolism. There's an extensive mass of patient who came in with profound hypotension,
post-using the XTRACT system. So the benefits, simple and easy to use, highly trackable. Limitations, blood loss if you don't know how to use this right. You just can't run this vacuum in flowing blood. Once you learn that and control the switch
blood loss can be minimized. As I mentioned, the learning curve is small. A few tips, not to use the separator much in the arterial system. Just be patient with your suction. Be careful damaging the tip when you introduce it
through the sheath, there's an introducer. In conclusion, we think this is an effective method to primarily treat arterial occlusions, venous pulmonary occlusions, and more data will be coming to you on the venous and pulmonary sides but I think in the arterial side,
we actually have several publications out, demonstrating safety and ethicacy. Thank you.
- Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. These are my disclosures. Well, we know that the Heli-FX EndoAnchor System provide fixation and seal in aortic necks, and it can prevent or resolve migration or endoleaks. It's important to have an even spacing around aortic circumference and
to resolve type 1A endoleaks, you need successful, of course, deployment of EndoAnchors and adequate penetration into the aortic wall. The objectives for this study was to quantify the EndoAnchor penetration into the aortic wall in patients undergoing EVAR
and to assess the predictors of successful penetration and to associate that with postprocedural type 1A endoleaks. We searched in the ANCHOR database, and we included patients that has been treated for a type 1A endoleak, and we had to have a good quality
first postprocedure contrast-enhanced CT scan without any artifacts due to metal or glue, and without implantation of adjuvant aortic extension cuffs or stents. And then we selected two patient cohorts, patients with successful treatment
after the implantation of EndoAnchors for a type 1A endoleak, and patients with a persistent type 1A endoleak after the EndoAnchor implantation. Well, this is to show how we determined the position of the EndoAnchors, this is a good penetrating EndoAnchor
more than two millimeters in the aortic wall. This is borderline, and this means there is still a gap between the endograft and the aortic wall or the EndoAnchor itself is penetrating less than two millimeters. And this of course, a non-penetrating EndoAnchor.
The good ones are green, the borderlines are orange, and the non-penetrating are flagged red. Here are results, the anatomical criteria to predict type 1A endoleaks, as you can see here, at the left, in the type 1A endoleak patients, there is a larger aortic diameter
with a median of 30 millimeters, and neck length is shorter, less than one centimeter, compared to the patients with no endoleak. Then about the EndoAnchor penetration, in the patients with a persistent type 1A endoleak, there are significantly more EndoAnchors
which are borderline or non-penetrating. What are the predictors for a successful EndoAnchor penetration. Well, protective factors, oversizing of the endograft compared to the diameter of the infrarenal aortic neck, and the use of the endurant stents.
Independent risk factors are the aortic diameter at the lowest renal artery, and five and 10 millimeters below more than 30 millimeters, a significantly neck thrombus and calcium around the circumference and also a more than two millimeter thickness.
Predictors for a type 1A endoleak, protective factors is the neck length more than one centimeter, and good penetrating EndoAnchors and risk factors for a type 1A endoleak is, again, the aortic diameter five millimeters
below the lowest renal artery more than 30 millimeters, and also boerderline and non-penetrating EndoAnchors and in this logistic regression model, a non-penetrating EndoAnchor is really predictive for a type 1A endoleak, or a persistent type 1A endoleak. A few cases, this is an excellent job,
there are four EndoAnchors placed, and they all penetrate well, although they are not circumferentially divided around the circumference. The majority of the problems in the patients in the ANCHOR database, if a persistent type 1A endoleak
is mainly due to an incorrect indication, these are EndoAnchors red and orange, non-penetrating and borderline. That is because they are above the fabric, or they are in a no-neck aneurysm, so the indication is not correct.
This is again, a patient with an undersized endograft, of course, the EndoAnchors will never penetrate the aortic wall at a post-serial part of the aorta. This is another example of misdeployment, a huge load of calcium and thrombus, and again, to defined a no-neck aneurysm,
and again, well it's obvious that the EndoAnchors will not do their job. These are then the EndoAnchor distribution in successfully treated type 1A endoleaks at the left, 332 EndoAnchors, but if you select only the patients
with an EndoAnchor which are inside recommended use at the right, you can see that more than 90% of those EndoAnchors are good penetrating. Here are the patients at the left with a persistent type 1A endoleak, 248, and you can see the majority is red or orange,
and that means that majority of those patients had an EndoAnchor deployment beyond the recommended use. So to conclude, good EndoAnchor penetration is less likely when there is large aortic diameter, the EndoAnchor is not perpendicular to the stentgraft during deployment,
and it's beyond the recommended use, more than two millimeters of thrombus, not in the infrarenal neck, or a gap more than two millimeters. And in borderline or non-penetrating EndoAnchor, it's predictive for a type 1A endoleak.
Thank you very much.
- [Dr. de Vries] Thank you for the kind introduction. These are my disclosures. It's why do endografts sometimes need additional fixation with EndoAnchors? Well first, patients with multiple hostile neck parameters still suffer a substantial risk for type I endoleak and endoleak related mortality.
The second reason is that our deployment accuracy of the endograft is not as good as we think. We reviewed 85 consecutive cases in our own hospital and we saw that mainly do the slope of the endograft in the aortic neck, we lose some important apposition,
especially in the outer curve. So the preoperative neck length is not the same as our post-EVAR seal. And the third reason is that some other techniques, like FEVAR do have their limitations and some people are declined because of the branch arteries.
There are also some physiological conditions which is are not good enough for FEVAR. And of course open surgery, well per definition is more invasive and also patients will sometimes have their aneurysm repaired by endovascular means. So EndoAnchors really creates the stability
of a surgical anastomosin shown by David Dietz, and it really rivals the migration resistant of a hand sewn anastomosis. Of the global Anchor registry is captured real-world usage of the EndoAnchors and nowadays 770 patients have been enrolled worldwide.
The Primary Arm represents the majority of the patients in the Anchor Registry, 437 patients in the patients in the Primary Arm. It's not exclusive the Anchor Registry for the Medtronic devices, but also the workhorses like Gore and the Zenith endograft.
Of the prophylactic arm, the patients treated without any endoleak it carries 314 patients in this data slide. And you can see that the majority of those patients will hostile neck parameters. It's true in 91 percentage of the patient cohort.
The median neck length is 11 plus millimeters and also conicity substantial in more than 40% of the cases. What about procedural success? It's high, it's almost 95%. You need an average of around 5.5 EndoAnchors and the time to implant those EndoAnchors is 15 minutes,
and of course there is a learning curve. Core Lab adjudicated outcome, the two years outcomes, there is no new type Ia endoleak in this cohort and no endograft migration. In the Kaplan-Meier Estimates, especially the freedom from
aneurysm related mortality is 98.4% and freedom from secondary procedures at two years timeframe is 92%. There are no serious adverse events related to the implantation of the EndoAnchors itself. No aneurysm rupture and the aneurysm-related mortality
is due to cardiopulmonary comorbidity and not due to aneurysm rupture itself. There's one patient with a surgical conversion in this cohort. And the short neck indication that are patients in the Primary, 70 patients,
only placed with an Endurant in combination with the EndoAnchors and in a prophylactic setting or a patients with a type Ia endoleak. But the median neck length is now less than seven millimeters, so really challenging necks
and also conicity is substantial. It's also a clinical challenging patients cohort. A lot of patients with notable comorbidities and what is important to mention, 17% are patients with symptomatic aneurysm and also one patient with a ruptured aneurysm.
And the well the main treatment is then for prophylactic use but also 21% of the patient do have type Ia endoleak. Procedural results are 31 minutes fluoro time, but only 17 minutes to implant the EndoAnchors. This is the one year outcome. I think it's excellent.
Only one patient with a type I endoleak and he needed a secondary intervention. We had two other patients with a secondary intervention but it was due to a false aneurysm in the groin and a distal extension. No conversion to open surgery and no ruptures.
What about the cost effectiveness? Well you have to consider, it's not only the device cost, but also the level of resource utilization, and also clinical outcomes. And when you compare the short neck cohort, here the 70 patients to the fenestrated IDE study,
there's a cost differential of more than 5,000 U.S. dollars in benefits of the use of the EndoAnchors in those short and hostiles necks. So we can conclude that the Endurant stent graft in combination with the EndoAnchors for short neck indication is easy to use.
It's an off the shelf solution. It gives greater flexibility versus the alternatives. There is no need for renal arterial catheterization and it's really efficient. Thank you very much.
- Well Mr. Chairman, dear friends, last year was here on the same stage for discussion of the results of the EVAR 1 trial and trying to tell you that the results of the EVAR 1 trial were no longer valid and this year I'll try to do the same for the EVAR 2 trial. The EVAR 2 trial was a randomized control trial
conducted in the UK in 33 centers with enrollment between 1999 and 2004. It was a randomized trial in which the patients were randomized between conservative treatment and open treatment and the common ground for the study was that these patients were unfit for open repair.
What is unfit for open repair in the EVAR 2 trial? Well the decision was made from three criteria. Cardiac reasons were the main reasons to consider patients as being unfit. Respiratory and renal reasons are the criteria that were used.
There have been several publications on this trial showing a design of the trial, the preliminary results, the final results in our recently last year, the very long results with this trial. And what are the results? Well as you can see here, it was a statistically
significant difference in aneurysm related mortality between the patients treated with EVAR and those treated conservatively but there was no difference in overall total mortality and this led us to the conclusion that indeed there was not really a place in those EVAR in those patients unfit for open repair.
However, we might look more closely to these results. The first thing in this trial is that almost 10% or more than 10% of the 197 patients that were randomized for EVAR actually did not receive the EVAR procedure because they died prior to the intervention and what was the reason for this?
Well the mean time between randomization and EVAR in this study was two months and in a quarter of the patients, it was even three months. The nine ruptures that occurred before the intervention had taken place. Actually it'd be more than half of
the aneurysm related mortality in this group. Another striking observation was that those patients that had no intervention, 1/3 of these actually were treated with EVAR in the followup period. And when we look at the results, whether it's observation-influenced results,
well you see when we perform a vertical analysis, the difference in aneurysm related mortality was even bigger and also there was a clear trend towards improved overall survival. Although this was not significant and therefore, the author still remains to the conclusion
that there was no place for EVAR in these patients. Looking again closer to the results and looking specifically at the patients with no intervention, already in 2009, there was more than half of these patients in this group actually were patients that already had EVAR.
And even worse, in 2015, of the 13 patients in this group that still survived, there was only one, yes only one, that did not have an EVAR procedure. So it's clear for me that only patients with EVAR actually survive.
Why are the results no longer valid either? Well this study was performed in 1999 up to 2004 and it's clear from further studies, just one example, that the results in the meantime have clearly improved from 1999 to 2004. While it wasn't the Stone Age for EVAR,
it was not more than Middle Ages. Plus mortality clearly improved with time and then when you look at the results of this trial, the 5.7% operated mortality in the EVAR group are actually at this moment no longer standard of care when you compare to these three other studies
which actually use the same criteria for considering patients that's unfit for open repair. Also we've got longer term survival. The mortality of 40% after, no, no, 60% after 40 as in 80% off of JVS can no longer be considered really as up to date results and probably the reason for that
is also the fact that medical treatment upstream in these optimal patients as only 40% statins. So are EVAR 2 results still valid? I think it's clear they are not. It's an old study with old devices. The mortality is not conform to actual standards.
Medical treatment was not optimal. The delay in treatment caused preventable deaths. More than 1/3 of the patients crossed over and the statistical analysis does not reflect the actual treatments of the patients. Does this mean that we should operate on all patients?
Well, maybe not. This is a very recent study published earlier this year in logical patients and you see that when some, certainly once several of the risk factors were considered being unfit patients were present, that results were indeed worse,
especially when there is renal insufficiency. The IR for the SVS guidelines correctly state that it is just to inform high risk patients over their risk status and their mortality score and then making an informed decision whether we should proceed with aneurysm repair or not.
It's my personal opinion though that clinical judgment is probably the most important factor in this decision making process. Thank you for your attention.
- Dear chairman, dear colleagues and friends, it's my pleasure to be again with you. Nothing to declare. In our experience of CCSVI and angioplasty we have more than 1,300 patients with different neurological disorders. Not only MS, but also migraine,
lateral amyotrophic sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, left sided amaurosis. We published our data with an emphasis on the safety of the procedure. We had virtually zero percent of serious complication. What about the clinical improvement?
In fact, we noticed function improvement in more than 62.5% of these patients. And in fact, the group of Pierfrancesco Veroux showed similar between 50 and 60% of the patients restoring the normal blood venous flow. In fact, in their work was shown that the type
of anatomic disturbance, anatomic feature is very important predictor if the flow will be restored by the simple PTA. And the most important into the brave dream trial was also that, in fact, the restoration of the flow was achieved in around 70% of the patients.
And exactly in these 70% of the patients with restored flow like Paulo emphasized already, there were lesion, 91% of them were lesion-free on the MRI, and 77% of them were lesion-free on the six-month. We performed a substudy regarding the hypercapnia
and hypoxaemia of the jugular veins in the CCSVI-positive patients. And what we have described in this 178 patients with CCSVI and 50 healthy control group. In fact, we established that the patients CCSVI-positive the venous sample by the jugular veins was typical
with hypercapnia and hypoxaemia in desaturation, huge desaturation with improvement after the balloon angioplasty in all three parameters. What was the reason for that? In fact, in nine patients of our group we examined, the perfusion, the nuclear perfusion of the brain
before and after the treatment. I'm here presenting non-positive for MS young patient without MRI demyelization. And but on the brain perfusion he had deep hyperperfusion on the left side, and the patient was complaining with deep fatigue.
And we saw practically full occlusion of the enominate vein. And after the recanalization using first coronary and after it peripheral balloons, and in this particular case we had to stent finally. And you see still persistence of a huge crossover collateral even after ballooning.
But after stenting we saw practically full restoration of the flow. You see in less than three to four seconds it was very interesting to see on the perfusion imaging, nuclear perfusion, full restoration of the flow of this gentleman.
So this is very important to emphasize that there is direct relationship between the blood gas disturbances on the brain level, and demyelinization process. What about the PTA? It's probably not the optimal treatment.
We have to establish reliable clinical and anatomical predictors for vascular and clinical success in order to answer the important questions: who will be vascular responders, or MRI responders, and finally the clinical responders in this group of patients?
And concluding, ladies and gentlemen, the CCSVI is a real vascular pathologic entity and is probably a trigger for more than one neurologic degenerative disorder. Endovascular treatment, balloon, PTA, and stenting of CCSVI is feasible and safe.
Methods and strategies improving the early and late patency rate have to be elaborated because the good clinical result is strongly dependent on the vascular patency and flow restoration. And thank you very much for your attention.
- Yeah, thank you very much. Unfortunately Dierk Scheinert couldn't come, so thankfully he's allowed me here to take this presentation over so thanks a lot for this. So these are the latest 5-year results of the INCRAFT device from Cordis Devices currently under FDA review not yet approved
in the US, but in Europe. These are the conflict of interests, this is (mumbles). So this device is a three-piece modular system, low porosity polyester. You can bilaterally in-situ length adjust it up to 3cm. And the main feature I think with this device
is it's a low-profile device, 13 Fr inside 14 Fr outside except the biggest body which has an outer diameter of 16 Fr. The innovation study that was 60 patients, you can see here some objectives. So the question was whether you could deploy it
accurately where you wanted to have it without any type I, III, and IV endoleaks and of course there were also some other primary and secondary endpoints and again follow-up had to be done up to five years. This is a busy slide just showing you,
please look to the right side, to show you that there were quite some violations of the recommendations in which kinds of anatomies to implant this craft. Here for example neck lengths less than 10mm, here were some patients implanted.
Also angulations over 60 degrees, three patients, there were some thrombus in the neck, and here you can see aortic bifurcation smaller than 18mm, there were quite some patients and especially the iliac sealing length was shorter than 10mm in nearly 50% of the patients
and also the diameter of the external iliac arteries were nearly 50% lower than 7mm. Here the freedom from endoleaks type I was one at 30 days which has been resolved and another one developed after 30 days which also has been involved. No type III.
Stent graft patency after 30 days also 100% and otherwise also no other adverse events with this device at thirty days. So to answer the question with this device to the first question of (mumbles) will lighter fabrics and stent material decrease EVAR durability?
Will there be more endoleaks I, III, or IV? You can see here the long-term data so no Ia endoleak developed over four and five years, there was one Ib endoleak which developed at four years which also was apparent at five years. No type III endoleak.
One graft patency failure with a (mumbles) occlusion here at four years which also was here at five years. No migration, one fraction of the (mumbles) proximal third graft, otherwise it was very safe. You can see here once again the Kaplan-Meier curve for type I endoleaks through five years here
with type Ib here later on, and this is the patency Kaplan-Meier curve also showing here the good patency at five years, and this is freedom from second large vent. Here I don't have any data whether this is type II endoleak or not so this still has to be reported and clarified.
So to conclude the INCRAFT performed well on long-term while overcoming more difficult access morphologies. The endograft can be utilized in patients with demanding access and vessel morphology, and there are more studies ongoing.
There is one in the US and Japan where we wait for long-term data, 190 patients and also from Europe's 180 patients also there we still wait for long-term data. Thank you.
- [Instructor] Thank you very much. So, you saw some of the issues that our, oh, this is the slightest cut, but that's okay. Some of the issues that we've seen with these percutaneous mechanical devices, and, back in the 90's, and perhaps even more than a decade ago, there were a lot of these.
And this space gets hot and cold, and one of the problems is that the level of evidence for doing these is very low, and when it is done, it wasn't done well. And this is a nice registry, a lot of patients enrolled, unfortunately we didn't learn
what we had to learn from these types of registries, because of just the study wasn't done well. So the level of evidence is low, and when we did have them, they didn't really work. And you saw some of the problems, that these devices can cause.
And here's another problem that wasn't discussed. You can see the DVT, iliofemoral DVT in here, and a device is pushed a few times up and down, and sort of aspiration, a Bertoulli, that type of thing. And this looks, oh wow, well this looks good,
maybe the thing is working, except all the clot is up here. So, these devices tend to push the clot around. So the issue is, enter now more recently, these are some of the more recent ones. Note that the AngioVac is not here, I don't consider that a practical thrombectomy device,
and so, it's not here. So, we're going to be talking about JETi. This is a system that is an aspiration system with a jet that comes inside the catheter, therefore the clot is engaged and pulled in and broken down by the jet, therefore there's no hemolysis.
And this demonstrated in this case, which is acute and chronic 17 year old multiple DVTs in the past, the iliofemoral segments are stented, as you can see here, this segment is somewhat fresh clot but these, as you can see, are subacute clot. Look at this, so the system now is designed
for over the wire, but for DVT you can use it without the wire, because it works a lot better. As you can see it can really aspirate the clot, in before your eyes. Now this I have passed the device in here once, and you can see the fresh clot is gone,
we have some residual debris in there, we have not established flow yet, and then I turn the device on... and it pulls the whole thing in, okay? So, very powerful aspiration method. So, and as you can see here, we don't have
a flow establish, outflow established yet. Therefore, when you turn it on, you have a vacuum created right here, and so this tells you how strongly this device can aspirate and work. And this isn't on the table.
After a pass here, two passes here, some residual clot in here, obviously there's residual clot there. So we pass it around these areas once more, and this segment obviously needs to get stented and on the table, re-establish antegrade flow. Since May, we've had 19 patients treated, most of them DVT.
And, based on our assessment, 17 of the 19 patients at a total time of 90 minutes on the table, had better than 90% clot retrieve. We have 30-day patency data on only 16 of those patients, because this is really since this May. And 15 of those were open, one re-thrombosed
and we had to retrieve again. Conclusion, so preliminary experience indicates that this is an effective device. There were no safety issues, we don't see any hemolysis, we don't see any pushing around of the clot, but there is a learning curve to it,
and for best application, thank you.
- Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I will admit that I don't think we've got it all figured out, yet. But we'll go ahead anyway. So, persistent type two endoleaks do occur with some regularity and only about a third of them will resolve spontaneously, but fortunately
rupture is rare. A persistent endoleak with a sac expansion is our most common indication for treatment. We've got multiple treatment modalities, typically with a high initial, technical success, but the overall clinical success is not quite as good.
And so as we've learned the natural history is poorly understood, and there's no real strong evidence to guide our treatments. We tend to use CT image fusion to help us perform transarterial lumbar embolization as well as this is a transarterial from a hypogastric to coil
both lumbars and an IMA as well as the sac. We'll also use a direct sac puncture occasionally from a translumbar approach with the fusion guidance and also use that to guide us in terms of placing our embolic agents and then we'll also perform the transcaval embolization more recently.
This has become preferred over the translumbar approach and we can use that to then guide treatment and we use coils and glue combined typically now. We've performed over 100 procedures in 56 patients averaging two per patient. The average time from the endoleak to the procedure was
37 months and our follow-up is 27 months, about half had their EVAR performed at our institution and then the other half outside and about one in four of those had already had some sort of type two endoleak treatment. At our initial treatment, it's typically a trans, or it's been most commonly, a transarterial lumbar embolization
followed by IMA, followed by transcaval, and then direct sac puncture. Freedom from re-intervention is not perfect, so by one year it's about 50% we'll have a re-intervention for ongoing sac growth. For our secondary procedures, open repair has actually
become more common, followed by transcaval embolization then transarterial lumbar, IMA, direct sac puncture, and then also relining proximal extension with modified graft or anchors or cuffs. We have 10 patients that underwent open repair with a one year freedom from open repair of 94%.
Early on, we performed graft explantation for persistent growth with the type two endoleaks, then we switched to sacotomy initially without a proximal reinforcement. One of these was a patient who did rupture from an isolated IMA type two endoleak. We ligated the IMA, opened the sac, found no other bleeding,
closed the sac, and he's been fine for five years. We've taken to reinforcing the proximal attachment prior to opening the sac. One patient already had a PMEG for a type one and then more recently, we've been placing endoanchors for the proximal attachment prior to opening the sac.
Our clinical success from a single intervention is only 33% with multiple interventions it goes up to 67% and if you include the open repairs with sacotomy it goes up to 88%. This is for sac stabilization or decrease. So, I do still believe that large type two endoleaks
with sac expansion should be treated for lumbars. We will still typically go transarterial for the IMA. We'll go from the SMA. If we can't do those, or we failed, then we'll go transcaval as our next approach followed by translumbar. We like to treat both the nidus and the source feeding
vessel and if we fail with all of those, we proceed to sacotomy then will now place the proximal endoanchors for fixation. What we have been seeing, though, more commonly is this where there's poor attachment at the proximal end or distal end and a patient who we've performed
multiple procedures for type two endoleak and there's ongoing sac growth and even though there's no definitive type one leak, clearly if there were we would just go ahead and treat that, but in those patients who don't have a defined type one or three, but they have poor apposition, then we'll consider relining them,
extending them, anchoring, etc. And then, only then, if they still have problems would we consider treating the small type two endoleak. I'm looking forward to the discussion 'cause I think we've got it all figured out. Thanks.
- One more soft swing, I guess, at EVAR-2 for the afternoon, but this one will be from a slightly different perspective. We'll look at it from a methodological standpoint rather than an analytical standpoint, which I do with some trepidation preceding Phil Goodney on the podium. As we've heard, endovascular techniques have revolutionized
the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, and yet, the EVAR-2 trial published in 2010 provided Level I evidence regarding high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. There is no survival advantage of EVAR over observation, as we've heard.
So let's unpack a little bit about what we mean by Level I evidence. Level I evidence consists of properly designed randomized controlled trials. They demonstrate the effect size of an intervention, and they're characterized by
strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, are resource intensive and can be difficult to replicate. Keep in mind that enrolled individuals are frequently younger, white, and affluent, receiving care at academic institutions, and clinical scenarios are heavily scripted.
The EVAR and EVAR-2 studies are examples of such trials. By contrast, Level II evidence, and the definition of this varies by region, consists of, for example, use of large administrative and clinical datasets to compare outcomes from different interventions. These are, to be sure, subject to selection bias
and limited granularity, but they're characterized by high power due to large numbers and external validity because they include real life patients in clinical scenarios. Examples of this type of evidence is found in the VQI, NSQIP, NCDB, SEER, and HCUP.
This study, which I'm grateful to have seen referenced in two prior talks, uses the ACS NSQIP database to look at mortality rates after EVAR in high-risk patients. And this is an example of Level II evidence. What we did was look at EVARs
that were performed between 2005 and 2013, and we used the EVAR-2 criteria to define a high-risk cohort and then examined 30-day post-operative outcomes. In that study, we found that the 30-day mortality for these high-risk patients following EVAR and our cohort was 1.9% compared to the EVAR-2 trial in which it was 7.3%.
And we concluded the contemporary mortality following EVAR is substantially lower even in the high-risk group than reported in the EVAR-2 trial. So how do we understand this? I think it's been unpacked a bit by two of the previous speakers,
but our interpretation was that, as I mentioned, randomized controlled trials and Level II evidence are not the same. So randomized controlled trials, again, include and exclude patients for analysis, use selected devices and do often include
a learning curve for new techniques, whereas the use of contemporary cohorts such as our study have an inclusive population, limited granularity, but allows for changing devices and expertise over time. So in conclusion, randomized controlled trials or so-called Level I evidence,
demonstrates effect sizes for new therapies, while large retrospective data analyses augment the findings for these therapies across contemporary practice patterns and devices. Intelligent integration of data across study types leads to improved care of patients
and preserves the role of critical thinking for surgeons. The key points that I would like you to take away are that endovascular techniques and their indications for use are obviously rapidly evolving, and thoughtful assessment of the literature allows surgeons to nimbly integrate evidence into practice.
The bottom line, our analysis of the current literature suggests we should not deny EVAR to high-risk patients. Thank you.
- Mister Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning. I am excited to present some of the data on the new device here. These are my disclosure. There are opportunities to improve current TEVAR devices. One of that is to have a smaller device,
is a rapid deployment that is precise, and wider possibilities to have multiple size matrix to adapt to single patient anatomy. The Valiant device actually tried to meet all these unmet needs, and nowadays the Navion has been designed on the platform
of the Valiant Captivia device with a completely different solution. First of all, it's four French smaller than the Valiant Captivia, and now it's 18 French in outer diameter for the smallest sizes available.
The device has been redesigned with a shorter tip and longer length of the shaft to approach more proximal diseases, and the delivery system deploys the graft in one step that is very easy to accomplish and precise.
The fabric has been changed with nowadays the Navion having the multi-filament weave of the Endurant that already demonstrates conformability, flexibility, and long-term durability of the material. It's coming with a wide matrix of options available. In terms of length, up to 225 mm.
Diameters as small as 20 mm, and tapered device to treat particular anatomical needs. But probably the most important innovation is the possibility to have two proximal configuration options: the FreeFlo and the CoveredSeal.
Both tied to the tip of the device with the tip-capture mechanism that ensures proximal deployment of the graft that is very accurate. This graft is being under trial in a global trial
that included 100 patients all over the world. The first 87 patients have been submitted for primary endpoint analysis. 40% of the patients were females. High risk patients showed here by the ASA class III and IV. Most of the patients presented
with a fusiform or saccular aneurysm, and the baseline anatomy is quite typical for these kinds of patients, but most of the patients have the very tortuous indices, both at the level of the access artery tortuosity and the thoracic aorta tortuosity.
Three-fourths of the patients had been treated with a FreeFlo proximal end of the graft, while one-fourth with the CoveredSeal. Complete coverage of the left subclavian occurred in one-fifth of the patients. Almost all had been revascularized.
Procedure was quite short, less than one and half hour, percutaneous access in the majority of cases. There were no access or deployment failures in this series. And coming to the key clinical endpoints, there were two mortality reported out of 87 patients.
One was due to the retrograde type A dissection at day one, and one was not device related almost at the end of the first month. Secondary procedures were again two. One was in the case of retrograde type A dissection, and the second one in a patient
that had an arch rupture due to septicemia. Type 1a endoleak was reported in only one case, and it was felt to be no adverse event associated so was kept under surveillance without any intervention. Major Adverse Events occurred in 28% of the cases. Notably four patients had a stroke
that was mild and not disabling, regressing in two weeks. Only one case of spinal cord ischaemia that resolved by drainage and therapy in 20 days. In summary, we can say that the design enhancement of Valiant Navion improved upon current generation TEVAR.
Acute performance is quite encouraging: no access or deployment failure, low procedural and fluoro times, low rate of endoleaks, Major Adverse Events in the range expected for this procedure.
Nowadays the graft is USA FDA approved as well as in Europe CE mark. And of course we have to wait the five years results.
- Thanks, Stefan and Frank for having me back again this year. These are my disclosures as it pertains to the renal topics here. We all know that renal dysfunction severely impacts survival, whether we're doing open or endovascular aortic repair,
as you see by these publications over the past decade, patients with no dysfunction have a significant advantage in the long term, compared to those patients who suffer acute kidney injury, or go on to be on new hemodialysis. When you look at the literature,
traditionally, through open repair, we see that the post-operative rate of acute kidney injury ranges anywhere from 20 to almost 40 percent, and it doesn't seem to vary whether it's a suprarenal or infrarenal type
of clamp or repair. Chronic renal replacement therapy in this population ranges somewhere between 0 and 3 percent. That really forms a baseline when we want to compare this to the newer techniques such as chimney and fenestrated or branched EVAR.
Now, if you look at the results of the ZFEN versus Zenith AAA trials, and this is published by Gustavo, the acute kidney injury rate is approximately at 25%, acute kidney injury rate being defined as patients, excuse me, greater than 25% change in GFR,
but in one month acute kidney injury rate is 5% for FEVAR and about 9% for EVAR in this study. There's no difference in these rates at two years or five years between the Zenith AAA and the ZFEN devices. What about the progression of patients
with Stage 4 or Stage 5? At two years, it's about the same, 2% versus 3% for EVAR, and at five years, 7 and 8% respectively. Overall, progression to renal failure occurs in about 1.5% of patients in this cohort.
Well, how does that compare to chimney cases, if you look at the Pythagoras and PERICLES studies, there are a limited number of patients, you see in Pythagoras, 128 patients, 92% of them had either one or two chimneys, meaning generally addressing renal arteries in this case,
patency of those grafts was about 96% and there is no real discussion in that manuscript of the degree of acute kidney injury. And in PERICLES registry, however, they report a 17.5% incidence of acute kidney injury post-op,
and a 1.5% incidence of temporary or permanent dialysis. What about if you compare them? This is a publication in 2017, if you look at both of these studies, very similar, 17.8% for acute kidney injury in FEVAR, and about 19% for a chimney.
You have to realize, though, there are more complete repairs in the FEVAR group, and there are more symptomatic patients in the ChEVAR group, so these aren't completely comparable, but you get some idea that they're probably in the general range of one another.
So the real questions, I think, that come up, is, which arteries can you sacrifice? Are renal embolizations impacting patients' overall function? And what is the mid-term impact of branch and fenestrate on volume of your kidneys
and patients' eGFR. We've studie we looked at the incidence and clinical significance of renal infarcts, whether we actually embolized these pre-procedure,
or whether we accidentally covered or intentionally covered an accessory renal artery, what was the outcome of those patients? We see over time, the average renal volume loss, calculated by a CT scan and VAT volume, is about 2.5% if you embolize it
and if you just cover an accessory renal, about 6.4%. But overall, about 4%, didn't change significantly, overall the GFR changed over the lifespan of the first two years of the patient of 0.1, so it wasn't a significant clinical impact on the patient's overall renal function.
Now what about looking at it specifically of what happens when you do branch and fenestrate cases with respect to eGFR and volume of those? We presented this at this past year's SABS, and it is in submission. If you look at the changes of eGFR,
you notice that in the first six months, the patient declines, but not significantly, and then you see in the graph there, it tends to come back up by a year, year and a half. Very similar to what Roy Greenberg published in his initial studies,
but what we did in this study was actually compare it to the age match publications, and you see that eGFR over time was similar to what happens in age-related changes, but we also noticed that 16% of the patients, 9 of 56, had improvement of their eGFR
to greater than 60. Now whether this is just related to the inaccuracy of the eGFR and its variance, or whether we actually improved some renal stenosis, is difficult to tell in this small study. In conclusion, open, fenestrated,
and chimney EVAR procedures are associated with acute kidney injury in approximately 20% of patients. Causes of deterioration are likely multifactorial and may be different for each technique used. Renal infarcts from covering accessory renal arteries
and embolization occur in about a quarter of the patients, and is a small contributor to renal decline over time. Renal decline made after FEVAR is similar to associated with age. Thank you.
- Thanks Stephan, yes I just want to give you five tips and tricks that I've learnt with my experience to this technique, and also then I'll present some results from the Ascend International Trials. I have an obvious disclosure that is important to show.
So, I do think that custom-made devices or phenostate graphs are the gold standard in this area of the difficult neck to aneurysm, but there are constraints with it, both financially and atomically, and of course its not the perfect solution
so we still need to strive to find better solutions for patients and indeed an off the shelf solution is very useful especially in emergency situations. I think we're all quite surprised by the outcomes from parallel grafts.
I certainly, when I saw this originally thought this was never going to work but actually, the results from standard evar with chimneys are really quite good. There is however always the potential for gutter endoleaks when aligning
parallel grafts with conventional EVAR stents which are not really designed for this purpose. So, endovascular sealing with parallel grafts offers a solution to this with the prevention potentially of gutter endoleaks because the polymus bag will seal alongside
the parallel grafts. And in practice this works quite well so you can position two, three or even four parallel grafts alongside the nellix sealing device to give yourself a really good seal and an example is shown here on the CT.
So tips for getting good outcomes from this, well the first is an obvious one, but its to plan very carefully, so do think you need to be very cautious in your planning of these with regard to multiple levels of the technique
including access, the type, length, and the nature of the parallel grafts you're going to use. I'll talk a bit more about the neck lengths but aneurysm lengths as well because there are some restraints with the
nellix device in this regard. You need to take very carefully about seal both proximally and distally and I do think you need to do this in a hybrid theater with experienced operators. I mentioned neck lengths and my Tip two is
you have to not compromise on neck quality and neck length. So you need straight healthy aorta of at least 15mm, of less than 30 diameter and a low thrombus burden. If you do compromise you'll see situations as the one on the photograph shows
where you get migration stents so you must not compromise on the quality and length of your aortic neck and if that means doing more chimneys, do it that's not a major problem but if you compromise on neck,
you will have problems. I mentioned the parallel grafts, again this is part of the planning but we use balloon expandable stents of a reasonable length to ensure that you get at least a centimeter into each of the branches
and you have to be careful to position these above the polymer bags so that they don't become constrained by the polymer bags from the nellix device. You have to be very careful when positioning these so the tip four is watch the parallax in
two different angles to be sure, as in the case here, that you line up all your stents appropriately and that you don't get crushing of any of the individual stents. So parallax is vital. And th
ltiple levels of redundancy in the nellix system which you can use to your advantage to ensure you get a good seal. So here's an example where the bags you can see are not entirely filled using the primary fill.
And it is quite difficult because often you get polymer pressures that are slightly erroneous in the endo bags. So use the redundancy including what's called the secondary fill of these bags so you can adequately fill the bags
right up into the aortic neck and ensure a very good proximal seal. So what are the results, well this is the post-market registry of Ch-EVAS this is an open-label study with no screening and I'll just show you a few slides of the data
on 154 de-novo procedures, which are a combination of single, double triple, and even quadruple chimneys. And if we look firstly at outcomes at 30 days the outcomes are good, that you'd expect in these difficult anatomies,
so 2.6% mortality and stroke, and just two cases of temporary renal failure. And if we look out 12 months, the freedom from aneurysm related and all cause mortality is favorable and comparable with any of the other endovascular techniques
in these difficult anatomies, in the upper 90 percents. And endoleak rates, you pretty much eradicate type two and type three endoleaks, but remember this is only 12 months, and very low levels of type one endoleak
and its really the type one endoleaks that are difficult to fix and if you ensure that proximal neck is adequate this shouldn't occur. And finally just secondary interventions, again this is out 12 months. Secondary Interventions are low and again
I think with the tips that I've shown you, you can reduce this to an absolute minimum. So this does offer an off the shelf alternative I don't think in any way this is to match the current gold standard which to me is the custom-made devices, but it's a very useful
adjunct to the techniques we have, and again provides that off the shelf solution which in emergencies and urgent cases is essential. Don't compromise on your neck, the outcomes I think, in this group are promising, but of course, the long term durability is
absolutely essential so it's important we follow these patients out to at least 5 years. Thank you.
- I think that the most important tip cannot really be summarized in five minutes, which is that these procedures are highly dependent on how well you plan the procedure and how well you really implant the device. That is a fairly long learning curve that I think you need to actually collaborate with people
that they are experienced, and with industry to make sure that you are on the right track on making your measurements to size these devices. But there are a few things to be said about cases that are very difficult, and a few tips that I would highlight on this talk.
First, it's highly important that you build up your inventory so you can get out of trouble. I think you have to have a variety of catheters of your choice, with primary or secondary curves.
The addition of shapeable guides has been a major benefit for these types of procedures. They are fairly expensive, so I would say we don't use them routinely, but they can bail you out. They can allow you to do cases now from the femoral approach that in the past could not be achievable this way.
You have to be able to work on the diffe .035 system, .014 system, .018 system, and know when to apply this. I would like to highlight four maneuvers that we use when vessels don't align.
First, a common maneuver is really not to try to get in a quote/unquote pissing match with the fenestration and the vessel. If you can catheterize the fenestration first, and advance your sheath upwards, and lead a .018 wire into the sheath,
that will basically lock your sheath into the fenestration. Therefore, you don't have to repeatedly catheterize the fenestration and you save a lot of time. You can choose y ose something that has a secondary curve if you have room,
or a Venture 3 catheter, which is one of my choice for catheterization, and you can see here that on this case, the difficulties imposed by a shelf on the ostia of the renal artery, which makes catheterization more difficult. This .018 wire also allows you to bend your sheath
as a guide catheter so that you can achieve a downward curve to catheterize a down-going vessel, like on this renal artery. The second maneuver to highlight is that these devices are constrained posteriorly, and therefore, the fenestrations are naturally moved
posteriorly into the aorta. So one of the first maneuvers is really to try to move the fenestration more anteriorly by rotating the device. Now, some of the companies now have newer constraining mechanisms
that may alleviate some of this, but this is kind of a next maneuver that we do. Finally, rarely nowadays we have to really find more space between the fenestration and the aortic wall, but it is always useful to leave behind a wire when you deploy this device so that in the event
that you need more space, you can perhaps navigate the catheter, inflate, and create some space between the fabric and the aortic wall. Marcelo Ferreira, along with other collaborators, has described a technique that I think is very useful when you have a lot of space.
That's the case, for example, of a directional branch or perhaps if you are using fenestration to target a vessel that is somewhat away from the fabric of the endograft. That's called the snare ride technique. This is summarized on this illustration.
When you see the left renal artery to be up-going, now being targeted from the brachial approach, that was difficult to catheterize, you catheterize that from the femoral approach with an eight French sheath and a snare ride type... You snare the wire from the arm, and then you can
navigate that catheter inwards into the vessel. That can be difficult, sometimes, to actually advance the snare into the vessel. I think that there is some improvement on the profile of these snares that can improve that, but that is a very useful technique,
not only for branches, but also for fenestrations. Finally, sometimes you have too much space. You may seem you are very well aligned on the latitude with the vessel, but in fact, there is so much space the device got displaced on that sac and you cannot simply catheterize the vessel.
It's useful to downsize the system on these cases to a micro-catheter with a micro-wire to find yourself in the sac eventually out through the vessel. Once you achieve that, you would then exchange this micro-wire, usually a glide gold wire, to a .018,
a stiffer wire that is long enough. You advance a balloon that is undersized for that vessel, and with that you can straighten the system and eventually switch that for a wire that is of reasonable strength, such as a rosen wire in this case, and complete the case.
Finally, there is nothing wrong about leaving the battle to be fought another day. It's better to finish a case a little quicker and not end up with leg ischemia and a compartment syndrome and a s the situation
and come back another day. This is a case, for example, that I did a branch endograft. You can see the right renal artery is exceedingly narrowed. I could not find a way in in a reasonable time. I gave myself about half an hour. I decided to quit.
A few days later, I came back through a subcostal incision, got retrograde access, and this literally was a case that didn't take very long and end up doing very well. So in summary, patie select your proper
anticipat stent. To offset these challenges, minimize contrast a master your endovas
it is better to end with a patient alive and fight the battle another day, than to have an excessive long procedure leading to numerous other complications. Thank you very much.
- Thank you friends who have invited me again. I have nothing to disclose. And we already have published that as far as the MFM could be assumed safe and effective for thoracoabdominal aneurysm when used according to the instruction for use at one, three, and four years. Now, the question I'm going to treat now,
is there a place for the MFM? Since 2008, there were more than 110 paper published and more than 3500 patient treated. 9 percent of which amongst the total of published papers relating the use of the MFM for aortic dissections. So, we went back to our first patients.
It was a 40 year old male Jehovah Witness that I operated in 2003 of Type A dissection and repair with the MFM in 2010 because he had 11 centimeter false aneurysm. Due to his dissection, this patient was last to follow up because he was taking care full time off of
his severe debilitated son. When we checked him, the aneurysm seven years later shrunk from 11 to 4 centimeters wide. And he's doing perfectly well. Then the first patient we treated seven years ago, same patient with Professor Chocron
Type A dissection dissection repair in 2006. Type B treated with MFM in 2010. We already published that at one year that the patient was doing fine. But now, at three and seven years, the patient was totally cured.
The left renal artery was perfused retrogradely by aspiration. That's a principle that has been described through the left iliac artery. So what's next? Next there was this registry
that has been published and out of 38 patients 12 months follow up, there were no paraplegia, no stroke, no renal impairment, and no visceral insult. And at 12 month the results looked superior
to INSTEAD, IRAD and ABSORB studies. This is the most important slide to us because when you look at the results of this registry, we had 2.6 percent mortality at 30 days versus 11 30 and 30.7 no paraplegia, no renal failure, and no stroke vessel
13 to 12.5. 33 and 34 and 13 and 11.8 percent. With a positive aortic remodeling occurring over time with diminishing the true lumen increasing the true lumen and increasing the false lumen.
And so the next time, the next step, was to design an international, multicenter, prospective, non-randomized study. To treat, to use the MFM, to treat the chronic type B aortic dissection. So out of 22 patients to date,
we had mainly type B and one type A with no dissection, no paraplegia, no stroke, no renal impairment, no loss of branch patency, no rupture, no device failure, with an increase in true lumen and decrease in false lumen that was true at discharge.
That was true at one, three, and six and 12 month. And in regards with the branch occluded from the parts or the branches were maintained patent at 12 and all along those studies. So, of course these results need to be confirmed in a larger series and at longer follow up,
yet the MFM seems to induce positive aortic remodeling, is able to keep all branches patent during follow-up, has been used safely in chronic, acute, and subacute type B and one type A dissection as well. When we think about type B dissection, it is not a benign disease.
It carries at 20 percent when it's complicated mortality by day 2 and 25 percent by day 30. 30 percent of aortic dissection are complicated, with only 50 percent survival in hospital. So, TEVAR induces positive aortic remodeling, but still causes a significant 30 day mortality,
paraplegia event, and renal failure and stroke. And the MFM has stabilized decreased the false lumen and increase the true lumen. Keeps all the branch patent, favorize positive aortic remodeling. So based on these data, ladies and gentleman,
we suggest that the MFM repair should be considered for patients with aortic dissection. Thank you very much.
- [Presenter] Thank you very much. This is Jordan. It's my pleasure to share this panel with endoanchors believers, I'm one of them. So, there's my disclosures. The scope of the problem about the proximal migration starts
in order to think about the durability of thoracic endografting, because it still is a concern. The cranial migration from the distal attachment is part of this particular concern, especially when the distal neck length is less than three centimeter.
I think this is a under-reported complication in these areas. That is, what has happened, after some kind of follow-up, after four years follow-up, the distal part of the aorta, or the distal part of the endograft is dis-attached from the primary landing zone.
Because all the forces in the ascending thoracic aorta acting in the up cranial fashion. So when you are virtually sure there some kind of migration rate of two years but also have some kind of cranial migration from the distal part of the aorta at the one year is 1.2%
for the VALOR trial and 1% in one year also for the TX2 trial. In our experience, before 2006, for distal neck length, between 1.5 to 3 centimeter in length, 60% of cranial migration rate was registered at five years follow-up. So what's a lot of percent about that we try to perform
a different kind of approach for those particular short or no short, nice distal neck of thoracic aorta. So cranial migration as previously mentioned is under-reported. The upside for the abdominal aorta with the forces acting in the downstream anteriorly in the thoracic one is
posteriorly a cranial and also a cranial migration course. And this kind of phenomenon kind of course in the long run follow-up. These connections and also cranial migration. About the preventative actions there are different kind of creative alternative in order to prevent that,
but let me to focalize my attention and your attention to endoanchors philosophy that is part of our current approach. For a regular neck of more than three centimeters we can use regular endograft but sometimes when it's not so regular it's not so straight, we prefer to use in combination
with endoanchors. When you have a regular straight but between 1.5 and 3 centimeter we prefer to use distal scalloped endograft plus endoanchors as you cam see here. That is what the speakers talk about very extensively but this is just a case in order to see
what happened after two years follow-up in this lady when it has this distal type one endolink we apply the endoanchors and after three years the endoanchors remain in the same position, as you can see here, without any kind of further complications.
So another example, in combination with scalloped devices, scalloped thoracic endograft, just in order to be sure, that the movement in the distal part doesn't occur or even weaken over time. For sure, when you have very short neck length,
that means less than 1.5 centimeter, then we need to switch to another kind of solution like this fenestrated or branched endograft, like you can see here in this example. So in summary, the durability of thoracic endografting remains a concern when cranial migration is a consequence
of biomechanical forces of the thoracic aorta and it is under-reported. The proximal and distal necks deserve equal attention. And many different approaches have been suggested to avoid cranial migration. And endoanchors in combination with the scalloped,
fenestrations and branched endografts should be applied more often. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentleman. I'd also like to thank Dr. Veith for the kind invitation. This presentation really ties to the presentation of Erik Verhoven, I believe. These are my disclosures. So we basically have, obviously, two problems. We treat a dynamic disease by fairly static means.
One of the problems, a local problem, is aortic neck degeneration which is the problem basically of progression of disease. We know in general if you stent them, if you operate them, if you don't treat them they will just dilate and it's a question of time
whether you have a problem or not. So, they will inevitably, if patients live long enough, cause a change of geometry of the aorta and the branch vessels and that cause obviously, that can cause stent fractures and other problems.
That's just one of many papers Erik also has shown a migrated graft. With his fenestrated grafts showing that the problem is also prevalent in M stents and Z stents, and obviously also in
as in the Fenestrated Anaconda. So I'll talk briefly about our experience. In Vienna where we have treated so far 179 patients with either double, triple, or quadruple fenestrated grafts. Majority nowadays are quadruple in our series
where we have also treated patients with extensions of thoracic stent grafts or extensions further down to the iliac arteries. In these patients we've had relevant neck degenerations in five cases. Where either the branches had issues
or the graft had migrated relevantly. And these basically represent three different faces of the problem. So one is neck degeneration with migration and loss of seal. Certainly the biggest problem that can cause ruptures. That's one of the cases in 2015
what is certainly important is to have a look at the super celiac area of the aorta and you see it's degenerated, it's dilated. So we have a nice ring of aorta at the visceral segment but above it wasn't. And it was a
you see the saddle of the stent graft and one and a half years later the saddle (cough) has flattened out. We've had a stent fracture of the left renal stent.
We screwed it with anchors and fixed the stent graft. We believe that's going to be the solution. We were wrong. Yet anothe leak and a further migration of the case.
So we had to put in a thoracic endograft and bring in a 4 fen and a mono-iliac crossover solution. The other problem would be neck degeneration or progression of disease without migration or loss of seal. As in this case where we have implanted a 4 fen case and you can see here that there is
a diseased proportion of the thoracic aorta. Could look like a penetrating ulcer. And again we had to put in a thoracic stent graft and a 4 fen solution with a mono-iliac ending and a crossover. What's more important, I believe,
is the progression of general, generalized aortic disease. So there is no real migration, as in this case in 2013. You can see a nice saddle and very straight iliac limbs. 2018 you can see that the saddle is actually flattened out. Renal arteries look upwards, so you would actually believe in
a migration of the stent graft. Also if you look at the iliac limbs you can see that they have actually compressed somewhat. But if you look closely at the difference between the ring and the SMA, so that's lateral view, you can see that there is no difference.
The stent graft actually has not migrated. What happened is that the patient developed a thoracic aneurysm of 7.5cm and the whole aorta is not only increased in diameter but also in length. So the whole thing has moved its confirmation without basically a migration of the
not yet. So, Mr Chairman, Ladies a lessons we have learned is- and I could also repeat wh
seal in the healthiest proportion of the aorta. So if you see a nice visceral ring and above that you see a diseased proportion of the aorta, as in this case, where you have already a degenerated thoracic aorta.
You should really treat this as well and not go for a 2 or 3 fen case. And also the progressio the general progression of disease is an issue. So even if you have no migrations
you may end up with real problems and target vessel occlusions or stent graft fractures. Thank you very much
- [Dr. Vikram Kashyap] Thanks to Dr. Viets for the kind invitiation. Dr. Hotze and Dr. Calgoro, and thank you Dr. Escobar for that great introduction. Obviously, percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy's something that we all use. It hastens treatment, and we use it regularly
for both venous and arterial thrombosis. However, PMT has been linked to cases of reversible post-operative acute kidney injury. It's thought to be due to either the hemolysis and the deposition of red corpuscle elements into the kidney parenchyma, and it may actually also
potentiate contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. Clearly, PMT leads to mechanical breakdown, but the intravascular hemolysis is perhaps the concern. And as Dr. Escobar illuminated, clearly can reduce the time for catheter-directed thrombolysis
or overall thrombectomy, period. Catheter-directed thrombolysis on the other hand, chemical breakdown through, usually, the plasminogen system, with converting to plasma, and then fibrinolysis. But clearly, because of the risk of bleeding, we think about using PMT to decrease the CDT time.
Our hypothesis was that there is an increased incidence of renal dysfunction in patients undergoing PMT for treatment of an acute thrombus, compared to patients undergoing CDT alone. So this is a report- a single-center, retrospective study. 227 patients were reviewed.
145 patients were included into the study analysis. The excluded patients included patients that had acute kidney injury before their intervention, patients that were already end-stage renal patients on dialysis, and patients who that either inadequate or no follow-up data.
So of those 145-odd patients, one-third had arterial thrombosis, two-thirds had venous thrombosis, and as you can see in this pie graph, about half the patients had combination catheter directed thrombolysis
and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy. 12 percent had CDT alone. 10 percent had PMT alone. And then 29 percent had PMT with pulse spray tPA in a single-setting intervention. We used the RIFLE Criteria to characterize
the severity of renal dysfunction after intervention. And in the RIFLE Criteria, you can see in these rows risk, injury, and failure. There's an increase in creatinine or a decrement in GFR and Loss and ESRD are obviously patients that go on to either temporary or permanent dialysis.
This was the incidence of renal dysfunction in this group. 20 percent in the patients that had PMT alone. With power pulse PMT TPA - 21 percent. With the combination PMT and catheter-directed thrombolysis - 14 percent. And with catheter-directed thrombolysis alone - zero percent
These were highly significantly different between these two groups and the CDT group with values as you can see here on the lower right. If we look at the RIFLE Criteria, none of these patients went on to permanent dialysis. They all had risk, injury, or failure,
which were decrements in GFR, or escalations in creatinine. In fact, all the patients were covered to their baseline renal function, but it took an average of 5.1 days. This lengthened their hospitalization. And all 22 patients that had renal dysfunction
had either PMT alone or PMT combination therapy. If you look at the procedural of variables in this table, you can see that the length of admission's actually fairly similar. Importantly, the total TPA dose was similar, and the total contrast volume
between these two groups was also similar. If you look at other post-procedure outcomes, luckily, none of these patients that had renal dysfunction had long-term harm. There was similar six month mortality, six percent versus five percent.
Other complications were very similar. Limb salvage was 92 and 95 percent and there was no increased readmission rate for DVT or arterial thrombosis. So, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, the use of PMT as a treatment for venous
or arterial thrombosis is associated with acute renal dysfunction, but is not associated with adverse six month clinical outcomes. We still use this to hasten thrombolysis time and decrease time in the hospital,
but I think it necessitates that we have post-operative, post-procedure vigilance, and renal protective measures as much as possible to decrease the likelihood of renal dysfunction. Thank you very much.
- Thank you for the opportunity to present this arch device. This is a two module arch device. The main model comes from the innominated to the descending thoracic aorta and has a large fenestration for the ascending model that is fixed with hooks and three centimeters overlapping with the main one.
The beginning fenestration for the left carotid artery was projected but was abandoned for technical issue. The delivery system is precurved, preshaped and this allows an easy positioning of the graft that runs on a through-and-through wire from the
brachial to the femoral axis and you see here how the graft, the main model is deployed with the blood that supported the supraortic vessels. The ascending model is deployed after under rapid pacing.
And this is the compilation angiogram. This is a case from our experience is 6.6 centimeters arch and descending aneurysm. This is the planning we had with the Gore Tag. at the bottom of the implantation and these are the measures.
The plan was a two-stage procedure. First the hemiarch the branching, and then the endovascular procedure. Here the main measure for the graph, the BCT origin, 21 millimeters, the BCT bifurcation, 20 millimeters,
length, 30 millimeters, and the distal landing zone was 35 millimeters. And these are the measures that we choose, because this is supposed to be an off-the-shelf device. Then the measure for the ascending, distal ascending, 35 millimeters,
proximal ascending, 36, length of the outer curve of 9 centimeters, on the inner curve of 5 centimeters, and the ascending model is precurved and we choose a length between the two I cited before. This is the implantation of the graft you see,
the graft in the BCT. Here, the angiography to visualize the bifurcation of the BCT, and the release of the first part of the graft in the BCT. Then the angiography to check the position. And the release of the graft by pushing the graft
to well open the fenestration for the ascending and the ascending model that is released under cardiac pacing. After the orientation of the beat marker. And finally, a kissing angioplasty and this is the completion and geography.
Generally we perform a percutaneous access at auxiliary level and we close it with a progolide checking the closure with sheet that comes from the groin to verify the good occlusion of the auxiliary artery. And this is the completion, the CT post-operative.
Okay. Seven arch aneurysm patients. These are the co-morbidities. We had only one minor stroke in the only patient we treated with the fenestration for the left carotid and symptomology regressed completely.
In the global study, we had 46 implantations, 37 single branch device in the BCT, 18 in the first in men, 19 compassionate. These are the co-morbidities and indications for treatment. All the procedures were successful.
All the patients survived the procedure. 10 patients had a periscope performed to perfuse the left auxiliary artery after a carotid to subclavian bypass instead of a hemiarch, the branching. The mean follow up for 25 patients is now 12 months.
Good technical success and patency. We had two cases of aneurysmal growth and nine re-interventions, mainly for type II and the leak for the LSA and from gutters. The capilomiar shows a survival of 88% at three years.
There were three non-disabling stroke and one major stroke during follow up, and three patients died for unrelated reasons. The re-intervention were mainly due to endo leak, so the first experience was quite good in our experience and thanks a lot.
- Good morning everybody. So first of all let me take note of it for the kind invitation to be here, again. These are my disclosures. So Juxtarenal Aneurysm has been described as those aneurysms very close to or even including in the lower margin of renal artery.
And of course the gold standard at that time was aortic supportive clamping and open surgery. Probably open surgery is still the first choice in this very short and complex aortic neck but what do in case of patients unfit for surgery? Or for patients who are asking for
a minor invasive alternative. Of course, Fenestrated EVAR are the solution, the option two, but they require time, are expensive, so what to in case of patients who have no time or cannot wait for this customization process?
Symptomatic patients, patients with huge aneurysm or patients just unfit for fEVAR because of either access or tortuous proximal neck anatomy. So solution is chimney or ovation VENT. What is ovation VENT? It's a kind of open chimney technique,
it's a combination of ovation with renal bare stent. So you know the the new concept of sealing of this stent graft, the circumferential apposition of polymer-filled ring to the aortic wall, typically at 13mm, so to just translate the length of the neck to a specific point
when a couple of millimeter when in that position of course. And you know with the previous, you have just heard the harder device, but with the standard device, the prime and the IX, we have the device positioned
13mm below the lowest renal artery. So, what to do in case of (unclear) when have no apposition of the ring to the aortic wall, we raise the ring, just very close to the renal artery, and then we place some bare metal stent
at the renal BMS. So here you can see our bench test with the fabric of the collars just moved by the bare metal stents. So, VENT is different from chimney, we don't use the covered stents so
it's a lowered provide bracket approach, and more importantly, chimney and endograft are typically competing for the same room so this the reason for gutters, while with VENT we have a stent and endograft, which are not competing for the same room.
The ring is responsible for the sealing and the stent is just responsible for the ventilation of the renal arteries. So this is a typical example, you can see here, a contained rupture aneurysm, in this point, and with a very short neck, so we decide
to land with the first neck and exactly at that level you can see here the steps of the procedure, the contemporary deployment of the renal stent, and the main graft the injection of the polymer, so the first ring is really in contact with the renal stent,
but they're not competing each other and so you can have a nice sealing of the sack. Another case, conical shaped neck, unfit for standard EVAR, unfit for EVAR, because was a huge aneurysm, much more than 8cm, so we decide again to raise the ring,
13mm and fit for standard ovation. And so here you can see the first ring just at this level, the renal stent, responsible for the patency of the renal artery, and you can see here that the first ring is just touching it in one point, the conical neck.
With good sealing. Again, another case with unfit for fEVAR, because of the small access, tortoise access, and so we plant a double VENT, in this case, you can see here again, prucodanus bracket approach, with five french shift,
contemporaneous deployment of stents, and first ring, again nice sealing, and nice follow up with completed sack screen cage, and another one year follow up. So, up to now we have performed 29 cases. We did the first case in June 2015,
technical success was high, 96.6%, we had just one type one endo-leak fixed introaperticaly with the coil embolization. The follow up is, mean follow up is 19 month, and 100% renal artery patency, no further intervention, no sac enlargement,
the majority of arteries, it's shrinkage more than 5mm. So just in conclusion, this option is in, we believe that in selected measures, it's a nice option. It is safe and effective when you can not wait for fenestration graft, like in case of symptomatic
or huge aneurysm, or just patients are unfit for fenestration because of tortuous anatomy or small iliac vessels. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Veith for inviting again to this great meeting. It's my disclosures. Well, as we know and heard this meeting, there are some certain limitations of current EVAR (mumbles) anatomical procedure and economical reasons,
and I would like to present a relatively new device which may address current EVAR limitations with a simple low profile system, and basically, ALTURA consists of two parallel stent graft systems. ZEUS No Gate Cannulation is needed and unique features include D-shaped proximal stents
and suprarenal fixation. Multi-purpose (mumbles) possibilities as well, and the system of utilize 14 French delivery system. And as aortic components can be deployed offset to accommodate the offset renals, and then the limbs are also unique
because they're deployed retrograde from distal proximally, and this allows precise positioning, both proximally and distally. Well, as the ALTURA clinical experience includes the very first human implants as well as more recent case performed
with a fully commercial device, and a total of 90 patients with a AAA were enrolled between 2011 and 2015, and follow-ups are taken at 30 days, six months, and annually to five years, and this presentation gives a current status of follow-up, and our results with a 12-month follow-up were published earlier this year.
Our clinical data were collected in total of in 11 sites. It includes 90 patients. And you see here, the patient demographics and anatomy do a typical, which are typical for all EVAR patients and the mean follow-up was 2.7 years. And procedure of success was 99%.
Only one patient, one of the first patient was Gen1 was not implanted, and 50% patients were done percutaneously, and majority of them underwent regional or local anesthesia. So when you look into the results, we see that there was only one case of AAA ruptured,
which occurred at three years due to type II endoleak and sac enlargement as the patient, which refused treatment due to type II endoleak. And all other deaths are paired to no original causes, and two patients had device migration at two years. The same patients appear at three-year period,
and basically these were undersized grafts was sort of our learning curve, and there was no any migration later on. Four patients had type I endoleaks visible on CT, and read by independent committee between 30 days and one year.
None have required secondary treatment and have been no aneurysm enlargement observed. And at one year, not surprisingly for this kind of devices, there was 17% type to endoleaks, but only one patient required secondary procedure due significant sac expansion.
Well, wasn't, of course, what we saw, I expected majority of patients has had shrinkage. There was a four-year period. And this is a patient who was recorded with the type IA endoleak at 30 days, caused by the last calcified nodule,
as you he's here probably none of the other device would tolerate that, but the endoleak did not extended into into the sac and had a leak result spontaneously without sac enlargement through a four-year follow-up period, as we're seeing here. Well, here another patient with type IB endoleak,
due to (mumbles) generation was treated with coils and glue an extension with additional stent graft to external iliac artery. What's interesting was the device. Device can tolerate small distal aortas and five patients who were treated
with small distal aortas and the very first patient was not dilated enough and stents were not deployed, simultaneously causing some stenosis which was easily treated with PTA afterwards, so we learned but it's very great, unique feature to treat the small distal aortas for the device.
And of course, sensing what happening with them, septal endoleaks, because everybody being concerned what happening with that, and nevertheless, there were no septal endoleaks observed during the follow-up period. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to say this Novel Altura endograft concept has potential to play major role in mainstream EVAR cases and potential benefits include predictability, reposition ability to place the device very, very, very precisely, offset renals, to maximize use of the neck, and low profile
overcomes current and anatomic limitations like tortuous iliacs, narrow bifurcation or access vessels and no limbic inhalation is needed, and basically, I truly believe that this offers option for EVAR day surgery and ruptured aneurysms. Of course, first results are very encouraging.
We need more data. Thank you very much.
- So this talk is similar to Professor Vermossin in that we're trying to establish again the idea that EVAR is really the choice of treatment here, especially for patients who can't undergo an Open Repair. I have no disclosures. So why does this even come up? Well, as we know the DREAM trial very nicely elegantly
show that early on there was a mortality benefit of EVAR over Open Repair, but out to two years that mortality benefit was lost and the curves began to meet and equilibrate. And when you look at the EVAR 1 study, when you get out to eight years,
those curves actually invert and the all cause mortality for Open Repair was actually beneficial as compared to EVAR. And so it becomes a question, based on somebody's RCT or whether or not Open Repair is really the better way to go. But at least for this discussion we're talking about
a select group of patients. Those patients who are unfit for Open Repair. Multiple comorbidities, high frailty index. Totally different population than the overall cohort. And so when you go back to EVAR 1 and you look at it, these patients, these frail patients,
lot of comorbidities. They're the ones who would exactly benefit from that early aneurysm or early all cause mortality benefit from EVAR, 'cause these are the patients that may not life to meet that eight year crossover point.
In addition, there's been a lot of temporal changes in terms of EVAR. There's evolving technology and there's evolving techniques. The devices are lower profile. They have better durability.
It's easier and more precise in terms of delivery and implantation for these devices as well now. Moreover the techniques have evolved significantly. We're doing almost all these percutaneously. There's very rarely a situation where you need to cut down. The procedures are done very quickly now.
A lot of them are done in less than an hour. And there's avoidance at least of major pitfalls, I mean, the last time I've heard about an iliac artery disruption was probably five or six years ago. This type of large complication rarely occurs anymore. And this study from the Mayo Clinic corroborates this.
When they look at their series of patients who had Open Repair and EVAR, the top graph is basically those patients who were treated from 2006 or earlier. The bottom graph is the patients treated from 2005 or later. And you can see the mortality benefit from Open Repair basically disappears in the lower graph
and that cohort that's treated later. Again, kind of corroborating that techniques and devices have changed, improving EVAR's survivability. And this paper looks at the NSQIP database and says basically the same thing. That contemporary 30 day mortality after EVAR
in high risk patients is substantially lower than that reported in EVAR 2 trial. So gain, demonstrating and showing a picture of EVAR with better survivability and the data that's come out from these earlier trials in terms of EVAR mortality is not necessarily translatable to current day.
So, what we are expecting for EVAR? Well, I think really, two things. You want prevention of death from the aneurism and you want a quality of life. I mean, quality of life is important. These patients come in and expect to be able
to be back on their feet shortly after the procedure. And when you look at the EVAR 2 long term survival, aneurism related mortality is improved over Open Repair out to 12 years. And then when you look at the improved data, the quality of life was significantly better
for EVAR versus that of Open Repair. But I wanted to just kind of get you to shift and look at it from a different perspective and not just see it from what EVAR is in terms of beneficial, how it's changed and how the survivability is improved.
But really what are the expectations in terms if Open Repair? What is the patient tolerance? What are the training and what are the volume paradigms in today's day and age? Well clearly, when you look at these two things
percutaneous, especially the access to the groin, is going to be infinitely better tolerated than an open incision, whether it be transperitoneal or retroperitoneal. So clearly there's a benefit of EVAR in terms of that. But more importantly, we know that the,
historically we've shown that high volume centers and high volume surgeons have better results for Open Repair. And without question, the more you do, the better you're going to get at it. And so, when you look at that in conjunction
with these types of data where clearly the numbers of Open Repair through the country are reducing dramatically and continue to decline. We looked at this and this was a slide of EVAR, which was the positive slope, and Open Repair, which is a negative slope,
in terms of trainees graduating. And that ended in 2010. That slope continued to be negative. When you put those two together, you realize that people are coming out with less and less Open training.
Their experience with Open Repair is only declining and when you contrast that with EVAR, which is improving technology and techniques, it becomes obvious that in certain circumstances I think the randomized control data can no longer be looked at and you have really just think about
EVAR as the best treatment for these patients. Thank you.
- Speaking about F/EVAR and Ch/EVAR, and try to prove that the evidence of Ch/EVAR is solid, especially in some circumstances also better than the evidence about F/EVAR. Well, let's try to define this title. Durability of Ch/EVAR is solid if the procedure is done right.
And I think this is very, very crucial. We heard and we know the PERICLES Registry tried to evaluate this technique, collecting the worldwide experience from 13 US and European university centers, and published in annals of surgery.
And also, the PROTAGORAS study focused exactly on the performance of the Endurant device in order to avoid this heterogeneity which we had in the study (mumbling) published literature up to now. Focusing exactly on the Endurant device
in combination with balloon expandable covered stent. And based on these two registries and studies, we identified four key points, four key factors, which we'd like to give you as take home message in context to have the Ch/EVAR technique as solid procedure. So, we learned that the technique performs very well
if we use the technique for single or maximum double chimney grafts. We highlighted how important it is for this technique to use suitable combinations between aortic stent-graft and chimney devices. And we learned also, how important is the oversizing.
We have to have enough fabric material to wrap up the chimney grafts of 30% of the aortic stent-grafts. And in this context, we highlighted also the importance of creating a new sealing zone of 20 millimeter in order to have durable results.
Which is also very important is to know when we should probably avoid to perform the technique, and I would like also to highlight these points. So, we learned in case of excessive thrombus formation in the thoracic, especially also LSA, we have to be very, very careful with this technique,
because of course, we have the risk of cerebral vascular events. We learned also that performance of this technique in a neck diameter of more than 30 millimeter is associated with high risk of Type 1A endoleaks, which will be persistent, and which probably
lead to failure of the treatment. Which also learned is to evaluate very carefully the morphology of the renal arteries, especially focus of the calcification of the stenosis, and also of the diameter. And last but not least, it's very important to
have access to the suitable materials for renal cannulations, and also experience. So, if we consider these key points of doing and not doing chimneys, I think we have a very good base to have durable and good results over the time. And we have seen that.
You saw it very nicely (mumbling) the changes of the diameter pre and postoperative, but you forgotten to highlight that there was highly significant in the PERICLES and in the PROTAGORAS Registry. Also, what we have seen is that
more than 90% of the patients had stable or shrinkage of the sac after a CT follow up of two years. And here's a very nice overview of the Kaplan-Meier curves, highlighting that the technique performs very well in this specific combination of the Endurant devices,
abdominal device, and abdominal chimney grafts like the Advanta. Having a very nice chimney graft patency of almost 96%, and a freedom from chimney graft later interventions of 93%. Very important is also if we create these very good sealing zone of two centimeters.
We have a very, very low incidence of new Type 1A endoleaks needed reintervention. And here is an example of a case which had a very short sealing after the previous treatment with chimney for the left renal artery, and over the time was necessary to extend the sealing zone,
creating these durable solution and transformating from single to triple chimney, as we can see here. So, this is very important to know and to highlight. In context of the better or not better for F/EVAR, we can see now the results, and we've compared with meta analysis of F/EVAR.
We see that the results are similar. Keeping in mind also that in F/EVAR, we involve the SMA either as scallop or as bridging device, and we don't have evidence about the SMA outcomes and the SMA patency because most of the patient probably who will die, and will not perform autopsy
for each patient if it has an SMA occlusion or not, so I believe it is underestimated the really incidence of survival after F/EVAR. And also, regarding the patency, we have also in this context, similar results after chimney compared to the patency of the bridging device after F/EVAR.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we've considered these key points. We can achieve very good results performing Ch/EVAR, having as a solid and valuable procedure for our patients. Thank you very much.
- I want to talk on managing branch complications. This is my disclosure. We overlook in the Berlin-Brandenburg Helios Vascular Center about 466 patients treated with branched, TVAR and fenestrated EVAR devices. All patients received Zenith stent-grafts, custom made devices, T-Branch, or standard fenestrations
in all cases. The target arteries that we are talking about were renal, SMA, celiac access and internal iliac arteries. We used exclusively bridging stent-grafts that were balloon expandable stent-grafts. This is the differentiation of the patients
so we had EVAR fenestrated grafts in 190, branched TVAR in 138 patients, 93 of them were off the shelf devices and T-branch. EVAR with iliac side branches in 138 patients and all together we treated target arteries of 1270. You see the hospital mortality of these procedures
you can see a clear difference between the EVAR fenestrated graft and the branched T version are much more complex procedure and although overall mortality was 4.9% over these 13 years. What happened in these patients we experienced
in 44 patients, 44 complications in the target arteries so unfortunately one target artery problem per patient in these complicated cases. This means rate of 3.5% problems in the target arteries overall. Involved were renal arteries in 32 cases,
SMA in 10 cases and the celiac artery in two cases. What did we do in these cases? Managed the complications once thrombolysis was different devices for example were Rotorex stenting of the dissected vessels, coiling if unavoidable or occlusion of the side branch if no access was possible.
Show you some examples. This is a very serious complication where we were unable to enter the SMA resulting in occlusion of you see on the right slide that this was solved by laparotomy and retrograde access to the SMA.
This is a stenting of a dissected renal artery which could be managed quite nicely with an extension of the stent. Here we have again a prolonged intraprocedural SMA occlusion. We finally managed to enter the vessel
but it was very, very long and prolonged time. This is an inaccessible celiac artery where we have finally had to skip, not iliac sorry, celiac artery where we had to skip the implantation finally and occlude the branch with Amplatzer plug.
All together if you look at these complications in 34 cases we were successful in clinical point of view. In 9 patients complication was little and majority of these were complications involving the SMA. Eight of nine patients had with severe complication in the SMA and died
and so the SMA complications contribute, compared to the mortality, 40% to the procedural mortality in these branched cases. So in conclusion, injury to target artery in endovascular repair with branched and fenestrated stent-grafts are rare
but may be a serious complication especially damage to the SMA has a high mortality and thus further improvement of endovascular skills, instruments for example moveable sheaths which we had not available in the beginning and troubleshooting devices are mandatory
to avoid these complications. Thank you very much for your attention.
- Good morning, I want to thank Professor Vitta for the privilege of presenting on behalf of my chief, Professor Francesco Speziale, the result from the EXTREME Trial on the use of the Ovation stent graft. We know that available guidelines recommend to perform EVAR in patient presenting at least a suitable
aortic neck length of >10mm, but in our experience death can be a debatable indication because it may be too restrictive, because we believe that some challenging necks could be effectively managed by EVAR. This is why when we published our experience 2014,
on the use of, on EVAR, on the use of different commercially available device on-label and off-label indication, we found no significant difference in immediate results between patient treated in and out IFU, and those satisfactory outcomes were maintained
during two years of follow-up. So, we pose ourself this question, if conventional endografts guarantee satisfactory results, could new devices further expand EVAR indication? And we reported our experience, single-center experience, that suggests that EVAR by Ovation stent-graph can be
performed with satisfactory immediate and mid-term outcomes in patient presenting severe challenging anatomies. So, moving from those promising experiences, we started a new multi-center registry, aiming to demonstrate the feasibility of EVAR by Ovation implantation in challenging anatomies.
So, the EXTREME trial was born, the expanding indication for treatment with standard EVAR in patient with challenging anatomies. And this is, as I said, a multi-center prospective evaluation experience. The objective of the registry was to report the 30-day and
12 month technical and clinical success with EVAR, using the Ovation Stend-Graft in patient out of IFU for treatment by common endograft. This is a prospective, consecutively-enrolling, non-randomized, multi-center post market registry, and we plan to enroll at least 60 patients.
We evaluated as clinical endpoints, the freedom from aneurysm-related mortality, aneurysm enlargement and aneurysm rupture. And the technical endpoint evaluate were the access-related vascular complications, technical success, and freedom from Type I and III endoleaks, migration,
conversion to open repair, and re-interventions. Between March 17 and March 18, better than expected, we enrolled 122 patients across 16 center in Italy and Spain. Demographics of our patient were the common demographic for aneurysm patients.
And I want to report some anatomical features in this group. Please note, the infrarenal diameter mean was 21, and the mean diameter at 13mm was 24, with a mean aortic neck length of 7.75mm. And all grafts were released accorded to Ovation IFU. 74 patients out of 122
presented an iliac access vessel of <7mm in diameter. The technical success reported was 98% with two type I endoleak at the end of the procedure, and 15 Type II endoleaks. The Type I endoleak were treated in the same procedure
by colis embolization, successfully, and at one month, we are no new Type Ia endoleaks, nine persistent Type II endoleaks, and two limb occlusion, requiring no correction. I want to thank my chief for the opportunity of presenting and, of course, all collaborators of this registry,
and I want to thank you for your attention, and invite you, on behalf of my chief, to join us in Rome next May. Thank you.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Veith for you kind invitation. Okay, there we go. Excuse me. DEVASS stands for Dutch EVAS study Group. We all know that women have a twofold, increased risk frequency of rupture.
The average aortic size at rupture is five millimeters smaller. They have a higher rate of undiagnosed cardiovascular diseases. They have smaller ileofemo
more concomitant iliac aneurysms They have a more challenging aortic neck. Smaller proportion is eligible for EVAR and, therefore less likely to meet EVAR IFU. They have a longer length of hospital stay after EVAR, a higher re-admission rate, more major complications,
a higher mortality rate. So, women and AAA is a challenging combination. The rationale behind EVAS is known to you all, I think. The DEVASS cohort is from three high volume centers in The Netherlands. It's a retrospective cohort of 355 patients,
included from April, 2013 to December 2015. So I have two years of result data. If you look at the baseline characteristics, 45 females were in this cohort, with the age of 76 and with some known comorbidities. They were within the instructions for use of 2013, at 28.9%
and even less in the IFU of 2016. These are some more anatomical characteristics with the AAA outer diameter 5.6 centimeters. This is the procedure, most of the patients were under general anesthesia, with the cutdown and the procedure time
was about 100 minute. Straight forward procedure 33 cases out of these 45. Let's have a quick look at the clinical outcomes. The re-intervention's done in the first 12 month. One patient had to conversion to open repair at month 11 due to type 1A Endoleak, and the others were not directly
related to the procedure itself. Although, there was thrombus in approximate stand. In the second month we saw, in the second year we saw some more type 1A migrations and a Stenosis that needed relining, and two out of these patients were within IFU.
If you look at the total cohort of type 1A Endoleak, one patient was not operated on and the other were, either open conversion or relining, and one patient was within IFU. A quick look at the death characteristics. Only one patient was within IFU,
and died after open procedure. So the re-interventions, once again, the first year four patients, in the second year five patients. Conversion to open repair, in total three patients. Endovascular re-intervention was performed
in the first year in two patients and in the second year there were three relinings performed. Endoleak 1A, in total six as stated before. No type two Endoleak reported, and in the first year five patients died, which one was aneurisym related, as in the second year, two patients died,
which one was aneurysm related. If we compare this data with the EVAS Global data, of two years not the three year data, this is the freedom from all persistent Endoleak, close to 98% which is good. Freedom from type 1A Endoleak is within IFU, 97% in the global and outside IFU 85%,
and remind these patients 71% were outside IFU. Freedom from secondary interventions, we had to re-intervene in nine patients and its comparable with outside IFU. Freedom from mortality at two years, a bit higher, aneurism related mortality is 95% which is higher, and also the all cost mortality is higher in women.
So to conclude, this is the first cohort that focuses on women after EVAS. The majority of the patients was outside IFU, and as in EVAR women do not that very good in result, appear to be very much like an EVAR. Thank you.
- Well, if fenestrated EVAR is so great, why isn't everyone doing it? And I would submit it has to do with the planning. If you have a perfectly planned procedure, the procedure will go perfectly. These are my disclosures, which are directly related to this presentation.
This is a case that was planned using AortaFit software and it was a case that we identified as being a perfect plan. We went back and looked at our fellow and resident in our training program who we trained to plan these procedures and asked them to plan this case.
Our first trainee submitted the following plan. And when we line up the SMA, we lose the left renal on this plan. We then asked our fellow to plan the case and she provided this plan.
When we line up the SMA on this case we lose the right renal. So, it tells us that there is tremendous variability in human planning. We participate in the VQI in the Pacific Northwest Regional group,
and we perform 88% of the complex EVAR in our region. And we have the lowest procedure times, the lowest estimated blood loss compared to the rest of the nation, the lowest in post-operative complications, excluding death, and the lowest in composite outcomes to include major cardiac events.
We also have the highest rate of return of our patients to a pre-surgical care setting. So how have we achieved this? Using AortaFit software, we are able to take a standard DICOM data set of a juxtarenal aneurysm patient and create a volume rendering.
We can then display the images in an axial, sagittal, and coronal view for the user. All that the user needs to do is to identify the target vessels and to plant seed points into those target vessels, the target vessels that are selected to be preserved.
What is then output from the software is a segmentation. And you see the segmented image here, but the magic of the software is that it does the automatic adjustment of the centerline using polynomial equations and goodness of fit. We can superimpose 2D slices over this to check
our orientation of the fenestrations and look at the plugs. And what's output is a graft plan that can either be given to the physician in the form of a 3D printed template or placed on the back of a manufacturing line. Sorry. So, for the physician, an STL file can be produced
to create a 3D printed template to create a physician-modified endograft, but what we really want is to be able to provide the manufacturer with a detailed plan using this software. This is an example of a Terumo Aortic TREO device. We've now done 37 of these cases.
This is a graft that has wide amplitude stents and a large amount of real estate for fenestration. So you can see inserting this 3D printed template that was created using AortaFit software. We can rotate this graft, move it in and out to find the sweet spot
for those fenestrations, and to create a truly customized device for the patient. We then, all that we have to do at that point is to line up the SMA. So you can see, on the panel on the left, we do our first aortogram
prior to deploying the stent graft. We deploy that SMA fenestration, the renals automatically align. We then select our renal arteries and then our fellows know that it's time to call for the next patient because the procedure is essentially done at that point.
This is a cone beam CT of that very first patient that I showed you, showing perfect alignment of all of the fenestrations and target vessels. And here's a 30-day follow-up CT scan, that if you pay attention and look carefully, you can see that all of the fenestrations
are perfectly aligned. There's about four centimeters of seals on length, and lack of endoleak and a successful result in this patient. This, fortunately, is published in this month's Journal of Vascular Surgery as an editor's choice.
And in summary, the long-term durability of fenestrated EVAR has been established, but planning and procedural complexity limits widespread adoption. Automated planning software, we believe, provides efficient and accurate graft plans for the physician
or endograft manufacturer. Well-planned grafts simplify branch access and the procedure and I think will increase fenestrated EVAR utilization. And simplified FEVAR may benefit the majority of patients harboring juxtarenal aneurysms and even standard infrarenal aneurysms and may be the best therapeutic option.
- Okay, thank you. We know that inflammatory AAA have quite low incidence. The main problem is related to the thickness of the aortic wall and to the retroperitoneal fibrosis that involves the organs that are close to the aorta. Open surgery is quite difficult for these reasons. And these imply a higher mortality rate
that is threefold the one for standard AAA. And the higher morbidity related to the surgical dissection in fibrosis with risk of iatrogenic injury of the involved organs. So that some authors suggest the supraceliac clamping. That of course have some other issues.
A recent paper suggests that a pre-op treatment with a cortical steroid therapy can be useful to reduce inflammatory signs and so minimize the operative risk for these patients. On the other hand, endovascular treatment has been proposed since 1997 with different outcomes.
Certainly mortality rate is lower when compared to open surgery, and even the one year mortality is lower. But we have a problem with periaortic fibrosis that does not decrease as well as with open surgery. And there is some progression, in some cases, with higher nephrosis that leads
to other types of complication. This is not a standard. You see in this paper that there is no problem with periaortic fibrosis after endovascular treatment. But in other papers, the situation is different. There is a worsening fibrosis and even the development
of fibrosis after standard EVAR in patients with no history of inflammatory AAA. And certainly the phenotype eg4 seems to be related to a worse outcome after EVAR. So, based on this situation, what we have done in the last year is to use a systemic steroid protocol
for our patients with inflammatory AAA that is the same that is used for arteritis and retroperitoneal fibrosis. And you see how impressive is the situation in this case. We had only four days of therapy, and we have a decrease in periaortic fibrosis of 28%.
We studied all our patients with PET/CT. We made a comparison with the patient with standard AAA, and we observed an increased level of captation that was really significant. This is our population. All of the patients had immunological screening,
and the evaluation of the inflammatory level. This is the operative situation. All the patients had a good result with no mortality at 30 days. Only one patient died three months later for other reasons. And what we observed is that in almost all cases,
the periaortic fibrosis reduced significantly with the, even with PET/CT. All the patients were asymptomatic. And all the patients with hydronephrosis have a release of the situation. You see that the diameter of the aorta decreased
of 9.76 millimeters, and there was a decrease in periaortic fibrosis of more or less one centimeters. So this is really significant, as you can see. And there was a reduce in the uptake for all the patients but one. We don't know exactly, he had a type two endoleak.
Don't know if this can be a correlation because it's a single patient. And another patient stopped corticosteroid therapy, and so there was a recurrence of this problem. The CRP reduced globally, but of course, it's not specific. So in some patients we had an increase for other reasons.
But our policy now is that we do EVAR, when feasible, associated to steroid therapy. That, in our practice, is effective. We use open surgery in patients unfit for standard EVAR, and probably, even for these patients, steroid therapy can be a choice.
- Thank you very much, Frank, for the opportunity to be part of this fantastic panel. So, I'm no more a part of the debate, and I will not show the differences, but if we look on the arch, on the literature addressing the different types of repair, we can see that the result are in the same range, approximately.
And despite the fact that we didn't spoke about this, probably, there is a bias of selection where else the best patient will be addressed by open surgery, patient that fits for branched and FEVAR will be treated by those technology, and the remaining of the patient
is addressed by parallel grafts. There is a second point I would like to address and this is one part of my talk, is that the results for the endovascular options are not good, are not so long described in the literature. There are some papers with longer follow-up,
but in the mean, the follow-ups are rather short. So, let's go to our expanse that is a little bit longer. In the arch, we treated 94 patients. We had a mortality of 14% stroke, or neurological complication 8%, endoleak, primary, 18%, but we addressed 40% of acute patients,
and 50 patient with redo thoracic surgery. So, an example: 75 years old patient, he had complicated type B dissection with malperfusion, did get the TEVAR with a sandwich for the LSA. In the follow-up, he showed an aortic enlargement with the dissection extending proximal to the LSA,
and he had, again, and antegrade perfusion of the sur-lumen. He refused general anesthesia because he had severe delire when he was treated first. So we address this with periaortic grafts. We put one chimney for the brachiocephalic trunk in the aorta, one chimney for
the left carotid artery in the ascending aorta, then we deployed a TAG in the aorta then, to match the diameter of the BCT we extended the first viable, which is 13 mm, and you can see here, the six month follow-up with a nice result. So, if we want to go to long-term results,
we freezed a cohort of patient we treated 2009 to 2014. These are 41 patients with an Euroscore II of 28%, 68 years the mean age, 30 day mortality was 12%, so half of the predicted. You see here 42 months follow-up of this cohort. There is this typical mortality of 10% a year
following the procedure, due to the comorbidity cardiac pulmonary renal functions, freedom of branch occlusion is nice and the branch behaved stable. There have been reintervention during the follow-up, mainly to treat endoleaks, branch issues,
or other problems on this patient, but you see there is a three and a half year follow-up and the rate of reintervention is the same than for other endovascular options. Looking now at the more complex patients, the free vessel in the arch, you see
that the results here are good too, for the parallel grafts. Here down, we see one patient dying, no stroke, no endoleak. If we go to the visceral patient, here the literature review shows a mortality of 4.7%, with an endoleak type 1A of 7% for the parallel grafts. If we do compare now CHIMPS with FEVAR and open repair,
you can see that maybe the difference is more redo, but it's not really much more than for the FEVAR/BEVAR, and here is particularly due to the gutters. We treated here also for the long-term follow-up, we freezed a cohort of patient, 127 patient, 40% symptomatic, 11% ruptured patient.
Hostile chest, 37%, hostile abdomen, 26%. Most of the proximal landing was above the renal artery, mostly chimneys, but also reversed grafts and sandwich. Here a case, patient that was rejected after rupture from two centers to one because he was unfit for surgery, the other because he qualified not for FEVAR/BEVAR.
He had a challenging anatomy with an occluded left renal artery and celiac trunk, a shaggy arch and LSA, so we treated him transfemorally with two parallel grafts and you see the outcome of this patient. So, there are reinterventions. The mortality in this cohort is 2.4%, endoleak is 7%.
Reintervention, chimney-related, mainly gutter endoleaks. These are the curves in the follow-up, and you see that the results are similar than the patient in the arch with a need for reintervention, but that's the same for any kind of endovascular procedure in the arch.
18% at three years of reintervention. This has been for branch thrombosis or endoleak cages. So, in conclusion, the results are good for parallel grafts in the arch and in the visceral types, and selected patient, they need an appropriate anatomy, a life expectancy of two years.
They behave durable up to more than three years mean follow-up, taking into account the number of reintervention. The unsolved issue with the parallel graft is the gutter, so this technique can improve, and you can see here that they may be solution for the future.
This is an anti-gutter design from Endospan that really eliminates any kind of gutter endoleak and wandering, and this will be the patient cohort that we will compare with other repair technique in the future. Thank you 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.