- Good afternoon, Dr. Veith, organizer. Thank you very much for the kind invitation. I have nothing to disclose. In the United States, the most common cause of mortality after one year of age is trauma. So, thankfully the pediatric vascular trauma
is only a very small minority, and it happens in less that 1% of all the pediatric traumas. But, when it happens it contributes significantly to the mortality. In most developed countries, the iatrogenic
arterial injuries are the most common type of vascular injuries that you have in non-iatrogenic arterial injuries, however are more common in war zone area. And it's very complex injuries that these children suffer from.
In a recent study that we published using the national trauma data bank, the mortality rate was about 7.9% of the children who suffer from vascular injuries. And the most common mechanism of injury were firearm and motor vehicle accidents. In the US, the most common type of injury is the blunt type
of injury. As far as the risk factors for mortality, you can see some of them that are significantly affecting mortality, but one of them is the mechanism of injury, blunt versus penetrating and the penetrating is the risk factor for
mortality. As far as the anatomical and physiological consideration for treatment, they are very similar to adults. Their injury can cause disruption all the way to a spasm, or obstruction of the vessel and for vasiospasm and minimal disruption, conservative therapy is usually adequate.
Sometimes you can use papevrin or nitroglycerin. Of significant concern in children is traumatic AV fissure that needs to be repaired as soon as possible. For hard signs, when you diagnose these things, of course when there is a bleeding, there is no question that you need to go repair.
When there are no hard signs, especially in the blunt type of injuries, we depend both on physical exams and diagnostic tools. AVI in children is actually not very useful, so instead of that investigators are just using what is called an Injured Extremity Index, which you measure one leg
versus the other, and if there is also less than 0.88 or less than 0.90, depending on the age of the children, is considered abnormal. Pulse Oximetry, the Duplex Ultrasound, CTA are all very helpful. Angiography is actually quite risky in these children,
and should be avoided. Surgical exploration, of course, when it's needed can give very good results. As far as the management, well they are very similar to adults, in the sense that you need to expose the artery, control the bleeding, an then restore circulation to the
end organ. And some of the adjuncts that are using in adult trauma can be useful, such as use of temporary shunts, that you can use a pediatric feeding tube, heparin, if there are no contraindications, liberal use of fasciotomy and in the vascular technique that my partner, Dr. Singh will be
talking about. Perhaps the most common cause of PVI in young children in developed countries are iatrogenic injuries and most of the time they are minimal injuries. But in ECMO cannulation, 20-50% are injuries due to
ECMO have been reported in both femoral or carotid injuries. So, in the centers are they are doing it because of the concern about limb ischemia, as well as cognitive issues. They routinely repair the ECMO cannulation site.
For non-iatrogenic types, if is very common in the children that are above six years of age. Again, you follow the same principal as adult, except that these arteries are severely spastic and interposition graft must accommodate both axial and radial growths of these arteries, as well as the limb that it's been
repaired in. Primary repair sometimes requires interrupted sutures and Dr. Bismuth is going to be talking about some of that. Contralateral greater saphenous vein is a reasonable option, but this patient needs to be followed very, very closely.
The most common type of injury is upper extremity and Dr. McCurdy is going to be talking about this. Blunt arterial injury to the brachial artery is very common. It can cause ischemic contracture and sometimes amputation.
In the children that they have no pulse, is if there are signs of neurosensory deficit and extremity is cold, exploration is indicated, but if the extremity is pulseless, pink hand expectant treatment is reasonable. As far as the injuries, the most common, the deadliest injuries are related to the truncal injuries and the
mechanism severity of this injury dictates the treatment. Blunt aortic injuries are actually quite uncommon and endovascular options are limited. This is an example of one that was done by Dr Veith and you can see the arrow when the stent was placed and then moved.
So these children, the long-term results of endovascular option is unknown. So in summary, you basically follow many tenets of adult vascular trauma. Special consideration for repair has to do with the fact that you need to accommodate longitudinal
and radial growth and also endovascular options are limited. Ultimately, you need a collaborative effort of many specialists in taking care of these children. Thank you.
- Thank you very much for inviting me here again and I'll be talking about thermal ablation RCTs. My coauthor, Michel Perrin from Lyon, in France, the gourmet capital in the world has collected RCTs on operative treatment of CVD since 1990. Today he has 186 collected RCTs
of the which 84 involve thermal ablation. You can find all this data for free in Phlebolymphology.org. Do we need further RCTs? Well systematic reviews and meta-analyses increasingly important in evidence-based medicine. And this development is well-described
by Gurevitch in Nature this year and criticized by Ioannidis two years earlier. Common sense is a good principle when you try to understand meta-analyses. Do most studies point in the same direction?
Is the effect significant? Are the patient-related outcome measures relevant and what happens if you exclude one study? Since 2008, 10 years back, these are the available meta-analyses and the last came from Ireland earlier this year.
It was published in the JVS, endovenous and in fact this is in March. And they found nine RCTs comparing conventional surgery and endovenous therapy with five years or more follow-up that were selected. Primary outcome was recurrence rate.
There is some sole recurrence rate was that there is no significant difference in laser versus surgery, same for radioactive frequency versus surgery and radioactive frequency versus laser. They found an inferiority
of ultrasound guided foam sclerotherapy versus laser and surgery. Their conclusions were that the quality of evidence is poor therefore more trials that are well-powered to examine long-term outcomes are warranted. The new kids on the block,
steam, MOCA, and Venaseal, are not included in the meta-analyses due to lack of more than five years follow-up in their paper. Obsolete RCTs. Endovenous laser in the presented long-term RCTs
were performed by 810-980 nanometer wavelength using a bare fiber. There is a paucity of RCTs comparing open surgery with novel endovenous laser and new RF techniques. Recent criticism against endovenous ablation, is the pendulum swinging towards high ligation
and stripping again? Olle Nelzen from Sweden in an editorial in British Journal of Surgery reconsidering the endovenous revolution, wrote that neovascularization is a dominant finding following high ligation and stripping
but proximal venous stumps and incompetent anterior accessory saphenous veins are the main factor after endovenous ablation. So long-term follow-up suggests that the recurrence rate after endovenous ablation seem to increase over time. A substantial number of patients who have undergone
endovenous ablation will eventually develop symptomatic recurrence requiring repeat therapy. And such scenario would change the equation regarding patient benefit and costs making endovenous ablation less competitive and challenging current guidelines.
So summary of needs for further RCTs. Quality of present RCTs poor in several meta-analyses, no thermal endovenous technique is superior to open surgery, RCTs rapidly obsolete due to change in technology, and more trials that are well-powered to examine long-term outcomes are warranted.
So final point, apparently we need more RCTs to satisfy the quality requirements for clinically important systematic reviews and meta-analyses. And what about the clinical guidelines? Thank you very much.
- Thank you. Here are my disclosures. Our preferred method for zone one TAVR has evolved to a carotid/carotid transposition and left subclavian retro-sandwich. The technique begins with a low transverse collar incision. The incision is deepened through the platysma
and subplatysmal flaps are then elevated. The dissection is continued along the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid entering the carotid sheath anteromedial to the jugular vein. The common carotid artery is exposed
and controlled with a vessel loop. (mumbling) The exposure's repeated for the left common carotid artery and extended as far proximal to the omohyoid muscle as possible. A retropharyngeal plane is created using blunt dissection
along the anterior border of the cervical vertebra. A tunneling clamp is then utilized to preserve the plane with umbilical tape. Additional vessel loops are placed in the distal and mid right common carotid artery and the patient is systemically anticoagulated.
The proximal and distal vessel loops are tightened and a transverse arteriotomy is created between the middle and distal vessel loops. A flexible shunt is inserted and initially secured with the proximal and middle vessel loops. (whistling)
It is then advanced beyond the proximal vessel loop and secured into that position. The left common carotid artery is then clamped proximally and distally, suture ligated, clipped and then transected. (mumbling)
The proximal end is then brought through the retropharyngeal tunnel. - [Surgeon] It's found to have (mumbles). - An end-to-side carotid anastomosis is then created between the proximal and middle vessel loops. If preferred the right carotid arteriotomy
can be made ovoid with scissors or a punch to provide a better shape match with the recipient vessel. The complete anastomosis is back-bled and carefully flushed out the distal right carotid arteriotomy.
Flow is then restored to the left carotid artery, I mean to the right carotid artery or to the left carotid artery by tightening the middle vessel loop and loosening the proximal vessel loop. The shunt can then be removed
and the right common carotid artery safely clamped distal to the transposition. The distal arteriotomy is then closed in standard fashion and flow is restored to the right common carotid artery. This technique avoids a prosthetic graft
and the retropharyngeal space while maintaining flow in at least one carotid system at all times. Once, and here's a view of the vessels, once hemostasis is assured the platysma is reapproximated with a running suture followed by a subcuticular stitch
for an excellent cosmetic result. Our preferred method for left subclavian preservation is the retro-sandwich technique which involves deploying an initial endograft just distal to the left subclavian followed by both proximal aortic extension
and a left subclavian covered stent in parallel fashion. We prefer this configuration because it provides a second source of cerebral blood flow independent of the innominate artery
and maintains ready access to the renovisceral vessels if further aortic intervention is required in the future. Thank you.
- [Narrator] So my assignment is, CMS policy update on non-thermal ablation techniques, and as most of you know, there is not one National CMS policy, so there are a variety of local cover determinations or policies that we're going to look at. I may bore you for a couple minutes
but I found a surprise at the end. So I went to the website, CMS website, and looked up varicose vein LCDs and these seven came up, interestingly Novitas, everybody's favorite, didn't come. So I looked at separately, we're going to look at all these as well.
And here is Novitas, Novitas and their previous LCD had no mention of non-thermal techniques, but in this proposed LCD, which has a lot of people up in arms, they say that the non-thermal techniques are experimental, investigational, and unproven,
and therefore will not be covered. This is next LCDs, this is two from Medicare contractor Noridian, they go on to talk about sclerotherapy and foam sclerotherapy, but they are not going to cover it. And somewhat bizarrely these codes in red here,
which are for Venaseal and Verithena, are listed as indications for RF or laser ablation, which kind of shows you they don't know what they're talking about. And there is no mention of MOCA or Claravein. Wisconsin Physicians Services and other MAC contractor,
and I looked at their LCD, there is no mention of non-thermal techniques. Next up is First Coast Service Options, with these jurisdictions over here on the right. And they get down to the C-classification, VCSS score, and talk about compressive therapy and conservative therapy.
They do mention Clarivein or MOCA. However, they state that it does not meet the Medicare necessity for coverage, and so they won't. And there's absolutely no mention of Verithena or Venaseal in their LCD. Palmetto GBA is another contractor,
with these jurisdictions on the right, and they actually discuss and approve Varithena, microfoam sclerotherapy. They discuss it here in their LCD, they have some restrictions that the physician needs to be competent and experienced with Varithena,
and ultrasound, there is no mention of Clarivein or Venaseal in their LCD. And these are also the folks that tell us how to do stab phlebectomy with 2 mm incisions and a crochet hook. So don't use a 3 mm incision and a hemostat,
it'd probably get denied. Next is CGS Administrators, and this busy slide, they go on to talk about sclerotherapy quite a bit, and all these in the main body, what they are not going to cover for sclerotherapy. They mention that foam sclerotherapy
is basically the same as liquid sclerotherapy, and therefore will not cover it, and again no mention of other treatments of non-thermal techniques. Which brings us to the last LCD, which is National Government Services,
and amazingly they state that the accepted treatments for eliminating reflux and the great saphenous anterior accessory, and small saphenous vein, include RFA, laser, polidocanol, Venaseal, and Verithena. And even more interestingly, they use their Rationale for Determination for MOCA.
The amount and consistency of the data, in addition to the two recent systematic reviews and the strong recommendation of the American Venous Forum, have convinced NGS that Medicare coverage is met. And for PEM, Varithena, the combination of RCTs, meta-analyses, systematic reviews,
the strong recommendation of the AVF, and endorsements from the SVS, ACP, SCAI, and SIR, have convinced them that coverage is appropriate. And the same for Venaseal, same thing. This is craziness. On one Medicare hand,
you have Novitas saying that, treatment is experimental and unproven, and they won't cover it. And on the other Medicare hand, you have this contractor that says, based on the recommendations of the experts,
that it's appropriate, and will be covered. And this is the reason why we need a National Coverage Determination. So, to find out what your policy is, you have to go to the website, you have to find out who your provider is,
or contractor, and see what the policy cause it differs depending upon where you are. Thank you for your attention.
- Thank you very much. So these are the disclosures. Venous stents obviously. Can we fix that please? That always happens to me. So the application of venous stents, thank you, have increased and there are certain issues with venous stents, or all the stents,
that we need to be cognizant of. Predisposing factors to stent fracture from the arterial site, obviously biomechanical forces. This is well, sort of understood in a study on the arterial site,
bending during activity, axial compression and elongation, elongation during stent deployment, radial compression. Of course, the stent material design has a lot to do with it.
And then the length and degree of overlap on the arterial site and the surface finish. These are all worked out. So to what degree are these applicable to the venous site? So the stress factors, as you can see on the fem-pop segment
versus carotid, renals or brachiocephalic arteries are different on the arterial site. So we expect the same on the venous site. What is common among all of them is repetitive bending and change in axial dimension. So if you look at this patient here,
we have sort of a May-Thurner here, and there's another compression right there. And if you look at the end of, that's the contralateral flow. And if you look at this so the balloon in there, no impression whatsoever on it.
Obviously there's no scar tissue in there. This was stented. And this is post stenting, and you can see that. Now this is interesting, because if you look at the IVUS, this is that May-Thurner higher up,
this is lower down. As you can see there's no synechiae, no scar tissue in there. So this is one of those issues that it has to do with the stent rather than with balloons. If you look at the MRI,
you can see that's the artery, that's the vein, severely compressed. And now look at the post stent IVUS. So, this is the kind of stress that we have to deal with on the venous site in this location, as opposed to the common femoral vein, alright?
So, and let's look what happens in finite element analysis in these situations. So if you look at the acute bends, so these are around the iliacs, I'm sorry, around the common femoral, you can see the sharper the bend is
the harder the stress on the elements, on the material. This is interesting because this is probably somewhat unique to the veins, and that is the cyclic focal compression. So if you have cyclic focal compression, a stent that is more narrow,
same stent, same material, same diameter, this configuration has more stress on it than this. So what's the lesson for us? So the lesson for us is that if you're doing the common femoral and there's a lesion in there, and you put a stent in there,
you can see this stent is fractured, but you can see that there was a residual narrowing in there. If you're going to do these, you want to left no waste behind. As we saw from an engineering analysis, that in this area under the inguinal ligament
and where the compression is and the cyclic bending is, if the stents look straight there's less stress on the material than if there's residual narrowing. We're also studying the gap between the common femoral and the os pubis.
If there's a layer of fat in here that's somewhat protective, therefore less stress. But this is a theoretical element. So what is the acceptable rate of fracture? It really depends on whether the fracture is consequential or not.
If it's not consequential, it really doesn't matter a whole lot. So this will likely depend on the stent platform. And so, what is the likely or acceptable rate of thrombosis? This comes from that meta-analysis that's been published. You know, basically single digit percentage
thrombosis rate is acceptable. In conclusion, obviously we need more data points to confirm the risk factors in a stent fracture in the veins. The finite element analysis shows us and sort of guide us in a certain direction
that the consequences of a fracture need to be better identified in the veins. We really don't know that at this time. Thank you.
- Thank you, chairman. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I've not this conflict of interest on this topic. So, discussion about double-layer stent has been mainly focused about the incidence of new lesions, chemical lesions after the stenting, and because there are still some issue
about the plaque prolapse, this has still has been reduced in a comparison to conventional stent that's still present. We started our study two years ago to evaluate on two different set of population of a patient who underwent stent, stenting,
to see if there is any different between the result of two stents, Cguard from Inspire, and Roadsaver from Terumo in term of ischemic lesion and if there is a relationship between the activity of the plaque evaluated with the MRI
and new ischemic lesion after the procedure. So, the population was aware of similar what we found, and that there's no difference between the two stent we have had, and new ischemic lesions is, there's a 38%, for a total amount of 34 lesions,
and ipsilateral in 82% of cases. The most part of the lesion appeared at the 24 hours, for the 88.2% of cases, while only the 12% of cases, we have a control at our lesion. According to the DWI, we have seen that
the DWI of the plaque is positive, or there is an activity of the plaque. There's a higher risk of embolization with a high likelihood or a risk of 6.25%. But, in the end, what we learned in the beginning, what there have known,
there's no difference in the treatment of the carotid stenosis with this device, and the plaque activity, when positive at the DWI MR, is a predictive for a higher risk of new ischemic lesions at 24 hours. But, what we are still missing in terms of information,
where something about the patency of the stents at mid-term follow-up, and the destiny of external carotid artery at mid-term follow-up. Alright, we have to say we have an occlusion transitory, occlusion of the semi-carotid artery
immediately after the deployment of the Terumo stent. The ECA recovery completely. But in, what we want to check, what could happen, following the patient in the next year. So, we perform a duplicate ultrasound, at six, at 12, and 24 months after the procedure,
in order to re-evaluate the in-stent restenosis and then, if there was a new external carotid artery stenosis or occlusion. We have made this evaluation according to the criteria of grading of carotid in-stent restenosis proposed on Stroke by professors attache group.
And what we found that we are an incidence of in-stent restenosis of 10%, of five on 50 patient, one at six month and four at one year. And we are 4% of external carotid artery new stenosis. All in two patient, only in the Roadsaver group.
We are three in-stent restenosis for Roadsaver, two in-stent restenosis for Cguard, and external new stenosis only in the Roadsaver group. And this is a case of Roadsaver stent in-stent restenosis of 60% at one year. Two year follow-up,
so we compare what's happening for Cguard and Roadsaver. We see that no relation have been found with the plaque activity or the device. If we check our result, even if this is a small series, we both reported in the literature for the conventional stent,
we've seen that in our personal series, with the 10% of in-stent restenosis, that it's consistent with what's reported for conventional CAS. And the same we found when we compared our result with the result reported for CAS with conventional stent.
So in our personal series, we had not external carotid artery occlusion. We have 4% instance, and for stenosis while with conventional CAS, occlusion of external carotid artery appear in 3.8% of cases.
So, what can we add to our experience now in the incidence, if, I'm sorry, if confirmed by larger count of patient and longer study? We can say that the incidence of in-stent restenosis for this new double-layer stent and the stenosis on the external carotid artery,
if not the different for all, with what reported for conventional stent. Thank you.
- So thank you for the kind introduction and thanks for professor Viet for the invitation again this year. So, if we talk about applicability, of course you have to check the eye views from this device and you're limited by few instructions for users. They changed the lengths between the target vessel
and the orifice and the branch, with less than 50 mm , they used to be less than 25 mm. Also keep in mind, that you need to have a distance of more than 67 mm between your renal artery cuff and your iliac bifurcation. The good thing about branch endografts
is that if you have renal artery which comes ... or its orifice at the same level of the SME, you can just advance and put your endorafts a bit more proximally, of course risking more coverage of your aorta and eventually risking high rate
of paraplegia or spinal cord ischemia. Also if your renal artery on one side or if your target vessel is much lower with longer bridging stent grafts which are now available like the VBX: 79 mm or combination of bridging stem grafts, this can be treated as well.
Proximally, we have short extensions like the TBE which only allows 77 or 81 mm. This can also expand its applicability of this device. The suitability has already been proven in.. or assessed by Gaspar and vistas and it came around plus 60%
of all patients with aortic aneurysms. Majority of them are limitations where the previous EVAR or open AAA repair or the narrow diameter reno visceral segment in case of diabetes sections. So, what about the safety of the T-branch device?
We performed an observational study Mister, Hamburg and Milner group and I can present you here the short term results. We looked at 80 patients in prospective or retro prospective manner with the t-branch as instructed for use.
Majority were aneurysms with the type two or type four Crawford tracheal aneurysms, also a few with symptomatic or ruptured cases. Patient characteristics of course, we have the same of the usual high risk cardiovascular profiling,
this group of patients that has been treated. Majority was performed percutaneously in 55%. The procedure time shows us that there is still a learning curve. I think nowadays we can perform this under 200 minutes. What is the outcome?
We have one patient who died post operative day 30, after experiencing multiorgan failure. These are 30 day results. No rupture or conversion to open surgery. We had one patient with cardiac ischemia, seven patients with spinal cord ischemia
and one patient has early branch occlusion. There was both renal arteries were occluded, he had an unknown heparin induced thrombocytopenia and was treated with endovascular thrombectomy and successfully treated as well. Secondary interventions within 30 days were in one patient
stent placement due to an uncovered celiac stent stenosis In one patient there was a proximal type one endoleak with a proximal extension. One patient who had paraplegia or paraparesis, he had a stenosis of his internal iliac artery which stem was stented successfully,
and the paraparesis resolved later on in this patient. And of course the patient I just mentioned before, with his left and right renal artery occlusion. So to conclude, the T-branch has wide applicability as we've seen also before, up to 80% especially with adjuvant procedures.
Longer, more flexible bridging stent grafts will expand the use of this device. Also the TBE proximal extensions allows aortic treatment of diameters for more than 30 mm and I think the limitations are still the diameter at reno visceral segment,
previous EVAR or open AAA repair and having of course multiple visceral arteries. Thank you.
- Thank you and thanks again Frank for the kind invitation to be here another year. So there's several anatomic considerations for complex aortic repair. I wanted to choose between fenestrations or branches,
both with regards to that phenotype and the mating stent and we'll go into those. There are limitations to total endovascular approaches such as visceral anatomy, severe angulations,
and renal issues, as well as shaggy aortas where endo solutions are less favorable. This paper out of the Mayo Clinic showing that about 20% of the cases of thoracodynia aneurysms
non-suitable due to renal issues alone, and if we look at the subset that are then suitable, the anatomy of the renal arteries in this case obviously differs so they might be more or less suitable for branches
versus fenestration and the aneurysm extent proximally impacts that renal angle. So when do we use branches and when do we use fenestrations? Well, overall, it seems to be, to most people,
that branches are easier to use. They're easier to orient. There's more room for error. There's much more branch overlap securing those mating stents. But a branch device does require
more aortic coverage than a fenestrated equivalent. So if we extrapolate that to juxtarenal or pararenal repair a branched device will allow for much more proximal coverage
than in a fenestrated device which has, in this series from Dr. Chuter's group, shows that there is significant incidence of lower extremity weakness if you use an all-branch approach. And this was, of course, not biased
due to Crawford extent because the graft always looks the same. So does a target vessel anatomy and branch phenotype matter in of itself? Well of course, as we've discussed, the different anatomic situations
impact which type of branch or fenestration you use. Again going back to Tim Chuter's paper, and Tim who only used branches for all of the anatomical situations, there was a significant incidence of renal branch occlusion
during follow up in these cases. And this has been reproduced. This is from the Munster group showing that tortuosity is a significant factor, a predictive factor, for renal branch occlusion
after branched endovascular repair, and then repeated from Mario Stella's group showing that upward-facing renal arteries have immediate technical problems when using branches, and if you have the combination of downward and then upward facing
the long term outcome is impaired if you use a branched approach. And we know for the renals that using a fenestrated phenotype seems to improve the outcomes, and this has been shown in multiple trials
where fenestrations for renals do better than branches. So then moving away from the phenotype to the mating stent. Does the type of mating stent matter? In branch repairs we looked at this
from these five major European centers in about 500 patients to see if the type of mating stent used for branch phenotype grafts mattered. It was very difficult to evaluate and you can see in this rather busy graph
that there was a combination used of self-expanding and balloon expandable covered stents in these situations. And in fact almost 2/3 of the patients had combinations in their grafts, so combining balloon expandable covered stents
with self expanding stents, and vice versa, making these analyses very very difficult. But what we could replicate, of course, was the earlier findings that the event rates with using branches for celiac and SMA were very low,
whereas they were significant for left renal arteries and if you saw the last session then in similar situations after open repair, although this includes not only occlusions but re-interventions of course.
And we know when we use fenestrations that where we have wall contact that using covered stents is generally better than using bare stents which we started out with but the type of covered stent
also seems to matter and this might be due to the stiffness of the stent or how far it protrudes into the target vessel. There is a multitude of new bridging stents available for BEVAR and FEVAR: Covera, Viabahn, VBX, and Bentley plus,
and they all seem to have better flexibility, better profile, and better radial force so they're easier to use, but there's no long-term data evaluating these devices. The technical success rate is already quite high for all of these.
So this is a summary. We've talked using branches versus fenestration and often a combination to design the device to the specific patient anatomy is the best. So in summary,
always use covered stents even when you do fenestrated grafts. At present, mix and match seems to be beneficial both with regards to the phenotype and the mating stent. Short term results seem to be good.
Technical results good and reproducible but long term results are lacking and there is very limited comparative data. Thank you. (audience applauding)
- [Speaker] Good morning everybody thanks for attending the session and again thanks for the invitation. These are my disclosures. I will start by illustrating one of the cases where we did not use cone beam CT and evidently there were numerous mistakes on this
from planning to conducting the case. But we didn't notice on the completion of geography in folding of the stent which was very clearly apparent on the first CT scan. Fortunately we were able to revise this and have a good outcome.
That certainly led to unnecessary re intervention. We have looked at over the years our usage of fusion and cone beam and as you can see for fenestrated cases, pretty much this was incorporated routinely in our practice in the later part of the experience.
When we looked at the study of the patients that didn't have the cone beam CT, eight percent had re intervention from a technical problem that was potentially avoidable and on the group that had cone beam CT, eight percent had findings that were immediately revised with no
re interventions that were potentially avoidable. This is the concept of our GE Discovery System with fusion and the ability to do cone beam CT. Our protocol includes two spins. First we do one without contrast to evaluate calcification and other artifacts and also to generate a rotational DSA.
That can be also analyzed on axial coronal with a 3D reconstruction. Which essentially evaluates the segment that was treated, whether it was the arch on the arch branch on a thoracoabdominal or aortoiliac segment.
We have recently conducted a prospective non-randomized study that was presented at the Vascular Annual Meeting by Dr. Tenario. On this study, we looked at findings that were to prompt an immediate re intervention that is either a type one
or a type 3 endoleak or a severe stent compression. This was a prospective study so we could be judged for being over cautious but 25% of the procedures had 52 positive findings. That included most often a stent compression or kink in 17% a type one or three endoleak
in 9% or a minority with dissection and thrombus. Evidently not all this triggered an immediate revision, but 16% we elected to treat because we thought it was potentially going to lead to a bad complication. Here is a case where on the completion selective angiography
of the SMA this apparently looks very good without any lesions. However on the cone beam CT, you can see on the axial view a dissection flap. We immediately re catheterized the SMA. You note here there is abrupt stop of the SMA.
We were unable to catheterize this with a blood wire. That led to a conversion where after proximal control we opened the SMA. There was a dissection flap which was excised using balloon control in the stent as proximal control.
We placed a patch and we got a good result with no complications. But considerably, if this patient was missed in the OR and found hours after the procedure he would have major mesenteric ischemia. On this study, DSA alone would have missed
positive findings in 34 of the 43 procedures, or 79% of the procedures that had positive findings including 21 of the 28 that triggered immediate revision. There were only four procedures. 2% had additional findings on the CT
that were not detectable by either the DSA or cone beam CT. And those were usually in the femoro puncture. For example one of the patients had a femoro puncture occlusion that was noted immediately by the femoro pulse.
The DSA accounts for approximately 20% of our total radiation dose. However, it allows us to eliminate CT post operatively which was done as part of this protocol, and therefore the amount of radiation exposed for the patient
was decreased by 55-65% in addition to the cost containment of avoiding this first CT scan in our prospective protocol. In conclusion cone beam CT has allowed immediate assessment to identify technical problems that are not easily detectable by DSA.
These immediate revisions may avoid unnecessary re interventions. What to do if you don't have it? You have to be aware that this procedure that are complex, they are bound to have some technical mistakes. You have to have incredible attention to detail.
Evidently the procedures can be done, but you would have to have a low threshold to revise. For example a flared stent if the dilator of the relic gleam or the dilator of you bifurcated devise encroach the stent during parts of the procedure. Thank you very much.
- So I'd like to thank Dr. Ascher, Dr. Sidawy, Dr. Veith, and the organizers for allowing us to present some data. We have no disclosures. The cephalic arch is defined as two centimeters from the confluence of the cephalic vein to either the auxiliary/subclavian vein. Stenosis in this area occurs about 39%
in brachiocephalic fistulas and about 2% in radiocephalic fistulas. Several pre-existing diseases can lead to the stenosis. High flows have been documented to lead to the stenosis. Acute angles. And also there is a valve within the area.
They're generally short, focal in nature, and they're associated with a high rate of thrombosis after intervention. They have been associated with turbulent flow. Associated with pre-existing thickening.
If you do anatomic analysis, about 20% of all the cephalic veins will have that. This tight anatomical angle linked to the muscle that surrounds it associated with this one particular peculiar valve, about three millimeters from the confluence.
And it's interesting, it's common in non-diabetics. Predictors if you are looking for it, other than ultrasound which may not find it, is calcium-phosphate product, platelet count that's high, and access flow.
If one looks at interventions that have commonly been reported, one will find that both angioplasty and stenting of this area has a relatively low primary patency with no really discrimination between using just the balloon or stent.
The cumulative patency is higher, but really again, deployment of an angioplasty balloon or deployment of a stent makes really no significant difference. This has been associated with residual stenosis
greater than 30% as one reason it fails, and also the presence of diabetes. And so there is this sort of conundrum where it's present in more non-diabetics, but yet diabetics have more of a problem. This has led to people looking to other alternatives,
including stent grafts. And in this particular paper, they did not look at primary stent grafting for a cephalic arch stenosis, but mainly treating the recurrent stenosis. And you can see clearly that the top line in the graph,
the stent graft has a superior outcome. And this is from their paper, showing as all good paper figures should show, a perfect outcome for the intervention. Another paper looked at a randomized trial in this area and also found that stent grafts,
at least in the short period of time, just given the numbers at risk in this study, which was out after months, also had a significant change in the patency. And in their own words, they changed their practice and now stent graft
rather than use either angioplasty or bare-metal stents. I will tell you that cutting balloons have been used. And I will tell you that drug-eluting balloons have been used. The data is too small and inconclusive to make a difference. We chose a different view.
We asked a simple question. Whether or not these stenoses could be best treated with angioplasty, bare-metal stenting, or two other adjuncts that are certainly related, which is either a transposition or a bypass.
And what we found is that the surgical results definitely give greater long-term patency and greater functional results. And you can see that whether you choose either a transposition or a bypass, you will get superior primary results.
And you will also get superior secondary results. And this is gladly also associated with less recurrent interventions in the ongoing period. So in conclusion, cephalic arch remains a significant cause of brachiocephalic AV malfunction.
Angioplasty, across the literature, has poor outcomes. Stent grafting offers the best outcomes rather than bare-metal stenting. We have insufficient data with other modalities, drug-eluting stents, drug-eluting balloons,
cutting balloons. In the correct patient, surgical options will offer superior long-term results and functional results. And thus, in the good, well-selected patient, surgical interventions should be considered
earlier in this treatment rather than moving ahead with angioplasty stent and then stent graft. Thank you so much.
- Thank you. Historically, common femoral endarterectomy is a safe procedure. In this quick publication that we did several years ago, showed a 1.5% 30 day mortality rate. Morbidity included 6.3% superficial surgical site infection.
Other major morbidity was pretty low. High-risk patients we identified as those that were functionally dependent, dyspnea, obesity, steroid use, and diabetes. A study from Massachusetts General Hospital their experience showed 100% technical success.
Length of stay was three days. Primary patency of five years at 91% and assisted primary patency at five years 100%. Very little perioperative morbidity and mortality. As you know, open treatment has been the standard of care
over time the goal standard for a common femoral disease, traditionally it's been thought of as a no stent zone. However, there are increased interventions of the common femoral and deep femoral arteries. This is a picture that shows inflection point there.
Why people are concerned about placing stents there. Here's a picture of atherectomy. Irritational atherectomy, the common femoral artery. Here's another image example of a rotational atherectomy, of the common femoral artery.
And here's an image of a stent there, going across the stent there. This is a case I had of potential option for stenting the common femoral artery large (mumbles) of the hematoma from the cardiologist. It was easily fixed
with a 2.5 length BioBond. Which I thought would have very little deformability. (mumbles) was so short in the area there. This is another example of a complete blow out of the common femoral artery. Something that was much better
treated with a stent that I thought over here. What's the data on the stenting of the endovascular of the common femoral arteries interventions? So, there mostly small single centers. What is the retrospective view of 40 cases?
That shows a restenosis rate of 19.5% at 12 months. Revascularization 14.1 % at 12 months. Another one by Dr. Mehta shows restenosis was observed in 20% of the patients and 10% underwent open revision. A case from Dr. Calligaro using cover stents
shows very good primary patency. We sought to use Vascular Quality Initiative to look at endovascular intervention of the common femoral artery. As you can see here, we've identified a thousand patients that have common femoral interventions, with or without,
deep femoral artery interventions. Indications were mostly for claudication. Interventions include three-quarters having angioplasty, 35% having a stent, and 20% almost having atherectomy. Overall technical success was high, a 91%.
Thirty day mortality was exactly the same as in this clip data for open repair 1.6%. Complications were mostly access site hematoma with a low amount distal embolization had previously reported. Single center was up to 4%.
Overall, our freedom for patency or loss or death was 83% at one year. Predicted mostly by tissue loss and case urgency. Re-intervention free survival was 85% at one year, which does notably include stent as independent risk factor for this.
Amputation free survival was 93% at one year, which factors here, but also stent was predictive of amputation. Overall, we concluded that patency is lower than historical common femoral interventions. Mortality was pretty much exactly the same
that has been reported previously. And long term analysis is needed to access durability. There's also a study from France looking at randomizing stenting versus open repair of the common femoral artery. And who needs to get through it quickly?
More or less it showed no difference in outcomes. No different in AVIs. Higher morbidity in the open group most (mumbles) superficial surgical wound infections and (mumbles). The one thing that has hit in the text of the article
a group of mostly (mumbles) was one patient had a major amputation despite having a patent common femoral artery stent. There's no real follow up this, no details of this, I would just caution of both this and VQI paper showing increased risk amputation with stenting.
- This talk is a brief one about what I think is an entity that we need to be aware of because we see some. They're not AVMs obviously, they're acquired, but it nevertheless represents an entity which we've seen. We know the transvenous treatment of AVMs is a major advance in safety and efficacy.
And we know that the venous approach is indeed very, very favorable. This talk relates to some lesions, which we are successful in treating as a venous approach, but ultimately proved to be,
as I will show you in considerable experience now, I think that venous thrombosis and venous inflammatory disease result in acquired arteriovenous connections, we call them AVMs, but they're not. This patient, for example,
presented with extensive lower extremity swelling after an episode of DVT. And you can see the shunting there in the left lower extremity. Here we go in a later arterial phase. This lesion we found,
as others, is best treated. By the way, that was his original episode of DVT with occlusion. Was treated with stenting and restoration of flow and the elimination of the AVM.
So, compression of the lesion in the venous wall, which is actually interesting because in the type perivenous predominant lesions, those are actually lesions in the vein wall. So these in a form, or in a way, assimilate the AVMs that occur in the venous wall.
Another man, a 53-year-old gentleman with leg swelling after an episode of DVT, we can see the extensive filling via these collaterals, and these are inflammatory collaterals in the vein wall. This is another man with a prior episode of DVT. See his extensive anterior pelvic collaterals,
and he was treated with stenting and success. A recent case, that Dr. Resnick and I had, I was called with a gentleman said he had an AVM. And we can see that the arteriogram sent to me showed arterial venous shunting.
Well, what was interesting here was that the history had not been obtained of a prior total knee replacement. And he gave a very clear an unequivocal history of a DVT of sudden onset. And you can see the collaterals there
in the adjacent femoral popliteal vein. And there it is filling. So treatment here was venous stenting of the lesion and of the underlying stenosis. We tried an episode of angioplasty,
but ultimately successful. Swelling went down and so what you have is really a post-inflammatory DVT. Our other vast experience, I would say, are the so-called uterine AVMs. These are referred to as AVMs,
but these are clearly understood to be acquired, related to placental persistence and the connections between artery and veins in the uterus, which occurs, a part of normal pregnancy. These are best treated either with arterial embolization, which has been less successful,
but in some cases, with venous injection in venous thrombosis with coils or alcohol. There's a subset I believe of some of our pelvic AVMs, that have histories of DVT. I believe they're silent. I think the consistency of this lesion
that I'm showing you here, that if we all know, can be treated by coil embolization indicates to me that at least some, especially in patients in advanced stage are related to DVT. This is a 56-year-old, who had a known history of prostate cancer
and post-operative DVT and a very classic looking AVM, which we then treated with coil embolization. And we're able to cure, but no question in my mind at least based on the history and on the age, that this was post-phlebitic.
And I think some of these, and I think Wayne would agree with me, some of these are probably silent internal iliac venous thromboses, which we know can occur, which we know can produce pulmonary embolism.
And that's the curative final arteriogram. Other lesions such as this, I believe are related, at least some, although we don't have an antecedent history to the development of DVT, and again of course,
treated by the venous approach with cure. And then finally, some of the more problematic ones, another 56-year-old man with a history of prior iliofemoral DVT. Suddenly was fine, had been treated with heparin and anticoagulation.
And suddenly appeared with rapid onset of right lower extremity swelling and pain. So you see here that on an arteriogram of the right femoral, as well as, the super selective catheterization of some of these collaterals.
We can see the lesion itself. I think it's a nice demonstration of lesion. Under any other circumstance, this is an AVM. It is an AVM, but we know it to be acquired because he had no such swelling. This was treated in the only way I knew how to treat
with stenting of the vein. We placed a stent. That's a ballon expanded in the angiogram on your right is after with ballon inflation. And you can see the effect that the stenting pressure, and therefore subsequently occlusion of the compression,
and occlusion of the collaterals, and connections in the vein wall. He subsequently became asymptomatic. We had unfortunately had to stent extensively in the common femoral vein but he had an excellent result.
So I think pelvic AVMs are very similar in location and appearance. We've had 13 cases. Some with a positive history of DVT. I believe many are acquired post-DVT, and the treatment is the same venous coiling and or stent.
Wayne has seen some that are remarkable. Remember Wayne we saw at your place? A guy was in massive heart failure and clearly a DVT-related. So these are some of the cases we've seen
and I think it's noteworthy to keep in mind, that we still don't know everything there is to know about AVMs. Some AVMs are acquired, for example, pelvic post-DVT, and of course all uterine AVMs. Thanks very much.
(audience applause) - [Narrator] That's a very interesting hypothesis with a pelvic AVMs which are consistently looking similar. - [Robert] In the same place right? - [Narrator] All of them are appearing at an older age. - [Robert] Yep.
Yep. - This would be a very, very good explanation for that. I've never thought about that. - Yeah I think-- - I think this is very interesting. - [Robert] And remember, exactly.
And I remember that internal iliac DVT is always a silent process, and that you have this consistency, that I find very striking. - [Woman] So what do you think the mechanism is? The hypervascularity looked like it was primarily
arterial fluffy vessels. - [Robert] No, no, no it's in the vein wall. If you look closely, the arteriovenous connections and the hypervascularity, it's in the vein wall. The lesion is the vein wall,
it's the inflammatory vein. You remember Tony, that the thing that I always think of is how we used to do plain old ballon angioplasty in the SFA. And afterwards we'd get this
florid venous filling sometimes, not every case. And that's the very tight anatomic connection between those two. That's what I think is happening. Wayne? - [Wayne] This amount is almost always been here.
We just haven't recognized it. What has been recognized is dural fistula-- - Yep. - That we know and that's been documented. Chuck Kerber, wrote the first paper in '73 about the microvascular circulation
in the dural surface of the dural fistula, and it's related to venous thrombosis and mastoiditis and trauma. And then as the healing process occurs, you have neovascular stimulation and fistulization in that dural reflection,
which is a vein wall. And the same process happens here with a DVT with the healing, the recanalization, inflammation, neovascular stimulation, and the development of fistulas. increased vascular flow into the lumen
of the thrombosed area. So it's a neovascular stimulation phenomenon, that results in the vein wall developing fistula very identical to what happens in the head with dural fistula had nothing described of in the periphery.
- [Narrator] Okay, very interesting hypothesis.
- Thank you. I have two talks because Dr. Gaverde, I understand, is not well, so we- - [Man] Thank you very much. - We just merged the two talks. All right, it's a little joke. For today's talk we used fusion technology
to merge two talks on fusion technology. Hopefully the rest of the talk will be a little better than that. (laughs) I think we all know from doing endovascular aortic interventions
that you can be fooled by the 2D image and here's a real life view of how that can be an issue. I don't think I need to convince anyone in this room that 3D fusion imaging is essential for complex aortic work. Studies have clearly shown it decreases radiation,
it decreases fluoro time, and decreases contrast use, and I'll just point out that these data are derived from the standard mechanical based systems. And I'll be talking about a cloud-based system that's an alternative that has some advantages. So these traditional mechanical based 3D fusion images,
as I mentioned, do have some limitations. First of all, most of them require manual registration which can be cumbersome and time consuming. Think one big issue is the hardware based tracking system that they use. So they track the table rather than the patient
and certainly, as the table moves, and you move against the table, the patient is going to move relative to the table, and those images become unreliable. And then finally, the holy grail of all 3D fusion imaging is the distortion of pre-operative anatomy
by the wires and hardware that are introduced during the course of your procedure. And one thing I'd like to discuss is the possibility that deep machine learning might lead to a solution to these issues. How does 3D fusion, image-based 3D fusion work?
Well, you start, of course with your pre-operative CT dataset and then you create digitally reconstructed radiographs, which are derived from the pre-op CTA and these are images that resemble the fluoro image. And then tracking is done based on the identification
of two or more vertebral bodies and an automated algorithm matches the most appropriate DRR to the live fluoro image. Sounds like a lot of gobbledygook but let me explain how that works. So here is the AI machine learning,
matching what it recognizes as the vertebral bodies from the pre-operative CT scan to the fluoro image. And again, you get the CT plus the fluoro and then you can see the overlay with the green. And here's another version of that or view of that.
You can see the AI machine learning, identifying the vertebral bodies and then on your right you can see the fusion image. So just, once again, the AI recognizes the bony anatomy and it's going to register the CT with the fluoro image. It tracks the patient, not the table.
And the other thing that's really important is that it recognizes the postural change that the patient undergoes between the posture during the CT scan, versus the posture on the OR table usually, or often, under general anesthesia. And here is an image of the final overlay.
And you can see the visceral and renal arteries with orange circles to identify them. You can remove those, you can remove any of those if you like. This is the workflow. First thing you do is to upload the CT scan to the cloud.
Then, when you're ready to perform the procedure, that is downloaded onto the medical grade PC that's in your OR next to your fluoro screen, and as soon as you just step on the fluoro pedal, the CYDAR overlay appears next to your, or on top of your fluoro image,
next to your regular live fluoro image. And every time you move the table, the computer learning recognizes that the images change, and in a couple of seconds, it replaces with a new overlay based on the obliquity or table position that you have. There are some additional advantages
to cloud-based technology over mechanical technology. First of all, of course, or hardware type technology. Excuse me. You can upgrade it in real time as opposed to needing intermittent hardware upgrades. Works with any fluoro equipment, including a C-arm,
so you don't have to match your 3D imaging to the brand of your fluoro imaging. And there's enhanced accuracy compared to mechanical registration systems as imaging. So what are the clinical applications that this can be utilized for?
Fluoroscopy guided endovascular procedures in the lower thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, so that includes EVAR and FEVAR, mid distal TEVAR. At present, we do need two vertebral bodies and that does limit the use in TEVAR. And then angioplasty stenting and embolization
of common iliac, proximal external and proximal internal iliac artery. Anything where you can acquire a vertebral body image. So here, just a couple of examples of some additional non EVAR/FEVAR/TEVAR applications. This is, these are some cases
of internal iliac embolization, aortoiliac occlusion crossing, standard EVAR, complex EVAR. And I think then, that the final thing that I'd like to talk about is the use with C-arm, which is think is really, extremely important.
Has the potential to make a very big difference. All of us in our larger OR suites, know that we are short on hybrid availability, and yet it's difficult to get our institutions to build us another hybrid room. But if you could use a high quality 3D fusion imaging
with a high quality C-arm, you really expand your endovascular capability within the operating room in a much less expensive way. And then if you look at another set of circumstances where people don't have a hybrid room at all, but do want to be able to offer standard EVAR
to their patients, and perhaps maybe even basic FEVAR, if there is such a thing, and we could use good quality imaging to do that in the absence of an actual hybrid room. That would be extremely valuable to be able to extend good quality care
to patients in under-served areas. So I just was mentioning that we can use this and Tara Mastracci was talking yesterday about how happy she is with her new room where she has the use of CYDAR and an excellent C-arm and she feels that she is able to essentially run two rooms,
two hybrid rooms at once, using the full hybrid room and the C-arm hybrid room. Here's just one case of Dr. Goverde's. A vascular case that he did on a mobile C-arm with aortoiliac occlusive disease and he places kissing stents
using a CYDAR EV and a C-arm. And he used five mils of iodinated contrast. So let's talk about a little bit of data. This is out of Blain Demorell and Tara Mastrachi's group. And this is use of fusion technology in EVAR. And what they found was that the use of fusion imaging
reduced air kerma and DSA runs in standard EVAR. We also looked at our experience recently in EVAR and FEVAR and we compared our results. Pre-availability of image based fusion CT and post image based fusion CT. And just to clarify,
we did have the mechanical product that Phillip's offers, but we abandoned it after using it a half dozen times. So it's really no image fusion versus image fusion to be completely fair. We excluded patients that were urgent/emergent, parallel endographs, and IBEs.
And we looked at radiation exposure, contrast use, fluoro time, and procedure time. The demographics in the two groups were identical. We saw a statistically significant decrease in radiation dose using image based fusion CT. Statistically a significant reduction in fluoro time.
A reduction in contrast volume that looks significant, but was not. I'm guessing because of numbers. And a significantly different reduction in procedure time. So, in conclusion, image based 3D fusion CT decreases radiation exposure, fluoro time,
and procedure time. It does enable 3D overlays in all X-Ray sets, including mobile C-arm, expanding our capabilities for endovascular work. And image based 3D fusion CT has the potential to reduce costs
and improve clinical outcomes. Thank you.
- Thank you very much and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invite. Here's my disclosures, clearly relevant to this talk. So we know that after EVAR, it's around the 20% aortic complication rate after five years in treating type one and three Endoleaks prevents subsequent
secondary aortic rupture. Surveillance after EVAR is therefore mandatory. But it's possible that device-specific outcomes and surveillance protocols may improve the durability of EVAR over time. You're all familiar with this graph for 15 year results
in terms of re-intervention from the EVAR-1 trials. Whether you look at all cause and all re-interventions or life threatening re-interventions, at any time point, EVAR fares worse than open repair. But we know that the risk of re-intervention is different
in different patients. And if you combine pre-operative risk factors in terms of demographics and morphology, things are happening during the operations such as the use of adjuncts,
or having to treat intro-operative endoleak, and what happens to the aortic sac post-operatively, you can come up with a risk-prediction tool for how patients fare in the longer term. So the LEAR model was developed on the Engage Registry and validated on some post-market registries,
PAS, IDE, and the trials in France. And this gives a predictive risk model. Essentially, this combines patients into a low risk group that would have standard surveillance, and a higher risk group, that would have a surveillance plus
or enhanced surveillanced model. And you get individual patient-specific risk profiles. This is a patient with around a seven centimeter aneurysm at the time of repair that shows sac shrinkage over the first year and a half, post-operatively. And you can see that there's really a very low risk
of re-intervention out to five years. These little arrow bars up here. For a patient that has good pre-operative morphology and whose aneurysm shrinks out to a year, they're going to have a very low risk of re-intervention. This patient, conversely, had a smaller aneurysm,
but it grew from the time of the operation, and out to two and a half years, it's about a centimeter increase in the sac. And they're going to have a much higher risk of re-intervention and probably don't need the same level of surveillance as the first patient.
and probably need a much higher rate of surveillance. So not only can we have individualized predictors of risk for patients, but this is the regulatory aspect to it as well.
Multiple scenario testing can be undertaken. And these are improved not only with the pre-operative data, but as you've seen with one-year data, and this can tie in with IFU development and also for advising policy such as NICE, which you'll have heard a lot about during the conference.
So this is just one example. If you take a patient with a sixty-five millimeter aneurysm, eighteen millimeter iliac, and the suprarenal angle at sixty degrees. If you breach two or more of these factors in red, we have the pre-operative prediction.
Around 20% of cases will be in the high risk group. The high risk patients have about a 50-55% freedom from device for related problems at five years. And the low risk group, so if you don't breach those groups, 75% chance of freedom from intervention.
In the green, if you then add in a stent at one year, you can see that still around 20% of patients remain in the high risk group. But in the low risk group, you now have 85% of patients won't need a re-intervention at five years,
and less of a movement in the high risk group. So this can clearly inform IFU. And here you see the Kaplan-Meier curves, those same groups based pre-operatively, and at one year. In conclusion, LEAR can provide
a device specific estimation of EVAR outcome out to five years. It can be based on pre-operative variables alone by one year. Duplex surveillance helps predict risk. It's clearly of regulatory interest in the outcomes of EVAR.
And an E-portal is being developed for dissemination. Thank you very much.
- Thank you, Ulrich. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to thank Dr. Veith so kindly, for this invitation. These are my disclosures and my friends. I think everyone knows that the Zenith stent graft has a safe and durable results update 14 years. And I think it's also known that the Zenith stent graft
had such good shrinkage, compared to the other stent grafts. However, when we ask Japanese physicians about the image of Zenith stent graft, we always think of the demo version. This is because we had the original Zenith in for a long time. It was associated with frequent limb occlusion due to
the kinking of Z stent. That's why the Spiral Z stent graft came out with the helical configuration. When you compare the inner lumen of the stent graft, it's smooth, it doesn't have kink. However, when we look at the evidence, we don't see much positive studies in literature.
The only study we found was done by Stephan Haulon. He did the study inviting 50 consecutive triple A patients treated with Zenith LP and Spiral Z stent graft. And he did two cases using a two iliac stent and in six months, all Spiral Z limb were patent. On the other hand, when you look at the iliac arteries
in Asians, you probably have the toughest anatomy to perform EVARs and TEVARs because of the small diameter, calcification, and tortuosity. So this is the critical question that we had. How will a Spiral Z stent graft perform in Japanese EIA landing cases, which are probably the toughest cases?
And this is what we did. We did a multi-institutional prospective observational study for Zenith Spiral Z stent graft, deployed in EIA. We enrolled patients from June 2017 to November 2017. We targeted 50 cases. This was not an industry-sponsored study.
So we asked for friends to participate, and in the end, we had 24 hospitals from all over Japan participate in this trial. And the board collected 65 patients, a total of 74 limbs, and these are the results. This slide shows patient demographics. Mean age of 77,
80 percent were male, and mean triple A diameter was 52. And all these qualities are similar to other's reporting in these kinds of trials. And these are the operative details. The reason for EIA landing was, 60 percent had Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm.
12 percent had Hypogastric Artery Aneurysm. And 24 percent had inadequate CIA, meaning short CIA or CIA with thrombosis. Outside IFU was observed in 24.6 percent of patients. And because we did fermoral cutdowns, mean operative time was long, around three hours.
One thing to note is that we Japanese have high instance of Type IV at the final angio, and in our study we had 43 percent of Type IV endoleaks at the final angio. Other things to notice is that, out of 74 limbs, 11 limbs had bare metal stents placed at the end of the procedure.
All patients finished a six month follow-up. And this is the result. Only one stenosis required PTA, so the six months limb potency was 98.6 percent. Excellent. And this is the six month result again. Again the primary patency was excellent with 98.6 percent. We had two major adverse events.
One was a renal artery stenosis that required PTRS and one was renal stenosis that required PTA. For the Type IV index we also have a final angio. They all disappeared without any clinical effect. Also, the buttock claudication was absorbed in 24 percent of patients at one month, but decreased
to 9.5 percent at six months. There was no aneurysm sac growth and there was no mortality during the study period. So, this is my take home message, ladies and gentlemen. At six months, Zenith Spiral Z stent graft deployed in EIA was associated with excellent primary patency
and low rate of buttock claudication. So we have most of the patients finish a 12 month follow-up and we are expecting excellent results. And we are hoping to present this later this year. - [Host] Thank you.
- Yeah, thank you Dr. Asher, and again, I want to give credit to Dr. Zheng, one of our fellows who put together this work. So duplex surveillance for lower extremity revascularization, I think we all do that for vein grafts. It's less well accepted for prosthetic grafts. It's controversial for peripheral stent grafts,
and it's very controversial for peripheral stents. If we had time, I'd like to poll all of you and ask how many of you do a duplex scan after you put in a peripheral arterial stent, but more importantly, how many would intervene if you find the velocities are increasing.
So why do it? Well, revision of failing stents may yield better patency rates than if you intervene after the stent has occluded. You may not be able to restore patency if the stent has already occluded, I mean,
some of you may think you can always do that, I know I can't always do that. And performing endovascular treatment is obviously easier than converting to open surgery. So we reviewed 172 stents in 30 iliac and 89 fempop arteries.
Some were overlapping stents, so we kind of said there were 119 segments that we analyzed. The treated length for the iliac artery was about seven and a half centimeters, and for fempop, was about 12 centimeters. And we did duplex surveillance
in our accredited vascular lab in our office. We measured the peak systolic velocity, and the PSV ratios, every two centimeters within the stent but also in the adjacent proximal and distal arteries. We considered it an abnormal duplex finding, I think pretty much consistent
with what you would do for a vein graft, also, if you had a focal PSV over 300, uniform PSVs throughout the stent less than 45, or a ratio more than three, we would say that probably corresponds with more than a 75% stenosis
and generally we would intervene. We did the duplex one week after we put in a peripheral stent, and then about every six months. The follow up averaged about two years. So of these 119 stented segments, about half of 'em stayed normal.
All of the duplex criteria stayed normal during the entire follow up, nothing needed to be done. But interestingly, of the other half, they developed at least one abnormal duplex criterion. 40 of the 57 cases we intervened on, but of the 17 other cases we did not intervene,
either due to patient refusal, or the surgeon felt, well, let's just keep an eye on it, five did remain patent for a short follow up, but 12 of the 17 went on to occlude. Of the 12 occluded segments, we found that if there was more than one
abnormal duplex finding and you did not treat, 70%, again the numbers are small, but 70% occluded, compared to if you had the normal duplex findings, only 3% occluded, and this was highly significant. So of the 12 occluded stents, what happened? Well six we didn't do anything,
they were just for claudication, and the patients chose not to have open surgery. But four, we did try to open 'em and could not, and they needed a bypass, mainly for limb salvage. But two, we couldn't do anything, and they ended up with amputations.
So the bottom line in this relatively small series was if a stent occluded, they didn't necessarily do well and you couldn't open 'em up. So in conclusion, duplex surveillance for lower extremity stents, and that's what we're talking about,
can significantly predict stent occlusion based on these criteria, and the absence of any criteria strongly predicted stent patency. We even have a little disagreement, frankly, in my own group about how aggressive to be for these.
I tend to be pretty aggressive and intervene. Maybe during the discussion we can talk about this. Thank you.
- Thanks Bill and I thank Dr. Veith and the organizers of the session for the invitation to speak on histology of in-stent stenosis. These are my disclosures. Question, why bother with biopsy? It's kind of a hassle. What I want to do is present at first
before I show some of our classification of this in data, is start with this case where the biopsy becomes relevant in managing the patient. This is a 41 year old woman who was referred to us after symptom recurrence two months following left iliac vein stenting for post-thrombotic syndrome.
We performed a venogram and you can see this overlapping nitinol stents extending from the..., close to the Iliocaval Confluence down into Common Femoral and perhaps Deep Femoral vein. You can see on the venogram, that it is large displacement of the contrast column
from the edge of the stent on both sides. So we would call this sort of diffuse severe in-stent stenosis. We biopsy this material, you can see it's quite cellular. And in the classification, Doctor Gordon, our pathologist, applies to all these.
Consisted of fresh thrombus, about 15% of the sample, organizing thrombus about zero percent, old thrombus, which is basically a cellular fibrin, zero percent and diffuse intimal thickening - 85%. And you can see there is some evidence of a vascularisation here, as well as some hemosiderin deposit,
which, sort of, implies a red blood cell thrombus, histology or ancestry of this tissue. So, because the biopsy was grossly and histolo..., primarily grossly, we didn't have the histology to time, we judged that thrombolysis had little to offer this patient The stents were angioplastied
and re-lined with Wallstents this time. So, this is the AP view, showing two layers of stents. You can see the original nitinol stent on the outside, and a Wallstent extending from here. Followed venogram, venogram at the end of the procedure, shows that this displacement, and this is the maximal
amount we could inflate the Wallstent, following placement through this in-stent stenosis. And this is, you know, would be nice to have a biological or drug solution for this kind of in-stent stenosis. We brought her back about four months later, usually I bring them back at six months,
but because of the in-stent stenosis and suspecting something going on, we brought her back four months later, and here you can see that the gap between the nitinol stent and the outside the wall stent here. Now, in the contrast column, you can see that again, the contrast column is displaced
from the edge of the Wallstent, so we have recurrent in-stent stenosis here. The gross appearance of this clot was red, red-black, which suggests recent thrombus despite anticoagulation and the platelet. And, sure enough, the biopsy of fresh thrombus was 20%,
organizing thrombus-75%. Again, the old thrombus, zero percent, and, this time, diffuse intimal thickening of five percent. This closeup of some of that showing the cells, sort of invading this thrombus and starting organization. So, medical compliance and outflow in this patient into IVC
seemed acceptable, so we proceeded to doing ascending venogram to see what the outflow is like and to see, if she was an atomic candidate for recanalization. You can see these post-thrombotic changes in the popliteal vein, occlusion of the femoral vein.
You can see great stuffiness approaching these overlapping stents, but then you can see that the superficial system has been sequestered from the deep system, and now the superficial system is draining across midline. So, we planned to bring her back for recanalization.
So biopsy one with diffuse intimal thickening was used to forego thrombolysis and proceed with PTA and lining. Biopsy two was used to justify the ascending venogram. We find biopsy as a useful tool, making practical decisions. And Doctor Gordon at our place has been classifying these
biopsies in therms of: Fresh Thrombus, Organizing Thrombus, Old Thrombus and Diffuse Intimal thickening. These are panels on the side showing the samples of each of these classifications and timelines. Here is a timeline of ...
Organizing Thrombus here. To see it's pretty uniform series of followup period For Diffuse Intimal thickening, beginning shortly after the procedure, You won't see very much at all, increases with time. So, Fresh Thrombus appears to be
most prevalent in early days. Organizing Thrombus can be seen at early time points sample, as well as throughout the in-stent stenosis. Old Thrombus, which is a sort of a mystery to me why one pathway would be Old Thrombus and the other Diffuse Intimal thickening.
We have to work that out, I hope. Calcification is generally a very late feature in this process. Thank you very much.
- [Bill] Thank you Vikay. I think this is an interesting topic for many reasons but one of the key ones is that if you look at our health care policies by insurers, this tends to define our practice. So I looked at BlueCross BlueShield's policy and they say that treatment of the GSV or SSV
is medically necessary when there is demonstrated saphenous reflux and I looked for more and there was no more. That's all they said so they must think that reflux a time correlates with venous severity. So is this true?
I think, personally, that there are other things that are involved and that volume is really the key. Time, velocity and the diameter of the vein are likely all part of the process and we all know that obstruction
is also critically important as well and probably the worse patients are those that have both reflux and obstruction. Probably reflux is worse in the deep system but we know that large GSV and SSV patients can develop CEAP four to six symptoms
and do very well with saphenous ablations. And I think this is a nice analogy. I love this guy, it looks like he came off of his lawn chair to help the firefighters out but he's probably not going to do so much with his little garden hose now, is he?
So I think size and velocity do matter. What does the literature tell us? Chris Lattimer and his group have done an elegant set of studies looking at how various parameters correlate to air plethysmography and venous filling times. They did show that there is a correlation
between venous filling time and reflux time. However, other things were probably more correlated such as GSV diameter and reflux velocity. And in this nice study of 300 patients they found that there was a relatively weak correlation between reflux time and clinical severity
and their conclusion was that it was a good parameter to identify reflux but not for quantifying the severity. So here's how we use this clinically in my practice. So you see many patients such as this that have mixed venous disease.
53-year-old female, severe edema. You do her studies and she's got reflux in the deep and the superficial system. So how to we decide if saphenous ablation is going to help this patient or not and correct these symptoms, prevent further ulcerations?
So all reflux is not created equal. The top is a popliteal tracing where the maximum reflux velocity is about five centimeters per second versus the bottom one that's about thirty to forty centimeters per second
so these probably aren't going to behave similarly in when we look at them. So we studied this in 75 patients and reported this back in 2008. We look at the maximum reflux velocity in the popliteal vein to tell if these patients
would improve after we ablated their saphenous or not. We found that this was a significant predictor of both improvement in venous filling index and the venous clinical severity score so we think velocity really does matter. And this is where we're seeing this clinically.
This is a patient that was referred to me for a second opinion concerning whether she would need ablation of her great saphenous vein. And this is the reflux tracing and you can see the scale here is turned up so that this is a measurement of reflux at about two centimeters per second.
This was used to document abnormal reflux and to justify ablation of the saphenous. So I checked one of our tracings. This is what it looks like.
- So I'm going to be talking about allografts for peripheral graft infections. This is a femoral artery that's been replaced after a closure device infection and complication, and we've bypassed to the SFA and profunda femoris. These are my disclosures. So peripheral arterial infectious processes,
well the etiology either is primary or secondary. Primary can be from bacteremic states and seeding of ulcerated plaque or thrombus. Secondary reasons for infections can be the vast usage of percutaneous closure devices that really have flooded the market these days.
Prosthetic graft infections after either a bypass or patch in the femoral artery. So early onset infections usually are from break in sterility. Secondary infections can be from either wound breakdowns or late seeding of the prosthetic graft.
The presentation for these patients can be relatively minor such as cellulitis or draining sinus, or much more dramatic, such as sepsis or pseudoaneurysm or mycotic aneurysm. On the CT scan we can see infected mycotic aneurysm after infected closure device and bleeding complications.
The treatment is broad in range. Ligation is obviously one option, but it leads to a very high risk of major limb amputation. So ideally some form of reconstruction, either extra-anatomic through clean planes,
antibiotic graft as we heard from the previous speaker, the use of autologous replacement with deep vein, or we become big proponents of the use of cryopreserved arterial allografts for reconstruction. And much of this stems from our work from about 10 years ago, where we looked
at the use of aortic cryopreserved grafts for aortic graft infections. This was published about 10 years ago but we looked at a small series of patients with aortic infections. You can see the CT scan of an infected stent graft
and associated aneurysm. And then the intraoperative photo after we've resected the stent graft and replaced that segment of the aorta with a cryopreserved aortic segment. So using that as a springboard,
we then decided to look at the outcomes using these types of conduits, arterial conduits, for peripheral arterial reconstructions in contaminated or infected surgical fields. So retrospective review at our tertiary care center, we looked at roughly 60 patients over a 15-year period
and excluded any aortic-based reconstructions. So these are all peripheral reconstructions. Mean follow-up was 28 months. As you would expect, the distribution of treatment zones were primarily in the lower extremities, so 51 cases.
As you can see, there's a list of all the different types of cases that we treated. But then there were a few upper extremity visceral and then carotid. I've shown this slide before at this meeting in the past, with a carotid patch infection
that was treated after it had a blow-out, and it's obviously a infected aneurysm, and this was treated with resection and a cryopreserved arterial segment. Looking at our outcomes, the 30-day outcome showed a mortality rate of 9%.
The 30-day conduit-related complication rate was surprisingly low at 14%. We had four patients that had bleeding complications, four patients with recurrent infectious complications. All eight of those patients required a return back to the operating room for correction.
The late conduit-related complication rate was only 16%. As listed here, you can see there's only one case of reinfection, three cases of graft thrombosis, surprisingly only one major limb amputation, two pseudoaneurysms and one late bleeding complication.
And graphically depicted, you can see here, this area here is looking at the less than 30 days, this is primarily when the complications occur. When you get to six months, fewer complications, and then beyond six months, the primary complications that we would see are either thrombosis of the graft
or the development of late pseudoaneurysms, again relatively low. So in summary, I think peripheral arterial infectious complications can be treated with a cryopreserved arterial allografts. The advantage is it's a single stage operation,
maintains in-line flow, there's a low incidence of repeat infection. I think it's also important to mention that the majority of these patients had adjunctive muscle flap coverage to cover the large soft tissue defect
at the time of the operation. So I think that this is a valuable alternative conduit in a setting of peripheral arterial infections. Thank you.
- Thank you very much both. It was a great pleasure to see you. I continue to be grateful for the guidance you have given me over the years. Thank you to the organizers for advising me to speak. These are my disclosures. So really there are two questions posed by this topic.
One is, is the patent popliteal vein necessary? I would assume from this is it necessary for patency and symptom relief to be achieved in treating patients with both acute DVT and potentially chronic. And has the evolution formic mechanical therapy
led to over stenting. Which means we have to ask the question what is an appropriate rate for stenting. I am not sure we know the answer to that. So being able to answer over stenting requires us to know how many patients
actually need the stent in the first place in acute DVT treatments. The problem is essentially this. Is that when we form lithic therapies and this is a classic case of treatment formed with formic and mechanical device
but without a follow up using lithic in the patient for whom lithic was not feasible. You end up opening up a vessel but you can see from the image on the left hand side that there is a degree still of luminol contrast deficit suggesting some cult left behind
in the external iliac vein. Well there is obviously a May-Thurner legion at the top. The question of over stenting is one of do we just stent the May-Thruner and extend it down into the external iliac vein to trap that thrombus
or would a period of time of lithic have resulted in this clot resolving and not needed a stent at the end of it. To get to the question of how many people should be stented. The only way we can really do this
is try and exstipulate from the literature to some extent. This is the short and long term outcome from the Kevin study. Where there is ultrasound follow up of patients underwent standard treatment only.
And a additional group in the patients had catheter-directed thrombolysis. We can see there that the patients did six months in catheter-directed thrombolysis group is around 60%. And the patency seen with the non treated group
is around 40%. If we kind of use these numbers as a guide we probably expect therefore that the stent rate would be somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. To account for treating the outflow structure that presumably patients see at six months.
But this is clearly not a very rebost method of being absolutely clear on who needs stents. Additional method is we don't really have and answer for who should be stented at the end of a procedure. So if you look at the massive variability
in the other studies. We see that attract stent rate is approximately 28% for the study. Which is obviously a operative discretion and has been criticized for that reason. But there is no comment on the Popliteal vein
or Popliteal vein patency. Cavent did an stent rate of 15% again with no real comment on whether the Popliteal vein was open and it wasn't a prerequisite for treatment in the study. This contrast with the Ansberg Aspirex Registry.
Which is a registry of a purely mechanical device to aspirex clot and the stent rate is 100%. Baekgaard Copenhagen used a catered-directed thrombolysis with a mandated open popliteal vein for purpose to be in the study. He has a stent rate of 60%.
My own personal experience of 160 odd patients is that were stenting around 80% of patients with outflow legion at the end of treatment. And were not really bothered by whether the popliteal vein is clear or not. But that doesn't necessarily answer the question
whether it makes a difference in the long run. So its very difficult even looking at the data we have because there is no standard definition of what a outflow stenosis is. There is no objective measure for an outflow stenosis. So stenting becomes and operative discretion decision.
But you would have to say that if your taking purely mechanical devices and the stent rates are going up to 100% that the inclination would be that there is potential for formic mechanical therapy to lead to overstenting and increase use
for stents for sure. In our experience then we had 81 patients who had CDT alone verse 70 patients who had AngioJet Thrombectomy. The basic characteristics of the group are pretty much identical.
With similar ages and no difference between whether the thrombus with left side or right side of body or so on. And these are the patency curves for the different groups with equivalent primary, primary assisted and secondary patency over two yeas.
We had no difference in stent rates with the median stenting of 80% in both groups with two stents used in average for each of those patients. However in our practice AngioJet is rarely used alone. So we had 70 patients for whom AngioJet was used. 24 of those where AngioJet was used up front
as the first line of treatment followed by some CDT. We have tended find that if we wanted full clock clearance. We have always had omit to some extent. And single stage therapy is quite difficult to achieve unless you spent a lot of time in it.
Patency in the popliteal vein is clearly affected by some extent. These are our follow up results if we don't have a patent popliteal vein at the end. It does drop off in stent patency. So the conclusions then I think.
Is that patent popliteal vein is necessary for long term results. But you can still treat patients that have acute popliteal vein for larsons that is not a contraindication. Pure mechanical therapies may well lead to higher stent rate.
But is this a bad thing or a good thing? We don't really know this at this stage as to what the long term outcomes will be. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much. I'm going to talk on Improper and Suboptimal Antiplatelet Therapy which is probably currently the standard on most carotid angioplasty stent trials and I'm going to show you how it could potentially affect all of the results we have seen so far. I have nothing to disclose.
So introduction, based on the composite end point of stroke/death in our technical trials, they're always, in all randomized trials Endarterectomy always did marginally better than Carotid angioplasty and stenting. However, a small shift, just about a one person shift
could make carotid artery stenting better could shift the results of all these carotid stent trials. Let's just look at CREST. I think it's the gold standard for randomized trial comparing endarterectomy with stenting. You can see the combined death, streak and MI rate.
For endarterectomy, it's 6.8%, for CAS, 7.2%. For stroke, again 2.3, 4.1. Again, it's a one person shift in a direction of making stents better could actually show that stents were favorable, but comparable to it, not just inferior.
Now if you look at the data on CREST, it's very interesting that the majority of the strokes, about 80% of the strokes happened after about 24 hours. In fact, most of them happened on the third day period. So it wasn't a technical issue. You know, the biggest issue with current stenting
that we find is that we have filters, we have floor reversal. They're very worried about the time we place the stent, that we balloon, pre- and post-, but it wasn't a technical issue. Something was happening after 24 hours.
Another interesting fact that no one speaks about is if you look at the CREST data a little bit in more detail, most of the mortality associated with the stenting was actually associated with an access site bleed.
So if you could really decrease the late strokes, if you can decrease the access site bleeds, I think stents can be performed better than endarterectomies. The study design for all stent trials, there was a mandatory dual antiplatelet therapy.
Almost all patients had to be on aspirin and Plavix and on CREST, interestingly, they had to be on 75 milligrams BID for Plavix so they were all on very high dose Plavix. Now here's the interesting thing about Plavix that most people don't know.
Plavix is what is called a pro-drug. It requires to be converted to its active component by the liver for antiplatelet effect. And the particular liver enzyme that converts Plavix to its active metabolic enzyme is very variable patient to patient
and you're born that way. You're either born where you can convert its active metabolite or you can't convert it to its active metabolite and a test that's called 2C19 is actually interesting approved and covered by Medicare and here's the people
that read the black box warning for Plavix, that looked at the package insert. I just cut and paste this on the package that said for Plavix. I'm just showing you a few lines from the package insert. Now next to aspirin, it's the commonest prescribed drug
by vascular specialists, but most people probably have not looked at the package insert that says effectiveness of Plavix depends on activation by a liver enzyme called 2C19 and goes on to say that tests are available to identify to 2C19 genotype.
And then they go on to actually give you a recommendation on the package insert that says consider alternative treatment strategies in patients identified as 2C19 poor metabolizers. Now these are the people who cannot metabolize Plavix and convert them to its active metabolite.
So let's look at the actual incidents. Now we know there is resistance to, in some patients, to aspirin, but the incident is so small it doesn't make worth our time or doesn't make it worth the patient's outcome to be able to test everyone for aspirin resistance,
but look at the incidents for Plavix resistance. Again, this is just a slide explaining what does resistance mean so if you're a normal metabolizer, which we hope that most of us would be, you're going to expect advocacy from Plavix at 75 milligrams once a day.
Other hand, let's say you're a rapid or ultrarapid metabolizer. You have a much higher risk of bleeding. And then if you go to the other side where you are normal, intermediate or poor metabolizer, you're not going to convert Plavix to its active metabolite
and poor metabolizers, it's like giving a placebo. And interestingly, I'm a poor metabolizer. I got myself tested. If I ever have a cardiac interventionalist give me Plavix, they're giving me a placebo. So let's look at the actual incidents
of all these subsets in patients and see whether that's going to be an issue. So we took this from about 7,000 patients and interestingly in only about 40%, NM stands for nominal metabolizer or normal metabolizers. So only 40% get the expected efficacy of Plavix.
Let's look at just the extremes. Let's just assume people with normal metabolizers, normal intermediate and the subgroup between the ultra rapid, the normals, they're all going to respond well to Plavix. Let's just look at the extremes.
Ultra rapid and poor metabolizers. So these are the people who are going to convert Plavix to a much higher concentration of its active metabolite, but have a much higher risk of bleeding. Ultra rapid metabolizers. Poor metabolizers, Plavix doesn't work.
4%, 3%. That's not a small incidence. Now in no way am I saying that carotid stent trials itselves are totally based on Plavix resistance, but just look at the data from CREST. Let's say the patients with poor metabolizers,
that's 3%, so these people did not get Plavix. Plavix does not affect you in doses of up to 600 milligram for people with poor metabolizers. Incidents of embolic events in CREST trial for carotid stents was 4%. This happened after three days.
I believe it's possibly related to platelet debris occurring in the stent on people who did not receive a liquid anti-platelet therapy. How about the people who had the groin bleed? Remember I told you that access site bleeds were most highly predictable mortality.
If you're the ultra rapid metabolizers, that incidence was 4%. So these were the people that convert Plavix with a very high dose of active metabolite, very high risk of bleeding. Access site bleed rate,
if you look at the major/minor rates, 4.1%, very close to the ultra rapid metabolizers. So fact remains that carotid angioplasty stenting post procedure events are highly dependent on appropriate antiplatelet therapy to minimize embolic events and to decrease groin bleeds.
So in conclusion, if we just included 2C19 normal metabolizers, as was recommended by the packaging insert, so just test the people, include the people on normal metabolizers, exclude the rest, we are probably going to shift the results in favor of carotid angioplasty and stenting.
Results of all carotid angioplasty stent trials need to be questioned as a significant number of patients in the carotid angioplasty stent arm did not receive appropriate antiplatelet therapy. Thank you very much.
- Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, thank you very much for the podium. Right, my opponent Professor Hogan, has just given his statement asking you to abandon two fenestrated endovascular repairs in favor of three and four fenestrations, but this picture proves to you that during his spare time,
he's actively promoting single fenestration devices, actually. Just keep that in mind. My contention is that three and four branch fenestrated EVARs result in higher complications and higher mortality, which means that they should be avoided if at all possible.
What exactly are the critical issues that are at question here? Do four fenestrated endovascular repairs carry higher risk of complications compared to simpler devices? If they do, are the worth it? However, my opponent is also one of the world's
experts in this area. We've definitely learned quite a lot from him in the early stage of our program about 10-13 years ago. So, he usually has something sensible to say, has he got a point? My plan for this debate is to give you a very balanced view
based on multicenter data. Don't forget, the very compelling data Eric showed you are his single-center series. It is not easy to replicate his results in most other centers. I also would like to keep the debate clean.
Now, coming to the facts, four fenestrated repairs, beyond a doubt, just take more operating time than simpler devices. They're also technically one of the most challenging of aneurysm repairs that you do. They do test your center and team's experience.
Definitely in extricating oneself from intra-operator difficulties, and also, experience gives you the confidence through the operation that you will see the day through. It's also the case that the greater length of aorta is covered by stent graft fabric,
the more lumbars are taken, compromising the spinal cord blood supply further, which is a significant factor. This is a multicenter series from UK, from Terumo Aortic, their Anaconda Fenestrated platform multicenter series of their first 101 devices.
You notice that when the seals are extended to above celiac axis, which means four fenestrated devices, they had a much higher mortality compared to simpler devices. There's also the British Society of Endovascular Therapies Globalstar registry, which I run, currently has got
just over 850 patients registered, and we had data adequate for analysis in 533 patients. Being a much more spread out multicenter series, the results are worse. And you notice that three and four fenestrated devices in this pragmatic multicenter nationwide series
have got a much higher, substantially higher, death rate compared to simpler devices, which is statistically significant. In the long run, up to about four to five years, you notice that four fenestrated do carry a higher, slightly higher risk of re-intervention,
but the overall mortality is not hugely different. The numbers do dwindle. There are very few numbers up to ten years. So, it's not worth looking after 40 years of research. Paraplegia, the Globalstar registry had a total of six paraplegia occurrences reported.
Five of those are in patients who had four fenestrated devices put in. This is definitely worth remembering. It is a complication that really sinks you hard. So, in conclusion, the complexity of device should actually not be compared
without the context of anatomy. Frequently, to get an adequate and durable seal, you do need four fenestrations. However, remember, multicenter series do conclusively show that four fenestrateds are definitely more dangerous compared to the simpler of the devices.
However, this increased risk has to be compared against the perceived risk of alternative treatments such as open repair. So to conclude, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the primary aim of fenestrated repair is actually to achieve satisfactory seal zone, which I would say,
which I would say probably at least 20 millimeters of aorta, which is relatively free from calcification or thrombus. That is the bare minimum we should be looking at to get a durable seal. While that is the primary concern, and we need to incorporate as many number of fenestrations
as are technically required depending on your platform that you wish to use. The number of fenestrations themselves are, in fact, secondary and less important. However, if you are able to achieve such a good durable seal without using three or four fenestrations,
more complex devices are certainly not worth it. Thank you very much for your attention.
- I want to thank Dr. Veith for the invitation to present this. There are no disclosures. So looking at cost effectiveness, especially the comparison of two interventions based on cost and the health gains, which is usually reported
through disability adjusted life years or even qualities. It's not to be really confused with cost benefit analysis where both paramaters are used, looked at based on cost. However, this does have different implications from different stakeholders.
And we look, at this point, between the medical center or the medical institution and as well as the payers. Most medical centers tend to look at how much this is costing them
and what is being reimbursed. What's the subsequent care interventions and are there any additional payments for some of these new, novel technologies. What does the payers really want to know, what are they getting for the money,
their expenditures and from here, we'll be looking mainly at Medicare. So, background, we've all seen this, but basically, you know, balloon angioplasty and stents have been out for a while and the outcomes aren't bad but they're not great.
They do have continued high reintervention rates and patency problems. Therefore, drug technology has sort of emerged as a possible alternative with better patency rates. And when we look at this, just some, some backgrounds, when you look at any sort of angioplasty,
from the physician's side, we bill under a certain CPT code and it falls under a family of codes for reimbursement in the medical center called an APC. Within those, you can further break it down to the cost of the product.
In this situation, total products cost around 1400 dollars and the balloons are estimated to be 406 dollars in cost. However, in drug-coated balloons, there was an additional payment, which average, because they're such more expensive devices than the allotments and this had an additional payment.
However, this expired in January of this year. When you look at Medicare reimbursement guidelines, you'll see that on an outpatient hospital setting, there's a reimbursement for the medical center as well as for the physican which is, oops sorry, down eight percent from last year.
And they also publish a geometric mean cost, which is quite higher than we expected. And then the office based practice is also the reimbursement pattern and this is slated to go down also by a few percentage points.
When you look at, I'm sorry, when you look at stents, however, it's a different family of CPT codes and APC family also. Here you'll see the supply cost is much higher in the, I'm sorry, the stent in this category is actually 3600 dollars.
The average cost for drug-eluting stents, around 1500 dollars and the only pass through that existed was on the inpatient side of it. Again, looking at Medicare guidelines, the reimbursement will be going down 8 percent
for the outpatient setting and the geometric mean cost is 11,700. So, what we want to look at really is what is the financial impact looking at primary patency, target lesion revascularization based on meta analysis. And the reinterventions are where the real cost
is going to come into effect. We also want to look at, when it doesn't work and we do bailout stenting, what is the cost going to happen there, which is not often looked at in most of these studies. So looking at a hypothetical situation,
you've got 100 patients, any office based practice, the payee will pay about 5145. There's a pass through payment which averages 1700 dollars per stent. Now, if you look at bailout stenting, 18.5 percent at one year,
this is the additional cost that would be associated with that from a payer standpoint. Targeted risk for revascularization was 12 percent of additional costs. So the total one year cost, we estimated, was almost a million dollars
and the cost per primary patency limb at one year was 13 four. In a similar fashion, for drug-eluting stents, you'll see that there's no pass through payment, but although there is a much higher payer expenditure. The reintervention rate was about 8.4 percent
at one year for the additional cost. And you'll see here, at the one year mark, the cost per patent limb is about 12,600 dollars. So how 'about the medical center, looking at Medicare claims data, you'll see the average cost for them is 745,000,
the medical center. Additional costs listed at another 1500. Bailout renting, as previously, with relate to a total cost at one year of 1.2 million or at 16,900 dollars per limb. Looking at the drug-eluting stents,
we didn't add any additional costs because the drug-eluting stents are cheaper than the current system that is in there but the reinterventions still exist for a cost per patent limb at one year of 14 six. So in essence, a few other studies have looked
at some model, both a European model and in the U.S. where the number of reinterventions at two to five years will actually offset the additional cost of drug-eluting stents and make it a financially advantageous process.
And in conclusion, drug-eluting stents do have a better primary patency and a decreased TLR than drug-coated balloons or even other, but they are more expensive than conventional treatment such as balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents.
There is a decreased reintervention rate and the bailout stenting, which is not normally accounted for in a financial standpoint does have a dramatic impact and the loss of the pass through makes me make some of the drug-coated balloons
a little more prohibitive in process. Thank you.
- Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning ladies and gentlemen. So that was a great setting of the stage for understanding that we need to prevent reinterventions of course. So we looked at the data from the DREAM trial. We're all aware that we can try
to predict secondary interventions using preoperative CT parameters of EVAR patients. This is from the EVAR one trial, from Thomas Wyss. We can look at the aortic neck, greater angulation and more calcification.
And the common iliac artery, thrombus or tortuosity, are all features that are associated with the likelihood of reinterventions. We also know that we can use postoperative CT scans to predict reinterventions. But, as a matter of fact, of course,
secondary sac growth is a reason for reintervention, so that is really too late to predict it. There are a lot of reinterventions. This is from our long term analysis from DREAM, and as you can see the freedom, survival freedom of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group
is around 62% at 12 years. So one in three patients do get confronted with some sort of reintervention. Now what can be predicted? We thought that the proximal neck reinterventions would possibly be predicted
by type 1a Endoleaks and migration and iliac thrombosis by configurational changes, stenosis and kinks. So the hypothesis was: The increase of the neck diameter predicts proximal type 1 Endoleak and migration, not farfetched.
And aneurysm shrinkage maybe predicts iliac limb occlusion. Now in the DREAM trial, we had a pretty solid follow-up and all patients had CT scans for the first 24 months, so the idea was really to use
those case record forms to try to predict the longer term reinterventions after four, five, six years. These are all the measurements that we had. For this little study, and it is preliminary analysis now,
but I will be presenting the maximal neck diameter at the proximal anastomosis. The aneurysm diameter, the sac diameter, and the length of the remaining sac after EVAR. Baseline characteristics. And these are the re-interventions.
For any indications, we had 143 secondary interventions. 99 of those were following EVAR in 54 patients. By further breaking it down, we found 18 reinterventions for proximal neck complications, and 19 reinterventions
for thrombo-occlusive limb complications. So those are the complications we are trying to predict. So when you put everything in a graph, like the graphs from the EVAR 1 trial, you get these curves,
and this is the neck diameter in patients without neck reintervention, zero, one month, six months, 12, 18, and 24 months. There's a general increase of the diameter that we know.
But notice it, there are a lot of patients that have an increase here, and never had any reintervention. We had a couple of reinterventions in the long run, and all of these spaces seem to be staying relatively stable,
so that's not helping much. This is the same information for the aortic length reinterventions. So statistical analysis of these amounts of data and longitudinal measures is not that easy. So here we are looking at
the neck diameters compared for all patients with 12 month full follow-up, 18 and 24. You see there's really nothing happening. The only thing is that we found the sac diameter after EVAR seems to be decreasing more for patients who have had reinterventions
at their iliac limbs for thrombo-occlusive disease. That is something we recognize from the literature, and especially from these stent grafts in the early 2000s. So conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, CT changes in the first two months after EVAR
predict not a lot. Neck diameter was not predictive for neck-reinterventions. Sac diameter seems to be associated with iliac limb reinterventions, and aneurysm length was not predictive
of iliac limb reinterventions. Thank you very much.
- These are my disclosures, as it pertains to this talk. FEVAR has become increasingly common treatment for juxtarenal aneurysm in the United States since it's commercial release in 2012. Controversy remains, however, with regard to stenting the SMA when it is treated with a single-wide, 10 mm scallop in the device.
You see here, things can look very similar. You see SMA treated with an unstented scallop on the left and one treated with the stented SMA on the right. It has been previously reported by Jason Lee that shuttering can happen with single-wide scallops of the SMA and in their experience
the SMA shuttering happens to different degree in patients, but is there in approximately 50% of the patients. But in his experience, the learning curve suggests that it decreases over time. At UNC, we use a selective criteria for stenting in the SMA. We will do a balloon test in the SMA,
as you see in the indication, and if the graft is not moved, then our SMA scallop is appropriate in line. If we have one scallop and one renal stent, its a high likelihood that SMA scallop will shift and change over time. So all those patients get stented.
If there is presence of pre-existing visceral stenosis we will stent the SMA through that scallop and in all of our plans, we generally place a 2 mm buffer, between the bottom edge of the scallop and the SMA. We looked over our results and 61 Zenith fenestrated devices performed over a short period of time.
We looked at the follow-up out up to 240 days and 40 patients in this group had at least one single wide scallop, which represented 2/3 of the group. Our most common configuration as in most practices is too small renal fenestrations and one SMA scallop.
Technically, devices were implanted in all patients. There were 27 patients that had scallops that were unstented. And 13 of the patients received stented scallops. Hospital mortality was one out of 40, from a ruptured hepatic artery aneurysm post-op.
No patients had aneurysm-related mortality to the intended treated aneurysm. If you look at this group, complications happen in one of the patients with stented SMA from a dissection which was treated with a bare metal stent extension at the time
of the initial procedure. And in the unstented patients, we had one patient with post-op nausea, elevated velocities, found to have shuttering of the graft and underwent subsequent stenting. The second patient had elevated velocities
and 20-pound weight loss at a year after his treatment, but was otherwise asymptomatic. There is no significant difference between these two groups with respect to complication risk. Dr. Veith in the group asked me to talk about stenting choice
In general, we use the atrium stent and a self-expanding stent for extension when needed and a fenestrated component. But, we have no data on how we treat the scallops. Most of those in our group are treated with atrium. We do not use VBX in our fenestrated cases
due to some concern about the seal around the supported fenestration. So Tips, we generally calculate the distance to the first branch of the SMA if we're going to stent it. We need to know the SMA diameter, generally its origin where its the largest.
We need to position the imaging intensifier orthogonal position. And we placed the stent 5-6 mm into the aortic lumen. And subsequently flare it to a 10-12 mm balloon. Many times if its a longer stent than 22, we will extend that SMA stent with a self-expanding stent.
So in conclusion, selective stenting of visceral vessels in single wide scallops is safe in fenestrated cases during this short and midterm follow-up if patients are carefully monitored. Stenting all single wide scallops is not without risk and further validation is needed
with multi-institution trial and longer follow-up
- Thank you. I have no conflict of interest. Now the first burning question in carotid artery disease management. I agree with the previous speaker somewhat. Is that is who if anyone with asystematic Carotid Stenosis is likely to benefit from a carotid procedure
in addition to current optimal medical intervention? Where I have to ask this question because of significant advances in medical revascularization over the last three to four decades. Particularly since ACAS was published.
Now at most about 4% of persons with asystametic cartonied stenosis will have a stroke caused by the lesion as explained on Tuesday. We just know that its overall harmful and wasteful to do a procedure on all of them.
But stoke risk stratification cannot identify those who now benefit from carotid endocardectomy and stenting is overall more harmful than endocardectomy. There are many proposed markers of high stroke risk in asymptomatic carotenosis patients given just medical treatment.
Including those some of the European society vascular surgeons. But we already know that each of these markers used in isolation they lack sufficient specificity to identify those most likely to benefit from a procedure. In other words they are to common.
And also the event rates with these individual markers are too low. Particularly considering that all of these studies of these markers were done with suboptimal medical treatment. The second burning question.
Is will prevailing carotid trails find a current procedural indication in stroke prevention? Well the answer with respect to ACST-2 is no. Because its just a trail of stinted verse endocaretomy There is no medical treatment only arm. So its not testing the efficacy of these procedures.
It will help to measure harm of one procedure versus another. But this is of little value without a procedurual indication in the first place. The answer of CREST-2 is not too. Because unfortunately there randomizing
average risk patients like those in ACAS. And we already know that to do a procedure on all of these people is going to be futile and harmful. There's no stroke risk stratification before recruitment. An although they are doing some sub group analysis with markers.
Are these powered sufficiently? I haven't seen that is the case so far. If you look at the CREST-2 sample size. There is approximately 85% power to detect differences in peri-procedural stroke or death or later ipsilateral stroke with endocardectomy versus stent
or stenting versus medical treatment. If the average annual event rate in the medical intervention arm is greater than 2.1 or less than .2 compared to .9 in those procedural arms. Now we know from CREST-1 that they did achieve and average annual event rate of .9 with endocardectomy
but not with stenting. The risk there was about twice as high at 1.6. And its highly likely that they will get an annual event rate in the medical intervetion arm within that range. So that means that the overall role
CREST is most likely to show that stenting causes harm and endocardrectomy knows significant difference with the respect to medical intervention on its own. In other words no procedural indication because if stenting is more harmful we won't do it. And if endocardectomy adds no benefit we won't do it.
The same response for ESCT-2 because like CREST-2 its randomizing average surgical risk patients. No stroke risk stratification before recruitment. Not pre-powered for high stroke risk markers that we have been talking about. ACTRIS has the best chance of finding a procedural role
in asystematic carotid stenosis because they are doing stroke restratification before recruitment. Using embolize detection, errands of impaired to cerebral vascular reserve, errands of intraplaque hemorrhage on MRI
and errands of rapid and severe stenosis progression. But the outcome of this will depend on how the data is analyzed. For example these markers be tested separtly or combined. We already know that markers individually lack specificity. And at the moment the trail does appear to underpowered
with the total of only 700 total patients expected. Mean while TCAR is being accessed only in registries plus or minus input in CREST-2. So it appears we have absent or underpowered comparisons with current medical intervention.
So a clinical indication is unlikely to be established with the current research that is planned. Actually procedural trails are premature when it comes to asystametic cartonid stenosis. What we should be doing is first defining current optimal medical treatment.
Measuring its impact. Risk stratifying people. Using procedural trials only if we find a sub group with an ipsilateral stroke rate that is high enough despite current optimal medical treatment. So if anyone would like to help on this path.
Please speak to me afterwards.
- Thank you very much. So this is more or less a teaser. The outcome data will not be presented until next month. It's undergoing final analysis. So, the Vici Stent was the stent in the VIRTUS Trial. Self-expanding, Nitinol stent,
12, 14, and 16 in diameter, in three different lengths, and that's what was in the trial. It is a closed-cell stent, despite the fact that it's closed-cell, the flexibility is not as compromised. The deployment can be done from the distal end
or the proximal end for those who have any interest, if you're coming from the jugular or not in the direction of flow, or for whatever reason you want to deploy it from this end versus that end, those are possible in terms of the system. The trial design is not that different than the other three
now the differences, there are minor differences between the four trials that three completed, one soon to be complete, the definitions of the endpoints in terms of patency and major adverse events were very similar. The trial design as we talked about, the only thing
that is different in this study were the imaging requirements. Every patient got a venogram, an IVUS, and duplex at the insertion and it was required at the completion in one year also, the endpoint was venographic, and those who actually did get venograms,
they had the IVUS as well, so this is the only prospective study that will have that correlation of three different imagings before, after, and at follow-up. Classification, everybody's aware, PTS severity, everybody's aware, the endpoints, again as we talked about, are very similar to the others.
The primary patency in 12 months was define this freedom from occlusion by thrombosis or re-intervention. And the safety endpoints, again, very similar to everybody else. The baseline patient characteristics, this is the pivotal, as per design, there were 170 in the pivotal
and 30 in the feasibility study. The final outcome will be all mixed in, obviously. And this is the distribution of the patients. The important thing here is the severity of patients in this study. By design, all acute thrombotic patients, acute DVT patients
were excluded, so anybody who had history of DVT within three months were excluded in this patient. Therefore the patients were all either post-thrombotic, meaning true chronic rather than putting the acute patients in the post-thrombotic segment. And only 25% were Neville's.
That becomes important, so if you look at the four studies instead of an overview of the four, there were differences in those in terms on inclusion/exclusion criteria, although definitions were similar, and the main difference was the inclusion of the chronics, mostly chronics, in the VIRTUS study, the others allowed acute inclusion also.
Now in terms of definition of primary patency and comparison to the historical controls, there were minor differences in these trials in terms of what that historical control meant. However, the differences were only a few percentages. I just want to remind everyone to something we've always known
that the chronic post-thrombotics or chronic occlusions really do the worst, as opposed to Neville's and the acute thrombotics and this study, 25% were here, 75% were down here, these patients were not allowed. So when the results are known, and out, and analyzed it's important not to put them in terms of percentage
for the entire cohort, all trials need to report all of these three categories separately. So in conclusion venous anatomy and disease requires obviously dedicated stent. The VIRTUS feasibility included 30 with 170 patients in the pivotal cohort, the 12 months data will be available
in about a month, thank you.
- Thank you (mumbles) and thank you Dr. Veith for the kind invitation to participate in this amazing meeting. This is work from Hamburg mainly and we all know that TEVAR is the first endovascular treatment of choice but a third of our patients will fail to remodel and that's due to the consistent and persistent
flow in the false lumen over the re-entrance in the thoracoabdominal aorta. Therefore it makes sense to try to divide the compartments of the aorta and try to occlude flow in the false lumen and this can be tried by several means as coils, plug and glue
but also iliac occluders but they all have the disadvantage that they don't get over 24 mm which is usually not enough to occlude the false lumen. Therefore my colleague, Tilo Kolbel came up with this first idea with using
a pre-bulged stent graft at the midportion which after ballooning disrupts the dissection membrane and opposes the outer wall and therefore occludes backflow into the aneurysm sac in the thoracic segment, but the most convenient
and easy to use tool is the candy-plug which is a double tapered endograft with a midsegment that is 18 mm and once implanted in the false lumen at the level of the supraceliac aorta it occludes the backflow in the false lumen in the thoracic aorta
and we have seen very good remodeling with this approach. You see here a patient who completely regressed over three years and it also answers the question how it behaves with respect to true and false lumen. The true lumen always wins and because once
the false lumen thrombosis and the true lumen also has the arterial pressure it does prevail. These are the results from Hamburg with an experience of 33 patients and also the international experience with the CMD device that has been implanted in more than 20 cases worldwide
and we can see that the interprocedural technical success is extremely high, 100% with no irrelevant complications and also a complete false lumen that is very high, up to 95%. This is the evolvement of the candy-plug
over the years. It started as a surgeon modified graft just making a tie around one of the stents evolving to a CMD and then the last generation candy-plug II that came up 2017 and the difference, or the new aspect
of the candy-plug II is that it has a sleeve inside and therefore you can retrieve the dilator without having to put another central occluder or a plug in the central portion. Therefore when the dilator is outside of the sleeve the backflow occludes the sleeve
and you don't have to do anything else, but you have to be careful not to dislodge the whole stent graft while retrieving the dilator. This is a case of a patient with post (mumbles) dissection.
This is the technique of how we do it, access to the false lumen and deployment of the stent graft in the false lumen next to the true lumen stent graft being conscious of the fact that you don't go below the edge of the true lumen endograft
to avoid (mumbles) and the final angiography showing no backflow in the aneurysm. This is how we measure and it's quite simple. You just need about a centimeter in the supraceliac aorta where it's not massively dilated and then you just do an over-sizing
in the false lumen according to the Croissant technique as Ste-phan He-lo-sa has described by 10 to 30% and what is very important is that in these cases you don't burn any bridges. You can still have a good treatment
of the thoracic component and come back and do the fenestrated branch repair for the thoracoabdominal aorta if you have to. Thank you very much for your attention. (applause)
- Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentleman, first of all, I would like to thank Dr. Veith for the honor of the podium. Fenestrated and branched stent graft are becoming a widespread use in the treatment of thoracoabdominal
and pararenal aortic aneurysms. Nevertheless, the risk of reinterventions during the follow-up of these procedures is not negligible. The Mayo Clinic group has recently proposed this classification for endoleaks
after FEVAR and BEVAR, that takes into account all the potential sources of aneurysm sac reperfusion after stent graft implant. If we look at the published data, the reported reintervention rate ranges between three and 25% of cases.
So this is still an open issue. We started our experience with fenestrated and branched stent grafts in January 2016, with 29 patients treated so far, for thoracoabdominal and pararenal/juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. We report an elective mortality rate of 7.7%.
That is significantly higher in urgent settings. We had two cases of transient paraparesis and both of them recovered, and two cases of complete paraplegia after urgent procedures, and both of them died. This is the surveillance protocol we applied
to the 25 patients that survived the first operation. As you can see here, we used to do a CT scan prior to discharge, and then again at three and 12 months after the intervention, and yearly thereafter, and according to our experience
there is no room for ultrasound examination in the follow-up of these procedures. We report five reinterventions according for 20% of cases. All of them were due to endoleaks and were fixed with bridging stent relining,
or embolization in case of type II, with no complications, no mortality. I'm going to show you a couple of cases from our series. A 66 years old man, a very complex surgical history. In 2005 he underwent open repair of descending thoracic aneurysm.
In 2009, a surgical debranching of visceral vessels followed by TEVAR for a type III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. In 2016, the implant of a tube fenestrated stent-graft to fix a distal type I endoleak. And two years later the patient was readmitted
for a type II endoleak with aneurysm growth of more than one centimeter. This is the preoperative CT scan, and you see now the type II endoleak that comes from a left gastric artery that independently arises from the aneurysm sac.
This is the endoleak route that starts from a branch of the hepatic artery with retrograde flow into the left gastric artery, and then into the aneurysm sac. We approached this case from below through the fenestration for the SMA and the celiac trunk,
and here on the left side you see the superselective catheterization of the branch of the hepatic artery, and on the right side the microcatheter that has reached the nidus of the endoleak. We then embolized with onyx the endoleak
and the feeding vessel, and this is the nice final result in two different angiographic projections. Another case, a 76 years old man. In 2008, open repair for a AAA and right common iliac aneurysm.
Eight years later, the implant of a T-branch stent graft for a recurrent type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysm. And one year later, the patient was admitted again for a type IIIc endoleak, plus aneurysm of the left common iliac artery. This is the CT scan of this patient.
You will see here the endoleak at the level of the left renal branch here, and the aneurysm of the left common iliac just below the stent graft. We first treated the iliac aneurysm implanting an iliac branched device on the left side,
so preserving the left hypogastric artery. And in the same operation, from a bowl, we catheterized the left renal branch and fixed the endoleak that you see on the left side, with a total stent relining, with a nice final result on the right side.
And this is the CT scan follow-up one year after the reintervention. No endoleak at the level of the left renal branch, and nice exclusion of the left common iliac aneurysm. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, the risk of type I endoleak after FEVAR and BEVAR
is very low when the repair is planning with an adequate proximal sealing zone as we heard before from Professor Verhoeven. Much of reinterventions are due to type II and III endoleaks that can be treated by embolization or stent reinforcement. Last, but not least, the strict follow-up program
with CT scan is of paramount importance after these procedures. I thank you very much for your attention.
- I'd like to share with you our experience using tools to improve outcomes. These are my disclosures. So first of all we need to define the anatomy well using CTA and MRA and with using multiple reformats and 3D reconstructions. So then we can use 3D fusion with a DSA or with a flouro
or in this case as I showed in my presentation before you can use a DSA fused with a CT phase, they were required before. And also you can use the Integrated Registration like this, when you can use very helpful for the RF wire
because you can see where the RF wire starts and the snare ends. We can also use this for the arterial system. I can see a high grade stenosis in the Common iliac and you can use the 3D to define for your 3D roadmapping you can use on the table,
or you can use two methods to define the artery. Usually you can use the yellow outline to define the anatomy or the green to define the center. And then it's a simple case, 50 minutes, 50 minutes of ccs of contrast,
very simple, straightforward. Another everybody knows about the you know we can use a small amount of contrast to define the whole anatomy of one leg. However one thing that is relatively new is to use a 3D
in order to map, to show you the way out so you can do in this case here multiple segmental synosis, the drug-eluting-balloon angioplasty using the 3D roadmap as a reference. Also about this case using radial fre--
radial access to peripheral. Using a fusion of image you can see the outline of the artery. You can see where the high grade stenosis is with a minimum amount of contrast. You only use contrast when you are about
to do your angiogram or your angioplasty and after. And that but all everything else you use only the guide wires and cathers are advanced only used in image guidance without any contrast at all. We also been doing as I showed before the simultaneous injection.
So here I have two catheters, one coming from above, one coming from below to define this intravenous occlusion. Very helpful during through the and after the 3D it can be helpful. Like in this case when you can see this orange line is where
the RF wire is going to be advanced. As you can see the breathing, during the breathing cycle the pleura is on the way of the RF wire track. Pretty dangerous stuff. So this case what we did we asked the anesthesiologist
to have the patient in respiratory breath holding inspiration. We're able to hyperextend the lungs, cross with the RF wire without any complication. So very useful. And also you can use this outline yellow lines here
to define anatomy can help you to define where you need to put the stents. Make sure you're covering everything and having better outcomes at the end of the case without overexposure of radiation. And also at the end you can use the same volt of metric
reconstruction to check where you are, to placement of the stent and if you'd covered all the lesion that you had. The Cone beam CT can be used for also for the 3D model fusion. As you can see that you can use in it with fluoro as I
mentioned before you can do the three views in order to make sure that the vessels are aligned. And those are they follow when you rotate the table. And then you can have a pretty good outcome at the end of the day at of the case. In that case that potentially could be very catastrophic
close to the Supra aortic vessels. What about this case of a very dramatic, symptomatic varicose veins. We didn't know and didn't even know where to start in this case. We're trying to find our way through here trying to
understand what we needed to do. I thought we need to recanalize this with this. Did a 3D recan-- a spin and we saw ours totally off. This is the RFY totally interior and the snare as a target was posterior in the ASGUS.
Totally different, different plans. Eventually we found where we needed to be. We fused with the CAT scan, CT phase before, found the right spot and then were able to use
Integrated registration for the careful recanalization above the strip-- interiorly from the Supraaortic vessels. As you can see that's the beginning, that's the end. And also these was important to show us where we working.
We working a very small space between the sternal and the Supraaortic vessels using the RF wire. And this the only technology would allowed us to do this type of thing. Basically we created a percutaneous in the vascular stent bypass graft.
You can you see you use a curved RF wire to be able to go back to the snare. And that once we snare out is just conventional angioplasty recanalized with covered stents and pretty good outcome. On a year and a half follow-up remarkable improvement in this patient's symptoms.
Another patient with a large graft in the large swelling thigh, maybe graft on the right thigh with associated occlusion of the iliac veins and inclusion of the IVC and occlusion of the filter. So we did here is that we fused the maps of the arterial
phase and the venous phase and then we reconstruct in a 3D model. And doing that we're able to really understand the beginning of the problem and the end of the problem above the filter and the correlation with the arteries. So as you can see,
the these was very tortuous segments. We need to cross with the RF wire close to the iliac veins and then to the External iliac artery close to the Common iliac artery. But eventually we were able to help find a track. Very successfully,
very safe and then it's just convention technique. We reconstructed with covered stents. This is predisposed, pretty good outcome. As you can see this is the CT before, that's the CT after the swelling's totally gone
and the stents are widely open. So in conclusion these techniques can help a reduction of radiation exposure, volume of contrast media, lower complication, lower procedure time.
In other words can offer higher value in patient care. Thank you.
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.