REKANALISATION CHRONISCH VENÖSER VERSCHLÜSSE · 2020-01-30 · Venous obstruction ... Common...
Transcript of REKANALISATION CHRONISCH VENÖSER VERSCHLÜSSE · 2020-01-30 · Venous obstruction ... Common...
Michael K. W. Lichtenberg, FESC
REKANALISATION CHRONISCH VENÖSER VERSCHLÜSSE
Conflict of Interest - Disclosure
Within the past 12 months, I or my spouse/partner have had a financial
interest/arrangement or affiliation with the organization(s) listed below.
Affiliation/Financial Relationship Company
1. Honoraria for lectures: CR Bard, Veniti, AB Medica, Volcano, Optimed
GmbH, Straub Medical, Terumo, Biotronik, Veryan
2. Honoraria for advisory board activities: Veniti, Optimed GmbH, Straub
Medical, Biotronik, Veryan, Boston Scientific
3. Participation in clinical trials: Biotronik, CR Bard, Veryan, Straub Medical,
Veniti, TVA Medical, Boston Scientific, LimFlow
4. Research funding: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Veryan, Veniti, AB Medica
C6, 58 year female, postthrombotic syndrome
Sinus XL Stent (22 x 80 mm) 4 x Veniti Stent (16 x 120 mm + 14 x 60 mm)
Significant body of clinical work • Existing stents…Wallstent
• Good success treating obstructive component of many venous disorders
Current generation of stents being studied • VIVO Trial – Zilver Vena (Cook Medical)
• VIRTUS Trial – VICI VENOUS STENT (VENITI, Inc.)
Venous Stenting is Not New
Autor Jahr Stent N = Patienten
Primäre Patency Sekundäre Patency
Lichtenberg (1)
2016 Zilver Vena 35 87.9 % 12 Monate
Ye (2) 2012 Wallstent 205 98.0 % 48 Monate
100 % 48 Monate
Hartung (3) 2009 Wallstent 89 83.0 % 120 Monate
93 % 120 Monate
Neglen (4) 2008 Wallstent 177 86.0 % 72 Monate
93 % 72 Monate
Knipp (5) 2007 Wallstent 54 38.0 % 60 Monate
73 % 60 Monate
Nazarin (6) 1996 Wallstent, Palmaz
55 59-72 % 48 Monate
75 % 48 Monate
Ye K et al. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012;23: 497-502
Hartung O et al. J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;38: 118-24
Nazarin et al. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1996 Jul-Aug;19(4):227-33
Neglen et al. Journal of Vascular Surgery, Volume 48, Pages 1255–1261, 2008
Knipp et al. Journal of Vascular Surgey, Volume 46, Issue 4, Pages 743–749.e1, October 2007
Lichtenberg et al. Oral presentation during DGA annual congress 2016
Venous obstruction • Very different than arterial obstruction, and venous stents
need to do a different job
• Involves high compressive forces from external pressure and/or fibrosis
Why not arterial stents?
• Self-expandable
• Crush resistant across length of stent
• Sufficient chronic outward force
• Sufficient wall coverage
• Flexibility sufficient to resist kink at physiological angles
• Durability allowing repeated shortening, twisting, and bending at the groin
• Minimal foreshortening on deployment and balloon dilation
• Predictable, consistent deployment
Desired Venous Stent Attributes
Goal… Ideal BALANCE strength, flexibility, and lumen quality.
Closed Cell Open Cell
Design Attributes • All struts interconnected • Not all struts interconnected
Performance
Crush Resistance ++ + Flexibility + ++ Coverage ++ +
Performance Characteristics
Radial Force and Crush Resistance
0,146
0,049
0,030
BARD VENOVO 14X160 N=20
OPTIMED SINUS VENOUS 14X80
N=3
COOK ZILVER VENA 14X100
N=2
Rad
ial R
esis
tive
Fo
rce
at
1m
m o
vers
ize
(N
/mm
)
Radial Resistive Force
2,65
1,94
1,18
BARD VENOVO 14X160 N=20
OPTIMED SINUS VENOUS 14X80
N=3
COOK ZILVER VENA 14X100
N=3
Loca
l Co
mp
ress
ion
Fo
rce
(N
)
Crush Resistance
Bench testing may not be indicative of clinical performance. Different test
methods may yield different results. Competitive testing samples represent
commercially available venous stents with CE mark as of June 2014.
This product is not available for sale in the US
Stent Flexibility
1,29
0,62
0,43
BARD VENOVO 14X160 OPTIMED SINUS VENOUS 14X80
COOK ZILVER VENA 14X100
3 P
oin
t B
end
ing
Stif
fnes
s (N
)
Bard
Cook Optimed
Bench testing may not be
indicative of clinical
performance. Different test
methods may yield different
results. Competitive testing
samples represent
commercially available venous
stents with CE mark as of June
2014.
Bard N=20
Optimed Sinus Venous N=3
Cook Zilver Vena N=3
This product is not available for sale in the US
Stent options !
Boston
Wallstent Optimed
Cook
Zilver Vena Veniti Vici
Optimed
Sinus
obliquus
Bard
Venovo
VIVO (EU) Trial VIRTUS Trial
VERNACULARTrial Sinus Obliquus-01-NIS
Upcoming: Medtronic, Gore, ab Medica, INTACT, Abbott Vascular
Results from VIVO-EU, a Prospective Study of
the Zilver® VenaTM Venous Stent in the Treatment
of Symptomatic Iliofemoral Outflow Obstruction
Michael Lichtenberg, M.D. and
Jennifer McCann-Brown, Ph.D., RAC
1Klinikum Arnsberg, Germany; 2Cook Research Incorporated
On behalf of the Investigators:
Christoph Binkert, M.D.
Narayan Karunanithy, M.D.
Michael Lichtenberg, M.D.
Marta Ramirez Ortega, M.D.
15
Real World Patient Population
16
Medical History Reported
(N=35)
Clotting disorder (family history) 14.3% (5)
Bleeding diathesis/coagulopathy 14.3% (5)
Pulmonary embolism (history or current)
20.0% (7)
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) 62.9% (22)
Acute DVT Acute DVT on Chronic DVT
Chronic DVT
40.9% (9/22) 9.1% (2/22)
50.0% (11/22)
DVT (family history) 28.6% (10)
History of cancer 8.6% (3)
Currently undergoing treatment 33.3% (1/3)
Acute DVT Acute DVT on Chronic DVT
Chronic DVT
40.9% (9/22) 9.1% (2/22)
50.0% (11/22)
Baseline Lesion Data
17
Vessel location(s) Site Reported
(n=35) Core Lab
(n=34)
Side treated
Left
Right
94.3% (33)
5.7% (2)
94.1% (32)
5.9% (2)
Lesion Location
Common iliac vein 57.1% (20) 55.9% (19)
External iliac, common iliac veins 22.9% (8) 14.7% (5)
Common femoral, external iliac, common iliac
veins 20.0% (7) 20.6% (7)
Common femoral vein 0% (0) 5.9% (2)
Femoral, common femoral, external iliac,
common iliac veins 0% (0) 2.9% (1)
Lesion Characteristics
Lesion Length (mm; Mean ± SD) 106 ± 69 (n=35)
(range: 20-256 mm)
89.3 ±58.6 mm (n=31)
(range: 5.6-219.9)
Total Occlusion 12.9% (4/31)1 22.6% (7/31)
Lesion data are consistent with previous reports for this population.
1A determination of total occlusion could not be made in four patients. .
Major Adverse Events
Major Adverse Event Frequency (n=35)
Procedural bleeding requiring transfusion 0
Procedure- or device-related death 0
Clinically-driven target lesion reintervention for occlusion1 1
Stent migration requiring intervention 0
Procedure- or device-related symptomatic pulmonary embolism2 1
Procedure-related uncorrectable perforation 0
Procedure-related flow-limiting dissection of the target vessel 0
Total 2
1 A clinically-driven reintervention for occlusion at 155 days post-procedure. Edema and a pre-reintervention INR of 1.1; the occlusion was treated by thrombolysis, balloon angioplasty, and additional stent placement.
2 A symptomatic pulmonary embolism one day post-procedure, categorized as possibly related to the study procedure and managed by a change in medication. No additional clinical sequelae reported.
18
Venous Clinical Severity Score Improved Following Treatment
19
Four patients did not complete 12-month follow-up due to unrelated death (n=1), withdrawal (n=1), or lost-to-follow-up (n=2). Patients with any reintervention (n=5) in the stented vessel were excluded from subsequent assessment of venous clinical symptoms.
VICI 14 x 120 mm
VIRTUS Feasibility Trial Design
Objective Assess safety & effectiveness in achieving patency of target venous lesion through 12-M post stent placement
Safety MAEs @ 30 days
Effectiveness Primary Patency @ 12-M
Principal Investigators
Dr. William Marston Dr. Mahmood Razavi
Study Design Prospective, multicenter, single arm non-randomized, up to 45 sites worldwide
Patient Population
200 subjects with clinically significant chronic non-malignant obstruction of the iliofemoral venous segment – first 30 were feasibility.
Etiologies: Post Thrombotic (75%); Non Thrombotic (25%)
Core Labs
Venography: Syntactx IVUS: St. Lukes DUS: VasCore/MGH X-Ray: Syntactx
Non-thrombotic
Post-thrombotic
Image Courtesy of Mr. Stephen Black
Image Courtesy of Mr. Mahmood Razavi
Demographics & Medical History Female 24 (80%) Male 6 (20%)
Age 44.4 ±14.1 years
CEAP* Baseline
0 3% (pain by VCSS Score of ≥2)
1 0%
2 0%
3 47%
4 40%
5 7%
6 3%
Etiology
PTS 63%
NIVL 37%
Target Lesion Location
Lesion1 Location
Patients N = 30
Left N = 25 (83%)
Right N = 5 (17%)
CIV lesions 26/30 (87%)
EIV lesions 18/30 (60%)
CIV & EIV lesions 15/30 (50%)
Lesions that extended into CFV2
9/30 (30%)
Average Target Lesion Length
11.9 ±6.7 cm
1. Some patients have more than 1 lesion or lesion extends in multiple vein segments 2. No lesions were isolated to the CFV alone
Patency by Duplex Ultrasound (Corelab Analysis)
Courtesy of Dr. Ediberto Soto-Cora
Patency Results of Feasibility Cohort (N=30)
Primary Patency1 Secondary
Patency
1- M 93% 100%
6 – M 90% 100%
12 – M 93% 97%
Patency Results at 12-Months (Site Reported)
Primary Patency1
Secondary Patency
Full Cohort (N=30) 87%
(26/30) 97%
(29/30)
Etiology
NIVL 37% 100% (11/11) 100% (11/11)
PTS 63% 79% (15/19) 95% (18/19)
All patients enrolled in the study will be followed until study completion
Patency by Lesion Etiology (Site Reported)
Courtesy by Dr Michael Sadek
Safety Endpoint Results
Primary Safety Endpoint through 30 Days (n=30)
n %
Composite Major Adverse Events (MAE) 0 0
Device or procedure-related death 0 0
Device or procedure-related bleeding 0 0
Device or procedure-related vessel injury 0 0
Device or procedure-related DVT (non-target vessel segment)*
0 0
Clinically significant PE 0 0
Embolization of stent 0 0
No MAEs @ 30 days
VCSS Pain Scale
45% had “substantial symptomatic improvement” (VCSS ≥2 ) @12-M
CIVIQ-20
Arnsberg Venous Registry VENITI VICI VENOUS STENT® System
Objective Assess safety & effectiveness in achieving patency of target venous lesion through 36 months post stent placement (VENITI VICI Stent)
Effectiveness Primary Patency @ 12-M
Principle Investigators Dr. Michael Lichtenberg Dr. Rick de Graaf
Study Design Ongoing prospective, single arm, single center non-randomized registry FU 1 (4 weeks), FU 2 (6 months), FU 3 (12 months), FU 4 (24 months), FU 5 (36 months)
Patient Population Subjects with clinically significant chronic non-malignant obstruction of the iliofemoral venous segment
Demographics N=90
Age in years (mean ± SD [range])
57.4 ± 16.4 [19-84]
Gender Male Female
47.8% (N=43) 52.2% (N=47)
Ethnicity Caucasian
100% (N=90)
Medical history N=90
Coagulation disorder 4.4% (N=4)
Pulmonary embolism 24.4% (N=22)
Deep vein thrombosis 47.8% (N=43)
History of cancer 14.4% (N=13)
Lesion analysis N=90
Sides treated Both Left Right
7.8% (N=7) 74.4% (N=67) 17.8% (N=16)
Lesion location(s)
Left: Common iliac vein External iliac vein Common femoral vein Common iliac vein, external iliac vein Common iliac vein, external iliac vein, common femoral vein External iliac vein, common femoral vein Right: Common femoral vein Common iliac vein External iliac vein Common iliac vein, external iliac vein Common iliac vein, external iliac vein, common femoral vein External iliac vein, common femoral vein Both: External iliac (R), common iliac (L) vein External iliac (R), common iliac (L), external iliac (L) vein Common iliac (R+L), external iliac (L) vein Common iliac (R+L), external iliac (R+L), common femoral (L) vein Common iliac (R+L), external iliac (R+L), common femoral (R+L) vein
37.8% (N=34) 4.4% (N=4) 2.2% (N=2) 17.8% (N=16) 8.9% (N=8) 3.3% (N=3) 2.2% (N=2) 3.3% (N=3) 6.7% (N=6) 1.1% (N=1) 1.1% (N=1) 3.3% (N=3) 1.1% (N=1) 2.2% (N=2) 2.2% (N=2) 1.1% (N=1) 1.1% (N=1)
64 / 90 (71%) patients: Postthrombotic
26 / 90 (29%) patients: NIVL
Effectiveness analysis
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FU 4 w FU 6 mo FU 12 mo
% Patentcy analysis
NIVL PTS
N=50 N=82 N=21
100 % 100 % 100 %
97% 90 % 87 %
9,2
5,4 4,9
4,2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Baseline FU1 FU2 FU3
Mean VCSS score (±SD)
N=90 N=82 N=50 N=21
9.2
5.4 4.9
4.2
Claudication, Pain, Swelling,
Ulceration improvemnt
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Baseline FU1 FU2 FU3
Mean CEAP score (±SD)
N=90 N=82 N=50 N=21
3.6
2.6 2.7
2.4
Conclusions
• Initial 6 and 12-Month efficacy data in the VIRTUS Trial and
Arnsberg Registry are better than reported data: NIVL PTS Primary patency: 100% 87% Secondary Patency: 100% 97%
• Safety data is positive
• Patients feel substantially better
85% of population showed symptomatic improvement after venous stenting (VCSS ≥2) at 12-Months
45% had “substantial symptomatic improvement” (VCSS ≥2 ) at 12-M
• Venous anatomy and disease require dedicated venous stents
35
• Use dedicated venous stent !
• Choose wisely - based on lesion morphology
• Choose wisely – based on stent technology
• More prospective data is needed
Take home message