1 / 62

ENDOVASCULAR FEMORAL STENTS CAN WE RELY ON LONG-TERM FRIENDSHIP ?

ENDOVASCULAR FEMORAL STENTS CAN WE RELY ON LONG-TERM FRIENDSHIP ?. Cairo - EGYPT. Emad A Hussein ; MD. Ain Shams University. Emad A Hussein ; MD. Vascular Surgery Department. ENDOVASCULAR FEMORAL STENTS CAN WE RELY ON LONG-TERM FRIENDSHIP ?. Emad A Hussein ; MD

eytan
Download Presentation

ENDOVASCULAR FEMORAL STENTS CAN WE RELY ON LONG-TERM FRIENDSHIP ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENDOVASCULAR FEMORAL STENTS CAN WE RELY ON LONG-TERM FRIENDSHIP ? Cairo - EGYPT Emad A Hussein ; MD Ain Shams University Emad A Hussein ; MD Vascular Surgery Department

  2. ENDOVASCULAR FEMORAL STENTS CAN WE RELY ON LONG-TERM FRIENDSHIP ? Emad A Hussein ; MD Vascular Surgery Department Ain Shams University Cairo – EGYPT MUSCAT ; OMAN IVC - March 2013

  3. STENT • “ A device that supports against collapse or deformity “ ENDOLUMINAL STENT • The stent is carried by a catheter to a remote site inside the lumen

  4. endovascular support

  5. Use of metallic stents in Surgery BACK TO 16th CENTURY ( Gold in dentistry ! )

  6. ENDOVASCULAR STENTSCURRENT STUATION • 70-85 % of coronary interv.(>1million/yr) • 25-35 % of peripheral interv. ( Thierry; J Endovasc Ther 2003 ) • > 50 types of stents/stent- grafts  FDA • Worldwide market $ 2.5 billion • Annual Growth rate 5 %

  7. ENDOVASCULAR STENTSCURRENT SITUATION RESTENOSIS RATE • 8-10 % for ideal lesions • 30-50 % for complex lesions esp. diabetics ( Gershlick; Heart 2004)

  8. INDICATIONS OF STENTING • 1- Sub optimal PTA / Complex lesions • 2- Recurrent stenoses post-PTA • 3-To fix a PTA complication ; Bail-out ( Dissection , Thromb., Perf. )

  9. Where can stents be used ? Nonvascular - Ureter Bronchial Biliary • Trachea • Oesophagus • Vascular - Coronary arteries - Coronary vein bypass - A. carotid - A. subclavian - A. Renal - TIPPS - Aorta - Dialysis Fistula - A. iliac - A. femoral - Veins - Vena cava sup. syndrome - Vena cava inf. syndrome - Pulmonary stenosis

  10. STENTS - CLASSIFICATION Stent ( Bare )Material • Manufacture Shape& Design • Mode of Deployment • Rate of Compliance • Special Types(Covered & Drug Eluting )

  11. Balloon expandable stents • Production usually out of a pipe tube • Cutting of the design through • - Laser cutting (cleanest technology) • - Water jet technology • Other cutting techniques

  12. Balloon expandable stents Advantages: • - Balloon exp. is a known mechanism • - clear radiopacity • - precise placement • - high radial force Disadvantages: • - no self expansion (deformable from outside) • - may be too rigid. ? CRUSHABILITY • - may not be flexible enough.

  13. Self expandable stents • Material usually nitinol - different stents on the market:Memotherm, Sinus-Stent, Cragg-Stent, Vascucoil, S.M.A.R.T. • Exception mediloy/cobalt alloy - Wallstent

  14. Self expandable stents • Advantages: - Flexible - stable Form, not deformable - Self expansion (own force) • Disadvantages: - Misplacement is often criticized - Lower radial force

  15. S.M.A.R.T.Control Stent Characteristics • Nitinol • Lasercut,electropolished • Multisegmented Design • Micromesh Geometry • Micromarkers • Minimal Foreshortening • Clinical Results

  16. Perfect Wall apposition with self expandable stent S.M.A.R.T. Control Wallstent

  17. WHICH STENT FOR WHICH LESION ? • Site ( anatomy ) - Kinking, Ostial stnosis etc.. • Carotid & fempop  Self exp • Renal  Balloon exp ( ostial ) • Aorto-iliac  Balloon or self exp Morphology - Calcified plaques, recoiling - Exact placement ( close import.branch etc..)

  18. FURTHER FACTS ABOUT STENTS • Bio stability • Bio compatibility Available data derived • In-stent thrombosis from in-vitro testing ! • In-stent stenosis 1ry & 2ry Patency ( Not only technique dependant ! )

  19. Patency Rates Nitinol Stents - Fempop

  20. AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITYVASCULAR SURGERY . 2001-2012 Demerdash + Specialized Hospital Stents Deployed – Balloon / Self Exp. Iliac 143 Fempop 132 ( including 5 hemo / viabahn ) Tibial 33 ( CLLI-Limb salvage ) Renal 16 + Carotid 17 ( short-term F.U ) Venous 39

  21. AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY VASCULAR SURGERY . 2001-2012 • 2010 …. To Date IN FEMOROPOP SEGMENT • MORE DEB & LESS STENTS !

  22. AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY VASCULAR SURGERY . 2001-2012 STENT REGISTRY • Follow-up non uniform ( & so is patency ! ) • Range 4-46 months • Different complications ( Restenosis/ Thromb./ Migration / Fr ? ) Occurring 8 months – 3 years • Determinant Factor ( ? Multifactorial )

  23. AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITYVASCULAR SURGERY . 2001 – 2012 STENT REGISTRY ( Femoropop ) • Total 127 All Self-Exp + 5 Hemobahn / Viabahn • Occlusions93 Stenoses 39 • 1ry Patency ( 3 yrs ) 87 % • Lesion length 1.8 – 17.7 cm

  24. AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITYVASCULAR SURGERY . 2001 – 2012 STENT REGISTRY ( Femoropop ) Stent Fracture 2 ( Lesion > 9 cm ) In Stent Thrombosis 4 ( 3 % ) In Stent Stenosis 6 ( 4.6 % ) – Migration 1 Mortality ( unrelated / MI or CVA ) 3

  25. FINAL RESULT POST-STENT

  26. THE PROBLEM WITH STENTS ? • Metal inside blood vessels  permanent • ? Body reaction Chemical + Mechanical Factors WHAT HAPPENS IN A FEW YEARS ? To stent To artery To body

  27. IN ALL STENTS ( including Nitinol ) • Pitting Corrosion • Fractures • ?Allergy • Degradation Products Pro inflammatory effects commonly associated with RESTENOSIS !

  28. F D A ( 2006 / 2007 ) • “ Long – term biodegradation of metallic devices remains a serious issue ! “

  29. BIO STABILITY Are Alloys used in Endovascular Surgery STABLE ? • Stainless Steel / Nitinol / Elgiloy / Tantalum • All release +ve ions ( esp.nickel ) & liable to pitting corrosion but by the process of passivation (electropolishing ) ion release esp.nitinol ( 75 % less )

  30. BIO STABILITY ? FURTHER COMPOUND PROBLEM Physiologic Body Fluids Contain : • Dissolved O2 • Chloride/ Hydroxide /Sodium • Potassium/ Bicarb/ Phosphate • Magnesium/ Calcium ions VERY CORROSIVE ELECTROLYTES !

  31. BIO COMPATIBILITY “ Blood-Device Surface Interaction “ OR Biologic Response to Degradation Products

  32. BIO COMPATIBILITY Stent Deployed • What happens in the 1st few seconds ?

  33. BIO COMPATIBILITY • Bio material  Blood • A hydration layer forms within seconds • Rapid adsorption of a layer of pl.proteins •  Triggers Cellular invasion Inflammatory response

  34. BIO COMPATIBILITY • Bare metal stents inherently thrombogenic • Rationale for adjunctive Antiplatelets + Anticoagulants • ? Metal hypersensitivity • ? Cytotoxicity & Carcinogenicity ( concern in orthopedic implants )

  35. NITINOL STENT FRACTURE ? • SIROCCO 1 Trial - Cordis  18.2 % ( Duda SH et Al ; Circulation. 2002 ) • SIROCCO II  8 %( J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 ) Long segment SFA Stenting ; 57 pts randomized Sirolimus – Eluting vs Bare NitinolStents F.U 6 ms – Radiologic Screening In SIROCCO 1 , Longer lesions were addressed !? SIROlimus Coated COrdis Self Expandable Stent

  36. NITINOL STENT FRACTURE • LONG SEGMENT FEMPOP NITINOL STENT ( Sabeti S et Al ; J Endovasc Ther . 2005 ) 15 % ( Scheinert B et Al ; J Am Coll Cadiol . 2005 ) 93 pts ( 121 limbs ) F.U 10.7 ms Global Stent Fracture37.2 % Stented Segment =< 8 cm 13.2 % Fr. Rate > 8 – 16 cm 42.4 % Fr. Rate

  37. 1st Study to demonstrate that • “STENT FRACTURE IS NOT A BENIGN INCIDENTAL FINDING , BUT IS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED RESTENOSIS“ • Kaplan Meier estimates for PATENCY at 12 ms Non-Stent Fracture  84.3 % Stent Fracture  41.1 %

More Related