Embolic protection devices

52
Embolic Protection Devices Embolic Protection Devices Jay S. Yadav M.D. Director, Vascular Intervention Department of Cardiovascular Medicine The Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Transcript of Embolic protection devices

Page 1: Embolic protection devices

Embolic Protection DevicesEmbolic Protection Devices

Jay S. Yadav M.D.

Director, Vascular

InterventionDepartment of Cardiovascular

MedicineThe Cleveland

Clinic Foundation

Page 2: Embolic protection devices

Everyone Embolizes

ejt 048–114Pettelot, et al. Circ 97:1522, 1998Pettelot, et al. Circ 97:1522, 1998

Page 3: Embolic protection devices

Embolization

Common and under recognized CABG 6% stroke CEA 3-10% SVG PTCA4-18% NQMI Coronary Intervention 9%? Arterial Thrombolysis 6-20% foot ischemia Venous Thrombolysis 5-20% pulm embol Mitral Valvuloplasty 1-28% AAA stent grafting 5-11% foot ischemia

Page 4: Embolic protection devices

Acute Coronary Syndromes

ejt 029–144

The “Hot” VesselThe “Hot” Vessel

MicrovascularMicrovascularObstructionObstruction

1000x1000x5x5x

Page 5: Embolic protection devices

BasalBasal PeakPeak00

55

1010

1515

2020

2525Heparin Alone, N=98Abciximab, N=102

²* Coronary Flow Velocity (cm/s)²* Coronary Flow Velocity (cm/s)

IIb/IIIa in Acute MI

ejt 106– 2110

Microvascular PerfusionMicrovascular Perfusion

p = 0.15

* From baseline to day 14* From baseline to day 14

p = 0.024

Neumann, et al. Circ 98:2695–2701, 1998Neumann, et al. Circ 98:2695–2701, 1998

Page 6: Embolic protection devices
Page 7: Embolic protection devices
Page 8: Embolic protection devices
Page 9: Embolic protection devices

Transcranial Doppler (TCD)

MIDDLECEREBRALARTERYVELOCITYCM/SEC

EMBOLI

BALLOON INFLATED DEFLATED

Page 10: Embolic protection devices

Ex-Vivo Carotid Plaque Embolization Model - Ohki

Page 11: Embolic protection devices

Embolic Particles were generated from each plaque

Ex-Vivo Carotid Plaque Embolization ModelOhki T et al. J Vasc Surg 1998; 27:463-71

YADAV

Page 12: Embolic protection devices

Ex-Vivo Carotid Plaque Embolization Model

Ohki T et al. J Vasc Surg 1998; 27:463-71Number of emboli and lesion characteristics

Echolucent0

25

50

75

100

125

Echogenic

Num

ber o

f par

ticle

s

p=0.012

Num

ber o

f par

ticle

s

0

25

50

75

100

125

50 60 70 80 90 100

% Stenosis

Page 13: Embolic protection devices

Why Are There Not More Strokes With Carotid Stenting?

Rapp et al J Vasc Surgery 2000;32:68-76 Ex vivo carotid plaque PTA Particles injected into Rat ICA Grp A: <200 u 100 particles Grp B: 200 to 500 u 100 particles 50 atheroemboli / gram of brain Human brain 1300 g, rat brain 2 g

Page 14: Embolic protection devices

Rapp et al J Vasc Surgery 2000;32:68-76

Most particles released during PTA/Stenting

<200 u 200-500 uDay 1 & 3 nl neuronal ischDay 7 neuronal ischemia

Page 15: Embolic protection devices

Anti-Embolization Devices

Occlusive:– Distal Flow Arrest

» Theron - Balloon Occlusion Catheter» PercuSurge - Balloon Occlusion Guidewire

– Proximal Flow Arrest» Arteria- Balloon Occlusion Guide

Catheter

Page 16: Embolic protection devices

Anti-Embolization Devices

Non-Occlusive: – Supported Filters:

» AngioGuard - Guidewire Filter» MedNova - Guidewire Filter» Trap - Nitinol Filter

– Unsupported Filters:» EPI- Guidewire Filter» Etrap - Guidewire Filter

Page 17: Embolic protection devices

PercuSurge Guard Wire

Page 18: Embolic protection devices

AngioGuard XP

Page 19: Embolic protection devices

ArteriA PAEC

Page 20: Embolic protection devices

Arteria Proximal Flow Arrest - Parodi

Page 21: Embolic protection devices

External to internal carotid flow during common carotidOcclusion:

Baseline External Occlusion: 1 pt ICA to ECA flow: 10 pts / 7.3 %

ECA to ICA flow: 62 pts / 84.9 %

Results:

Page 22: Embolic protection devices

1st Generation 3.9F sheath - 0.014” Wire

Capture EfficiencyParticle Retention Trackability & FlexibilityOne to One TorquabilityRadiopacityWithdraws into 0.035” angioplasty balloon

Universal ApplicationUninterrupted blood flow ( 80µm pores )

EPI

Page 23: Embolic protection devices

E-TRAP® FILTER (MSD)

Page 24: Embolic protection devices

DeviceWire

• Offered in 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 mm basket diameters*.

7.0mm

4.0mm

2.5mm

*Sizes Nominal

Microvena Trap

Page 25: Embolic protection devices

PercuSurge Guard Wire

SAFER trial SVG’s randomized to regular wires vs

Percusurge 750 pts 60 centers

Page 26: Embolic protection devices

PercuSurge Guard Wire

Age 68 DM 35% Class III/IV angina 75% Lesion length 15 mm Thrombus 38%

Page 27: Embolic protection devices

PercuSurge Guard Wire

PS No PSTIMI III 98 % 94 %No Reflow 3.4 % 8 %

Q MI 1.1 % 2.2 %NQ MI 7.3 % 14.4 %MACE 8.4 % 17.3 % p=.001

Page 28: Embolic protection devices

Acute MI

Belli, AJC,2000, TCT abstracts 20 pts AMI Percusurge 17 primary PTCA, 3 rescue All received Abciximab Procedural success: 18/20 TIMI III: 14/20

Page 29: Embolic protection devices

Renal Artery Intervention

Henry, AJC, Oct 2000, TCT abstracts 30 renal arteries - 27 ostial Percusurge Technical Success: 30/30 Renal art occl time: 418 secs (149 - 797) No renal fx deterioration at 6 months

Page 30: Embolic protection devices

Percusurge Renal Stent

Page 31: Embolic protection devices

Percusurge Renal Stent

Page 32: Embolic protection devices

Reduced Delivery Profile

New 4 mm @ 3.2 F profile

Current 4 mm @ 4.6 F profile

Crossing Profiles4 mm 3.2 F5 mm 3.3 F6 mm 3.5 F7 mm 3.7 F8 mm 3.9 F

Lubricious coating on delivery sheath

Page 33: Embolic protection devices

AngioGuard XP

Page 34: Embolic protection devices

German Experience

Eberhard Grube, Siegburg, GR 21 patients :

–9 native coronary–4 carotid bifurcation–6 SVG

Page 35: Embolic protection devices

Cordis AngioGuard Clinical Data

Vessel diam 3.3 + 0.35 mm (2.8-5.8) Stenosis 89% + 8.5% (70% - 95%) Procedural Success 100%

Page 36: Embolic protection devices

Cordis AngioGuard Pathologic Data

U of Minnesota Particles recovered from all patients Number 147 + 111 (20 - 361) Size (Area) 0.10 mm2 + 0.5 mm2 (0.015-20) Embolic Burden per pt:

37 mm2 + 36 mm2 (0.6 mm2 - 110 mm2)

Page 37: Embolic protection devices

Filter Surface Coverage

31 3236

05

10152025303540

% Filter Surface Coverage

SVG Carotid Native Coronary

Average % of filter surface covered with embolic particles

Range 0-80Range 0-60Range 5-50

Page 38: Embolic protection devices

Embolic Particle Size

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

X-se

ctio

nal a

rea

um^2

Largest

SVG Carotid Native Coronary

Maximum particle size recovered

Page 39: Embolic protection devices

Embolic Particle Size

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

X-se

ctio

nal a

rea

um^2

Average

SVG Carotid Native Coronary

Average particle size recovered

Page 40: Embolic protection devices

Coronary SVG

Carotid

E. GrubeSiegburg, GR

Page 41: Embolic protection devices

Material Recovered during PTCA

Page 42: Embolic protection devices

SAPPHIRE RCT + Registry

– 30 Centers– 600 - 900 RCT– 400 Registry– 30 patients per center

Page 43: Embolic protection devices

SAPPHIRE

– Asymptomatic >80%– Symptomatic >70%– RCT– High risk

Page 44: Embolic protection devices

SAPPHIRE: Profile of high risk patients in trial

CHF class III/IV and / or LVEF <30%Open heart surgery W/I 6 weeks Recent MI (>24hrs <4weeks) Unstable angina (CCS class III/IV) Synchronous severe CAD and carotid disease Severe pulmonary disease (FEV<1.0)

Page 45: Embolic protection devices

SAPPHIRE: Profile of high risk patients in trial

Contralateral carotid occlusion Contra. laryn palsy; post-rad Rx, prev. CEA CCA lesions below clavicle High cervicl ICA Severe tandem lesions

Page 46: Embolic protection devices

SapphireStatus of Patient Entry

Total enrollment– 715 pts -

Randomized– 312 pts

Stent registry– 400 pts (closed)

Surgical registry– 3

Page 47: Embolic protection devices

CREST - RCT Symptomatic Patients (NASCET)

Enrolling 2500– CEA vs. CS– 60 Centers– Enrollment - 40+ pts/center - 3 yrs

Page 48: Embolic protection devices

REGISTRIES

– ARCHER 300 pts– EndoTex 300 pts– Shelter 630 pts– CARESS 2000 pts– Maverick 400 pts

Page 49: Embolic protection devices

Guidant ACCUNET™ Embolic Protection System Filter Basket Specifications

Polyurethane filter over Nitinol basket

Diameters: 4-8 mm Filter pore size

120 microns Designed to maintain

perfusion

Caution: Investigational device. Limited by Federal (U.S.) Law to investigational use.

Page 50: Embolic protection devices

CAROTID TrialsTrials Device D.P.D.

Sapphire 5F Precise Angioguard-ex

Crest 6F Acculink Accunet

Shelter 5.5 F Wallstent Percusurge

Caress 5.5 F Wallstent Percusurge

EndoTex 5F Nexstent TBA

Archer 6F Acculink Accunet

Maverick Medtronic-AVE Percusurge

Bard 7F Memotherm Trial Stopped

EPI

Page 51: Embolic protection devices

Conclusions

Definite Role for Emboli Prevention Devices in Coronary and Peripheral Intervention

Selective and Data Driven Most Compelling for Carotids, SVGs, MI,

Renals

Page 52: Embolic protection devices

GPIIb/IIIa Inhibition and Emboli GPIIb/IIIa Inhibition and Emboli Prevention Devices?Prevention Devices?