Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Angiosculpt

897 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Angiosculpt

  1. 1. Tony Gershlick University Hospitals of Leicester UK The Angiosculpt Balloon: Does it have a role in interventional cardiology ?
  2. 2. Conflict of Interest Pyramed Speakers Bureau Research Trial Involvement
  3. 3. 3 nitinol spiral “scoring” wires (~0.005”)
  4. 4. Two axial polymeric spring Catheter shaft Guide wire Fixed distal bond “ Floating” intermediate bond Fixed proximal bond Controlled “Floating” Technology The spiral element expansion is controlled by a combination of a fixed distal end and a semi-constrained proximal end
  5. 5. Scoring Element Properties <ul><li>Laser cut from a nitinol tube </li></ul><ul><li>Rectangular shaped “wires” </li></ul><ul><li>Electro-polished </li></ul><ul><li>Shape set </li></ul><ul><li>Assembled (“crimping”) </li></ul>Scanning EM of Scoring Element
  6. 6. Non slip Ca 2+ Lesion preparation
  7. 7. Proposed AngioSculpt Benefits <ul><li>Prepare Vessel for DES/BMS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-slip (avoid “geographic miss”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full stent expansion/apposition at lower balloon pressures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Calcified & Fibrotic Lesions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lesion expansion at lower balloon pressures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less trauma/dissection leading to more predictable results </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bifurcation Lesions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Less elastic “recoil” in ostial side-branches or plaque-shifting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower rate of dissection and need for second stent in side-branch </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-slip </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overcome “stent jail” of side-branch </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In-Stent Restenosis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-slip (avoid “geographic miss”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less tissue “recoil” </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>US Multi centre (FDA) study </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>: PI – Marty Leon </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Multi-center, non-randomized, single-arm, prospective trial </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>200 patients enrolled at 9 sites </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IVUS sub-study in 80 patients </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>14-21 day clinical follow-up </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Independent core labs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>The Data
  9. 9. <ul><li>219 lesions treated </li></ul><ul><li>ISR: 16% </li></ul><ul><li>ACC B2/C lesions: 76% </li></ul><ul><li>Moderate/severe calcification: 35% </li></ul><ul><li>Bifurcation: 29% </li></ul><ul><li>Ostial: 13% </li></ul><ul><li>Lesion length: 17.79±8.94 mm (6.2-55.2) </li></ul><ul><li>RVD: 2.72±0.39 mm </li></ul><ul><li>MLD: 0.78±0.31 mm </li></ul><ul><li>Diameter Stenosis: 71.6±10.2% </li></ul>
  10. 10. Primary Endpoint Results <ul><li>Procedure Success : 98.5% (197/200) </li></ul><ul><li>Clinical Success : 97.5% (195/200) </li></ul>
  11. 11. Pre-PCI Post-AngioSculpt AngioSculpt Post-Stent
  12. 12. Severely Calcified Proximal LAD LAD Ca++ LAD Pre-AS AS Deployment LAD Post-AS LAD Post-Stent LAD Post-Stent
  13. 13. In stent restenosis
  14. 14. <ul><ul><li>Israeli Multi Centre Registry* </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>9 centres </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>125 patients </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Complex lesions (66% Type B2/C) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Successfully deployed in 94.4% of lesions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>0% Perforations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Results evaluated by Angiographic QCA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No device slippage in de novo or in stent restenotic lesions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No perforations, MI, or deaths </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>* Accepted for publication American Journal of Cardiology 2006 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. American Journal of Cardiology, September, 2007 Lesion preparation
  16. 16. Sonoda S et al., J Am Coll Cardiol . 2004;43(11):1959-63
  17. 17. Fujii et al., J Am Coll Cardiol . 2005 Apr 5;45(7):995-8
  18. 18. Study Methods <ul><li>299 lesions divided into 3 sub-groups: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group I: Direct stenting (n=145) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group II: Conventional pre-dilatation¹ (n=117) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group III: Pre-dilatation with the AngioSculpt catheter (n=37) </li></ul></ul></ul>¹Conventional pre-dilatation used a regular semi-compliant balloon
  19. 19. <ul><li>Inclusion Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>>18 years old who signed the CIVT outcome database informed consent </li></ul><ul><li>Single de novo lesions (>50% by QCA) in native coronary arteries </li></ul><ul><li>Lesions with a reference vessel diameter 2.0 – 4.0 mm </li></ul><ul><li>Exclusion Criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Deployment of multiple stents (“overlapping”) </li></ul><ul><li>Post-dilatation pre-IVUS with a balloon other than the stent balloon </li></ul><ul><li>PCI of left main </li></ul><ul><li>PCI of restenotic lesions </li></ul><ul><li>PCI of grafts </li></ul><ul><li>Patient unable to take ASA and/or antiplatelet agents </li></ul>Study Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
  20. 20. Measurements and Definitions <ul><li>*Measured in the tightest segment within the stent through the center of its lumen </li></ul>Minimum Stent Diameter (MSD)*
  21. 21. Measurements and Definitions <ul><li>Stent Expansion (%) = IVUS MSD X 100 </li></ul>SD predicted by manufacturer’s compliance charts
  22. 22. Compliance Chart Example: Taxus™
  23. 23. Table 1. Patient, Angiographic, and Intravascular Ultrasound Lesion Characteristics Direct (n=145) Pre-dilatation (n=117) AngioSculpt (n=37) P -value Age (yrs) 65.2±10.7 62.8±11.6 64.1±11.5 0.5 Gender (male/female) 92/53 80/37 25/12 0.7 Diabetes Mellitus Non-insulin treated diabetes Insulin-treated diabetes 45 (31%) 36 (24.8%) 9 (6.2%) 38 (32.5%) 31 (26.5%) 7(6.0%) 9 (24.1%) 6 (16.2%) 3 (7.9%) 0.08 0.2 0.2 Hypertension 116 (80%) 101 (86.3%) 27 (73%) 0.2 Hypercholesterolemia 120 (82.8%) 98 (85.4%) 30 (81.1%) 0.1 Clinical Presentation Silent Ischemia Stable Angina Unstable Angina 32 (22.1%) 80 (55.2%) 33 (22.8%) 27 (23.1%) 66(56.4%) 24 (20.5%) 7 (18.9%) 23 (62.2%) 7 (18.9%) 0.9 0.7 0.8 Vessel Treated Left anterior descending Left circumflex artery Right coronary artery 78 (53.5%) 36 (24.8%) 31 (21.4%) 62 (53.0%) 21 (17.9%) 34 (29.1%) 13 (35.1%) 5 (13.5%) 19 (51.4%) N/A N/A N/A
  24. 24. Table 1. Patient, Angiographic, and Intravascular Ultrasound Lesion Characteristics (cont’d) Direct (n=145) Pre-dilatation (n=117) AngioSculpt (n=37) P -value IVUS Atheroma Morphology Soft plaque Fibrous plaque Calcific plaque Mixed plaque Lesion Length (mm) Pre-Dilatation Balloon Length IVUS Detected Calcification at Lesion Site IVUS Superficial Calcification Length (mm) Arc of Ca at Lesion Site (degrees) No calcium < 90 > 90 ≤ 180 > 180 ≤ 270 > 270 46 (31.7%) 38 (26.2%) 22 (15.2%) 39 (26.9%) 15.6±9.5 N/A 35 (24.1%) 3.4±2.5 82 (56.6%) 29 (20%) 18 (12.4%) 11 (7.6%) 5 (3.4%) 40 (34.2%) 29 (24.8%) 20 (17.1%) 28 (23.9%) 15.9±9.1 13.5±3.8 28 (23.9%) 3.2±2.6 68 (58.1%) 20 (17.1%) 14 (12.0%) 4 (3.4%) 11 (9.4%) 10 (27%) 9 (24.3%) 6 (16.2%) 12 (32.5%) 16.5±9.2 15±4.2 10 (27.0%) 3.6±2.8 20 (54.1%) 7 (18.9%) 4 (10.8%) 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.04 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.1
  25. 25. Table 2. IVUS Quantitative Assessment Direct (n=145) Pre-dilatation (n=117) AngioSculpt (n=37) P -value Reference Segment EEM cross sectional area, mm 2 Lumen cross sectional area, mm 2 Lumen diameter, mm 10.8±4.4 8.5±2.2 3.3±0.7 10.1±4.3 8.0±2.3 3.2±0.7 10.6±6.5 9.0±2.9 3.6±0.9 0.4 0.1 0.09 Pre-Intervention – Lesion Site EEM cross sectional area, mm 2 Lumen cross sectional area, mm 2 Minimum lumen diameter, mm Plaque and media, mm 2 Plaque burden, % 11.8±4.6 3.0±0.9 1.7±0.3 8.9±3.2 72±10 11.7±4.6 2.9±1.0 1.7±0.6 8.6±3.4 73±10 11.6±4.7 2.5±0.9 1.6±0.3 8.8±3.5 76±10 1.0 0.02 0.2 0.6 0.08
  26. 26. Results <ul><ul><li>On average DES achieved only 77% + 13% of the predicted stent diameter and 70% + 22% of the predicted final area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No difference between patients pre-treated with the Maverick and those with direct stent deployment ( 76% + 13% vs. 76% + 10%, p=0.8) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Patients pre-treated with AngioSculpt had significantly better stent expansion, irrespective of plaque morphology , reaching 88% + 18% of the predicted final stent area (p<0.001) </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Stent Expansion (IVUS measured MSD/Manufacturer’s Predicted MSD) as a Function of Plaque Morphology A IVUS Measured / Manufacturer’s Predicted MSD B C D Soft Fibrotic Calcific Mixed P<0.001 P=0.01 P<0.001 P<0.001 Direct Pre dilate ASC 74% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 75% 87% 77% 82% Direct Pre dilate ASC 87% IVUS Measured / Manufacturer’s Predicted MSD 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 76% Direct Pre dilate ASC 87% IVUS Measured / Manufacturer’s Predicted MSD 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 72% Direct Pre dilate ASC 87% IVUS Measured / Manufacturer’s Predicted MSD 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 75% 77% 20%
  28. 28. Quantitative Analysis – Acute Gain (mm) *P-value <0.001 when group III is compared to groups I and II No significant difference in the comparison between groups I and II * p <0.001 1.2 ± 0.4 0.8 ± 0.4 0.9 ± 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Group I (Direct Stent) Group II (Pre-dilatation with semi-compliant balloon) Group III (AngioSculpt)
  29. 29. Quantitative Analysis Final Stent Area ≥5.0 mm² *P-value <0.001 when group III is compared to groups I and II No significant difference in the comparison between groups I and II * p <0.001 73.8% 74.4% 89% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Group I (Direct Stent) Group II (pre-dilatation with semi-compliant balloon) Group III (AngioSculpt)
  30. 30. Conclusions <ul><li>Drug-eluting stent under-expansion was common, often falling short of even minimum standards of stent expansion </li></ul><ul><li>Conventional balloon pre-dilatation did not improve final stent expansion compared to direct stenting </li></ul><ul><li>Compliance charts failed to reliably predict MSD and MSA after DES implantation </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-treatment with the AngioSculpt was safe and enhanced stent expansion, minimizing the difference between predicted and achieved stent dimensions </li></ul><ul><li>In the era of DES, pre-dilatation with the AngioSculpt may result in a reduced risk of stent thrombosis and a larger stent CSA at follow-up </li></ul>
  31. 31. Coronary Bifurcation Study <ul><li>Single stent strategy (i.e. “provisional” side-branch stenting) </li></ul><ul><li>Prospective multi-center single-arm registry (4-5 sites) </li></ul><ul><li>Sample size: 50 patients? </li></ul><ul><li>Primary endpoints (safety, efficacy) </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary endpoints </li></ul><ul><li>Independent data management </li></ul><ul><li>Core labs: QCA, IVUS </li></ul><ul><li>Other issues? </li></ul>
  32. 34. Sonoda S et al., J Am Coll Cardiol . 2004;43(11):1959-63 Lesion preparation
  33. 35. Fujii et al., J Am Coll Cardiol . 2005 Apr 5;45(7):995-8
  34. 36. <ul><li>Stent Expansion (%) = IVUS MSD/MSA X 100 </li></ul>SD/SA predicted by manufacturer’s compliance charts 87.2 63.2 26.4 12.8 36.8 73.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Group I (direct stent) Group II (Pre- dilatation with semi- compliant balloon) Group III (AngioSculpt) Cypher Taxus
  35. 37. Patient, Angiographic, and Intravascular Ultrasound Lesion Characteristics Direct (n= 145) Pre-dilatation (n = 117) AngioSculpt (n = 37) P -value IVUS Atheroma Morphology Soft plaque Fibrous plaque Calcific plaque Mixed plaque Lesion Length (mm) Pre-Dilatation Balloon Length IVUS Detected Calcification at Lesion Site IVUS Superficial Calcification Length (mm) Arc of Ca at Lesion Site (degrees) No calcium < 90 > 90 ≤ 180 > 180 ≤ 270 > 270 46 (31.7%) 38 (26.2%) 22 (15.2%) 39 (26.9%) 15.6±9.5 N/A 35 (24.1%) 3.4±2.5 82 (56.6%) 29 (20%) 18 (12.4%) 11 (7.6%) 5 (3.4%) 40 (34.2%) 29 (24.8%) 20 (17.1%) 28 (23.9%) 15.9±9.1 13.5±3.8 28 (23.9%) 3.2±2.6 68 (58.1%) 20 (17.1%) 14 (12.0%) 4 (3.4%) 11 (9.4%) 10 (27%) 9 (24.3%) 6 (16.2%) 12 (32.5%) 16.5±9.2 15±4.2 10 (27.0%) 3.6±2.8 20 (54.1%) 7 (18.9%) 4 (10.8%) 3 (8.1%) 3 (8.1%) 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.04 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.1
  36. 38. <ul><li>Patients pre-treated with AngioSculpt had significantly better stent expansion, reaching 88% + 18% of the predicted final stent area (p<0.001) </li></ul>
  37. 39. Quantitative Analysis Acute Gain (mm) *P-value <0.001 when group III is compared to groups I and II No significant difference in the comparison between groups I and II * p <0.001 1.2 + 0.4 0.8 + 0.4 0.9 + 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Group I (Direct Stent) Group II (Pre-dilatation with semi-compliant balloon) Group III (AngioSculpt)
  38. 40. Quantitative Analysis Final Stent Area ≥5.0 mm² *P-value <0.001 when group III is compared to groups I and II No significant difference in the comparison between groups I and II * p <0.001 73.8% 74.4% 89% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Group I (Direct Stent) Group II (pre-dilatation with semi-compliant balloon) Group III (AngioSculpt)
  39. 41. <ul><li>Drug-eluting stent underexpansion was common, often falling short of even minimum standards of stent expansion </li></ul><ul><li>Conventional balloon pre-dilatation did not improve final stent expansion compared to direct stenting </li></ul><ul><li>Compliance charts failed to reliably predict MSD and MSA after DES implantation </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-treatment with the AngioSculpt was safe and enhanced stent expansion, minimizing the difference between predicted and achieved stent dimensions </li></ul><ul><li>In the era of DES, pre-dilatation with the AngioSculpt may result in a reduced risk of stent thrombosis and a larger stent CSA at follow-up </li></ul>
  40. 42. <ul><li>Pre-dilatation strategies (IVUS) study* </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>224 patients / 299 de novo lesions analysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group 1 – Direct Stenting (DES) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group 2 – PTCA balloon + DES </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group 3 – AngioSculpt + DES </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Patient and lesion characteristics similar in all groups </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>DES were commonly under expanded in Groups 1 and 2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>DES often failed to achieve minimum standards of expansion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Conventional pre-dilatation little difference to direct stenting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-treatment with AngioSculpt enhanced stent expansion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>*Circulation October 2006 Vol. 114, No, 18, Supplement II: 732 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  41. 43. <ul><li>Clinical indications </li></ul><ul><li>In-Stent Restenosis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-slip (avoid “geographic miss”) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less tissue “recoil” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Calcified & Fibrotic Lesions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lesion expansion at lower balloon pressures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less trauma/dissection leading to more predictable results </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bifurcation Lesions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Less elastic “recoil” in ostial side-branches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-slip </li></ul></ul>

×