AngioVac Aspiration Therapy Registry

Overview

As a structured, multinational retrospective registry the AVATAR Registry addresses the following scientific aspects through systematic data collection, centralized quality control, and robust statistical analysis in patients that were treated with the AngioVac Aspiration System: 1. Quantify Real-World Safety: Composite adverse event rates across diverse populations and indications 2. Assess Effectiveness: Technical and clinical success rates stratified by indication 3. Identify Predictors: Clinical, procedural, and anatomical factors predicting success versus complications 4. Generate Publishable Cohorts: Sufficient statistical power (approx. 1000 patients across 8 indication cohorts) for: * Indication-specific outcomes * Multivariable prediction models * Time-to-event analyses (30-day and 12-month mortality) 5. Establish Best Practices: Evidence-based recommendations for patient selection, procedural technique, and follow-up

The AngioVac Aspiration System is a percutaneous device that enables removal of intravascular and intracardiac thrombotic or infectious material using a venovenous extracorporeal circuit with blood filtration and reinfusion. The system combines: * Direct aspiration of thrombi or vegetations * In-line blood filtration (protecting distal circulation) * Lower embolic risk compared to surgical extraction The AngioVac applications include the following clinical situations: 1. CIED-Related Pathology: Lead-associated thrombus and vegetations during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction 2. Infective Endocarditis: Right-sided infective endocarditis with large vegetations 3. Venous Thrombosis: Central venous thrombi (SVC, IVC, iliofemoral) and right atrial/ventricular thrombi 4. Pulmonary Artery: Acute pulmonary artery thrombotic material 5. Malignancy-Associated: Cancer-associated thrombosis and catheter-associated thrombi Despite increasing clinical adoption, the evidence base remains limited: * Majority of published data consist of single-center case series with small cohorts * Heterogeneous reporting of outcomes, definitions, and complications across studies * Limited head-to-head comparisons with alternative interventions * Insufficient data on safety across diverse indications and patient phenotypes * Predictive factors for success and complications remain poorly characterized