ThisIsMA wrote:My apologies if this question has already been asked.
My understanding is that balloon angioplasty is a technique that has been used for decades to expand arteries and veins in many other areas of the body.
In the past, as each new location within the body for using balloon angioplasty to treat a condition was begun, were clinical trials required? Was IRB approval required? Were doctors initially prevented from doing the procedure at a new anatomical location?
Or is this a unique process that is happening with CCSVI and MS?
fogdweller wrote:Angioplasty is a very safe procedure. New uses for an accepted and safe procedure should not be a big problem.
Cece wrote:fogdweller wrote:Angioplasty is a very safe procedure. New uses for an accepted and safe procedure should not be a big problem.
Couldn't agree more. "But oh there was a death"...which is beyond tragic, if you read back in the history of the forum you can get a sense of what kind of person Holly was...it just seems like the current excess of caution is blowback from that early riskiness and resultant tragedies.
pklittle wrote:Angioplasty does have risk. It is possible for the vein to burst. I have heard of this happening during heart artery angioplasty.
Another risk is that the vein in the groin that that catheter goes into could collapse or burst. (Don't know if I'm using the correct terms). My own mother had this happen during a heart cath. She lost massive amounts of blood and had to be hospitalized for a week to recover.
No procedure that is invasive should be taken lightly, or minimized.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users