Hi, Dr. Sclafani! Are you back from Italy yeeeet? There has been much excitement over in the ISNVD thread, what a conference. How did your ivus presentation go? What ideas did you find most intriguing over there?
it was a candy store of ideas
The ivus was enjoyed.during the week several on the podium supported the ivus value
a couple of people actually tnink that IVUs may be the gold standard ond eayh.
That's exciting, I am glad it went over well, it is an amazing technology. You see more with IVUS than without it, what's not to like there.
I am thinking to try to use IVUS as the primary diagnostic tool in a few cases, to correlate in reverse, from the ivus to the venogram....see how that works.
the funnel intrigued many, and had some good comprehension but diagnostic perceptsion of what the pathology are is still in discussion phase.
With patients getting treated, I hope they hurry on figuring out what's pathologic and what's not. With the funnel idea, what I'm taking from it is that the narrowing is due to the funnel effect from the valve and that it's actually a healthy vein, but since it's narrowed it may look pathological and a doctor may choose to balloon there.
So i found food for thought
1. CCSVI ultrasound will go to four criteria with the Deep cerebral vein category being stated to need more quiremernt for reproducibility
I did not expect that. Interesting!
2. good presentations on the fluid dynamics and anatomical/phsiological, phsycs correpations
I wish we'd had access to everything. What sou was saying of Dr. Begg's work was very interesting.
3. MRV generally downplayed but flow quantification very interesting
If you look at my MRV, the flow quantification seems to indicate reflux in my azygous, but there was nothing found there during my procedure.
There may be uses for MRV in the research but not in the direct clinical applications, if the doppler does the same job better and cheaper.
4 optical coherence tomography was a bit disappointing to me. OCT was abnormal but i didnt think the results encouraged its use for followup
I would've liked something to come of that. That was Simka's work, iirc.
5. Clinical results were pretty good, but not randomized. One study only showed improvements in fatigue.
The doctors are still perfecting their techniques, too.
Pretty good, not randomized, and all but one study showed results in more than just fatigue.
As a fatigue sufferer, the talk of results in fatigue is in itself exciting.
so much more to discuss
Glad you are back.