eric593 wrote:But it's really better isn't it to have diagnostics and treatment occur at the same place? I mean, I think Dr. S said that it's better just to have treatment performed if they're "in" already rather than have to go through diagnostics twice. I think he wrote that he thinks everyone should just be having venograms as part of the initial assessment anyway because the # of people having stenoses is just so high that you might as well just go for the "gold standard" right away and follow it up with treatment at the same time. This way, you'll avoid any problems with false-negatives, etc. that are happening with other tests.
But I very much agree that we need to start identifying more interventional radiologists willing to get on board and become familiar with the protocol and treatments.
bmk1234 wrote:I have just finished a letter and printed off 121 labels to mail to Local IR's and Vascular Surgeons in MINNESOTA. We'll see how many responses I get. I don't have high expectations. But I've been surprised before.
Does anyone know of any Dr's in Minnesota doing the Liberation Procedure?
Please PM me if you do.
Cece wrote:Blaine, that is fantastic!! I think even in the last few months CCSVI has kept on gaining traction. And what the doctor said about waiting for more published studies...makes me think, hurry up IRBs, let's get these studies rolling!
bmk1234 wrote:I agree Cece, I hope some other folks in OTHER STATES will make contacts, send letters etc, to show the interest and "push" them along.
Users browsing this forum: DougL