With all due respect, sincerely, don't you think it's rather early to discount MRV? Certainly Dr. Zamboni is the giant in the room having discovered CCSVI out of nothing more than a labor of love aimed first at his beloved wife and now continues his fight for the rest of the MS community. Having said that though, it seems there are physicians and research doctors that are stepping forward and embracing Dr. Zamboni's work and research and hopefully even trying to stand on the shoulders of this giant of a man and hero to those of us suffering with MS. So if Dr. E. Mark Haacke and Dr. Zivadinov indicate that MR is useful in attempting to diagnose CCSVI, should we be quick to discount it just because Dr. Zamboni says it only has limited value?
"The current CCSVI MRI protocol that Dr. Zivadinov reported includes both MRV and flow quantification. MR flow quantification is as good as and perhaps even better than ultrasound. With these two features together, MR can catch a lot of the abnormal vessels. Further, MRI can create full 3D vascular information from the aortic arch to the top of the brain. Doppler is also more operator dependent than the MRI. But ultrasound can image the valves and septum in the veins which MRI can not do. So together they make a good combination with flow acting as a common link between them. In summary, both ultrasound and MRI are very important.
As in any technological applications, imaging methods will only get better over time and our ability to diagnose CCSVI will get better. The imaging methods only suggest CCSVI. MRI is a critical assessment tool, especially from the neurological perspective. MRI can measure atrophy, iron content and if the veins are patent."
Especially for now in the early phases when Doppler Ultrasound is very operater dependent, it's easy for the technician to do the test and totally miss CCSVI because it can be slippery to catch it seems.
The two ultrasound technicians that I had for my transcranial doppler had never heard of CCSVI, which is not surprising, and I was not prepared with the correct protocol so I am trying to get my neurologist to retry the test. But now I am scheduled for my first MRV in 5 days. I will certainly be prepared with the protocol from Dr. Haacke.
On a different topic, I would like your opinion if I may ask for it. The day before my MRV I am scheduled to start on Tysabri once again. I was on Tysabri last year for six months but I stopped when I saw a surge in the number of people with PML. But due to continuing to feel worse and worse despite my good efforts I decided to start on it again. I am wondering if having the infusion of Tysabri could present a problem with the contrast for the MRV on the next day. Any thoughts?