Note we may have some server downtime today and this weekend as we perform some upgrades. Please save a copy of any posts you make during this time in case we have any server trouble. Thank you!
Motiak wrote:I find it hard to believe that BNAC can find abnormalities in like 20-25% of healthy controls and these guys couldn't find abnormalities in 2% of the MS patients that they tested.
dreddk wrote:"In the 76 subjects used in our research, the blood flow in the head and neck veins was normal in everyone except for one person with MS,” Dr Schmierer said.
Further studies to evaluate this theory are underway. Preliminary results from a large study at the University of Buffalo have so far been inconclusive."
frodo wrote:codefellow wrote:While this study by neurologists may almost certainly be biased AGAINST finding anything linking MS and CCSVI, I think we have to acknowledge that other studies by the cardiovascular specialist may be equally biased FOR finding that link.
So we have to be equally cautious when we dismiss a study and when we embrace one.
We have to keep demanding more research, all the while realizing that more research may NOT provide the outcomes we would like to see.
But this only shows that CCSVI is difficult to diagnosize via Doppler, not that there is no link. Invasive venography instead could yield better results.
Criterion 1 is not to be measured under Valsalva, but refluxes lasting seconds have to be detected after normal breathing scanning the entire IJV
VM (valsalva maneuver) testing seems a adequate method by which to detect venous reflux. In our study we detected IJVVI in 38% of MS patients, hence slightly more often than in our reference cohort as well as compared to values reported earlier.28 As Zamboni and co-workers did not report analysis of IJV valve competence using VM it cannot be
excluded that what they detected as reflux was rather caused by IJVVI then by stenosis.
Blood volume flow in the IJVs was assessed as apical as possible in the upper region of the neck close to the mandibular angle. Vertebral vein (VV) flow was assessed either between intervertebral segments C4/C5 or C5/C619. Measurements were obtained at an identical site in supine and upright body position. Ultrasound assessments were performed in an identical fashion in patients and controls.
Criterion 2 is measured with greater reproducibility using the QDP system. this is specialized, a multigate with> 150 Doppler samples
The description of the criteria was made to allow anyone to see abnormalities of the cerebral venous return that had never been seen by
anyone before. The flow anomalies express the presence of vicarious veno-venous shunts. This is 'the true essence of CCSVI Doppler hemodynamics. Flows hampered by septa, membranes, valves, show long lasting abnormal reverse flow in the direction of less resistant collaterals, with lower flow/minute.
The presence of these abnormalities correlates with catheter venography, the gold standard The Doppler studies also correlate well:
-With lower CSF dynamics
-With the worsening of MRI perfusion parameters
With-iron accumulation in subcortical gray matter
smokey wrote:Some questions and comments about this study:
Were any interventional radiologists or vascular surgeons consulted or supervising the procedures. Who interpreted the results?
There are obvious problems with this study if interventional radiologists or vascular specialists were not consulted. Neurologists would have clearly been working outside their areas of expertise, which raises ethical issues. That is not to say neurologists should not be involved in CCSVI studies. Surely the best outcome would be if all specialisations worked together. Now that would be a novel approach!
Methods are given in detail for the purpose of reproducibility. Zamboni’s study design was criticised. This study can and should also be criticised for not following research protocols.
One interpretation of these results is that they show extreme lack of expertise in the area of CCSVI identification.
rumors, rumors, rumors.('Embarassed')
everyone has something to say about the charite trial but nobody took part.
i took part and the sonography wasn´t made by a beginner but by the leader of the sonographic institute of the charite.
and they are not at all sceptic about the ccsvi issue but interested.
they scanned my veins for at least 30 minutes with no abnormal result. i also asked dr. schreiber about the other people in the trial and he mentioned that they couldn´t find anything special so far.
let´s talk again in a couple of years then it will turn out if the stents and all that are really so effective.
p.s.: i also took part at the egcg trial and can say that i have been relapse free since i am on egcg.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users