I think you're on to something Patientx, I can't find anything on the use of MRV at all in the preliminary findings reports. From what I can see the 500 patrients underwent Doppler ultrasound and in this testing the healthy controls were found.patientx wrote:Cece wrote:I much prefer the argument that we can dismiss their findings because the MRV imaging is not being found to be as accurate as it should be when BNAC study participants go in for catheter venogram treatment.
But that would be incorrect because the doctors at BNAC used ultrasound, specifically Zamboni's recommended measurements, to gather their data. The MRV's were done as an additional test, in only a subset of the study participants.
Jugular wrote:I think you're on to something Patientx, I can't find anything on the use of MRV at all in the preliminary findings reports. From what I can see the 500 patrients underwent Doppler ultrasound and in this testing the healthy controls were found.
If that's the case, I am not surprised since Doppler ulrasound seems to involve much more subjective interpretation (or difficult to employ methodology) than an MRV or venogram. It would seem that Dopplar < MRV < venogram, when it comes to CCSVI detection.
A different 2009 study -- known as the FAME trial and sponsored by St. Jude Medical Inc. -- recommended using a "fractional flow reserve" method to gauge artery health and implied that people were getting stents they didn't need because doctors weren't measuring the blockage effectively
Before the FFR technology came into use, cardiologists relied on clinical symptoms and an X-ray assessment to determine whether a stent should be used. Such visual assessments are "notoriously variable," Aversano said. Because of that, cardiologists tend to talk in ranges of stenosis, or blockage, and use percentage figures as shorthand, he said.
"Anybody who recognizes we have a tremendous amount of [observer variability] knows that the statement that there's a 60 percent stenosis is ridiculous. We understand that it's shorthand, a way of saying this is probably significant," Aversano said.
David1949 wrote:We don't know for sure if Liberation will help us , but we know that by doing nothing we will grow sicker and sicker and then die.
jimmylegs wrote:david your post re-confirms the frustration that was mentioned by david and acknowledged by myself.
patientx wrote: Maybe, but the ultrasound was not just used to try to image the blockages or stenoses. It involved 5 measurements, and if someone met any 2 out of the 5 criteria, he or she was deemed to have CCSVI. So the person reading the ultrasound would have to get a lot of things wrong. Also, Zamboni's theory is based on the reflux (or momentary reverse flow of blood), which doppler ultrasound and MRV can measure. If there's no reflux, what becomes of the theory?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users