This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
It is currently Wed May 22, 2013 5:00 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Treatments » Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
PCakes
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:51 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 849
Location: Canada
marcstck wrote:
PCakes wrote:
Dr Zivadinov said...
Quote:
"I think based on this study that we can't say more than there is no deterioration of the patients who are getting this type of treatment...


please ..what the heck does this mean? I've read it every which way to Sunday and must be putting the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle??

Marc, thank you for your insight..:)


I believe this means that the treatment isn't harming any of the patients who get it. In other words, angioplasty (or, more correctly venoplasty) itself is a safe procedure…


mr success wrote:
Quote:
I believe this means that the treatment isn't harming any of the patients who get it. In other words, angioplasty (or, more correctly venoplasty) itself is a safe procedure…


I would suggest Dr. Zivadov is indicating ..... that the treatment seems to halt progression. If I understand it correctly .

This in itself ..... is huge .


Thanks Mr. S. & Marc.. two possibilities, both pieces in my puzzle, and both good.. :)
Top
 Profile  
 
cheerleader
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:47 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 4676
Location: southern California
PCakes--if you need a tie breaker, I have to side with Marc. Dr. Zivadinov is merely stating that at this point, angioplasty appears to be well-tolerated, but it is not clear what the future benefits will be. Relapses were down and lesions were down in the treated group--but it will take a while longer to know if progression is indeed halted.

That said, Dr. Dake has reported that in the 20 patients he has seen for a new MRI at a year since angioplasty, NONE had new lesions.
cheer

_________________
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
dual stents placed 5/09
CCSVI in MS


Top
 Profile  
 
PCakes
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:06 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 849
Location: Canada
cheerleader wrote:
PCakes--if you need a tie breaker, I have to side with Marc. Dr. Zivadinov is merely stating that at this point, angioplasty appears to be well-tolerated, but it is not clear what the future benefits will be. Relapses were down and lesions were down in the treated group--but it will take a while longer to know if progression is indeed halted.

That said, Dr. Dake has reported that in the 20 patients he has seen for a new MRI at a year since angioplasty, NONE had new lesions.
cheer


Thank you !! :)
Top
 Profile  
 
CCSVIhusband
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:10 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 474
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
^ but wouldn't that signify what we were saying ... that none had gotten worse. Not that they had gotten better, but no new lesions is "not getting worse".

:D

Either way, it's good ...
Top
 Profile  
 
Billmeik
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:32 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
Quote:
No significant clinical or MRI differences have been seen, although there were less relapses in the immediate treatment group, 1 vs 4, and a decrease in T2 lesion volume in the immediate group, about 10%," Dr. Zivadinov noted. Restenosis did not occur in any of the azygous veins treated but was seen in 29% in the internal jugular veins.



so 1 relapse for the liberated group and 4 for the others.

no talk of a stop in progression but a 10% reduction in T2 lesion volume is a lot isn't it?
Top
 Profile  
 
MrSuccess
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:39 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 823
no clinical or MRI differences .? ..... is that not a halt to progression ?

Not calling you out - ringleader - ...... it just reads that way to me.


I still have not read the ECTRIMS reports ...... other than Dr. Simka's.

Surprised it hasn't been in the spotlight .




Mr. Success
Top
 Profile  
 
malden
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:04 am 
Billmeik wrote:
...
A Matter of Assessment?

The appealing idea that simple angioplasty of extracranial veins might cure or improve symptoms of this devastating disease caught the attention of highly educated and motivated MS patients late last year and has since engaged many in the unifying demand for access to what has been dubbed by some the "liberation procedure."

Dr. Zamboni — who denies having called it the liberation procedure — and colleagues presented new data here and addressed some of his critics. At the packed Charcot Symposium dedicated to discussion of the topic at the outset of the meeting, he first emphasized what these venous lesions are and what they are not.

"CCSVI is composed of several blockages in the main outflow routes, the jugular vein, azygous vein, but this is very important to understand," he said, displaying angiographic and high-resolution B-mode images along with a specimen, these blockages "are merely intraluminal defects; not problems in the wall, but intraluminal defects: webs, membranes, malformed valves."
...


Why then most common Liberation procedure is just simple angioplasty solving vein wall problems if CCSVI blockages are "not problems in the wall", but " intraluminal defects: webs, membranes, malformed valves"?

Does it mean that angioplasty is unnecessary procedure for solving CCSVI, because it does not solve intraluminal defects: webs, membranes, malformed valves?
Top
  
 
CCSVIhusband
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:24 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 474
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
Malden wrote:
Billmeik wrote:
...
A Matter of Assessment?

The appealing idea that simple angioplasty of extracranial veins might cure or improve symptoms of this devastating disease caught the attention of highly educated and motivated MS patients late last year and has since engaged many in the unifying demand for access to what has been dubbed by some the "liberation procedure."

Dr. Zamboni — who denies having called it the liberation procedure — and colleagues presented new data here and addressed some of his critics. At the packed Charcot Symposium dedicated to discussion of the topic at the outset of the meeting, he first emphasized what these venous lesions are and what they are not.

"CCSVI is composed of several blockages in the main outflow routes, the jugular vein, azygous vein, but this is very important to understand," he said, displaying angiographic and high-resolution B-mode images along with a specimen, these blockages "are merely intraluminal defects; not problems in the wall, but intraluminal defects: webs, membranes, malformed valves."
...


Why then most common Liberation procedure is just simple angioplasty solving vein wall problems if CCSVI blockages are "not problems in the wall", but " intraluminal defects: webs, membranes, malformed valves"?

Does it mean that angioplasty is unnecessary procedure for solving CCSVI, because it does not solve intraluminal defects: webs, membranes, malformed valves?


Dear Colin:

Angioplasty does address webs, membranes, and malformed valves. Maybe not as permanently as we'd like, but it addresses them nonetheless. (maybe stents are needed more than we'd like to admit in a lot of cases though, and they'd be a better solution).

The thought is to push a web up against the vein wall, and hopefully incorporate it into the wall, or to break it up enough that it doesn't restrict flow.

Valves are ballooned either into the wall, or back to a normal position, remember that 15% of all persons do not have valves in their jugular veins. So, not nearly 15% of the population have valves. (Hence, maybe we don't even need valves - if that's the case ... a stent holding them open might not be a bad thing - if properly cared for and determined that is the best method).

Methinks you're just looking to pick a "fight" ...

Have a good weekend.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » Treatments » Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]

Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. ccsvi article on medscape

msmything

5

955

Mon May 09, 2011 4:05 am

msmything View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. summary of CCSVI prevalence trials to date

frodo

2

670

Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:04 pm

Cece View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Medscape article

mrhodes40

9

1352

Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:09 am

Ruthless67 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. CCSVI at ECTRIMS 2010

cheerleader

5

1315

Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:04 am

CureOrBust View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. ECTRIMS 2010 and CCSVI

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

Lyon

28

2624

Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:14 am

BooBear View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DougL

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: