DrSnyder wrote:Dr. Simka presented all of their data from Poland.
Dr. Petrov presented their data from Bulgaria.
Again consensus is that the procedure is safe and that over time as experience has developed, the use of stenting has reduced.
Dr. Ponec presented some data that will be published about the current state of the Hubbard registry. This was very informative.
His point is that we still don't have enough idea about how we treat this process to make a solid randomized study reasonable. With such variables in treatment we cannot even enter into a randomized study as we don't have consensus on how to treat. The results from the study are from outcomes on the MISI-29 which show positive outcomes at 1 and 6 months. This data looks comprehensive and as Dr. ponec points out, this is The first data to report a benefit from the procedure since Zamboni's original publication.
DrSnyder wrote:Karen Marr, RVT
Presented thoughts on how to do a proper ultrasound. Showed some pictures. No questions yet. Most interesting to me was the need for WARM gel. I don't think we did that at my facility. We will now...
Discussion of difficult hypothetical cases.
"We cannot just treat for quality of life, we must treat to improve Multiple Sclerosis."
[/quote]Cece wrote:This has been a valuable firsthand early report of the symposium! You got linked to over at the facebook CCSVI in MS page too.
Three neurologists...Dr. Hubbard and Dr. Zivadinov and Dr. Salvi?
I have to disagree with Dr. Zivadinov. This does not have to be studied the way a neurologist would study it."We cannot just treat for quality of life, we must treat to improve Multiple Sclerosis."
that quote is nearly the opposite of when we hear, "I do not treat MS, I treat CCSVI."
munchkin wrote:My guess would be that would require a neuro to do the testing. Would the neuro's accept testing from anyone other than themselves?
Physical testing of our symptoms is not what I thought of as the IR's role. What would be nice is if we could get appointments with our neuro's prior to procedure and have them do the tests and then follow-up at the same time the IR's follow-up.
The test results could be sent to the IR's, exactly the same as when the neuro's send follow-up letters to GP's, to be included with the data the IR's are tracking.
dr zivadinov is focused on ms and i am focused on quality of life. Both are valid and valuable.
my point was an objection that we have to perform our studies to conform to the way neurologists do drug trials. We are interventionalists doing minimally invasive PROCEDURES and there is a difference. We use registries. we focus first on safety, reproducibility and optimization of the techniques.
premature trials render results suspect too
Users browsing this forum: No registered users