The five case histories are cursorily reviewed and lack any follow-up post-emerg, making one wonder why eight neurologists were required for the effort. The five patients observed had differing forms of MS, at various stages of progression and were treated in disparate locations (Eastern Europe, Mexico and India). The Calgary researchers admit they don’t have a clue what treatments or quality of care the patients experienced: “We are unable to comment in detail on the exact procedures or protocols employed by those centres because it is not clear standardized procedures are employed across centres.”
Actually, it’s as clear as crystal that CCSVI practices have not been standardized across centres, either for diagnosis or treatment, a dire situation which explains why research is all over the map, as Dr Robert Fox, an MS specialist at the Cleveland Clinic (and CIHR CCSVI panel member), explains in this video.
Unsurprisingly, the U of Calgary study lacks the sort of context that would make it useful: What percentage of total CCSVI post-procedure complications in Calgary did these five cases represent? What percentage of the total number of Alberta residents who’ve traveled abroad for CCSVI do these five patients represent? And how do these outcomes compare with the risks from routine angioplasty and venoplasty performed everyday in Canadian hospitals? Of course, the researchers couldn’t know: nobody has kept track, a situation that should improve with the implementation of CCSVI treatment tracking registries.
Some concise points made regarding the recent publication on complications endured by five patients after CCSVI treatment.