The Hubbard Foundation was specializing in MRIs and meditation up until 2010. They are contributing to the field of CCSVI, and they seem to be good people. But their standards are not the standards I would choose in choosing which clinic to have a procedure.
I agree Cece. The danger I see for pwMS is that the IRB gives the impression that it uses gold standard tools. The Hubbard IRB does not mandate IVUS so it uses a non gold standard method.
Yes, exactly. There may be about a 25% chance of finding something on IVUS that had been missed without IVUS.
There is research underway using IVUS, so we will get more information as the research comes in. Just as there is research on CCSVI, and we continue to get more information. But if someone is choosing to get the procedure before all the research is in, that's when you look at the research that is available and says that, yes, Dr. Zamboni's original work and the recent single center experience studies all show improvement in a majority of patients after CCSVI treatment, and, yes, the abstracts that are out there on IVUS show that improvement in safety and diagnostics.
The other issue with the Hubbard IRB 'stamp of approval' is that a clinic cannot be said to be proficient in treating CCSVI until the doctor has treated a number of patients. CCSVI treatment has a learning curve, it is not easy. We have heard recently from the DIR clinic, which in part of the Hubbard registry, but I cannot recommend them due to their low number of patients treated as of today (4/16/2012). This is something that will change over the next several months, but it is good to let them gain their experience on other people, and there are many other providers who already have treated 200+ patients. This however is off-subject.