David1949 wrote:
The Siskin study plus my own experience suggest to me that the ultrasound is useless for detecting CCSVI. And even if it did work acceptably in the jugulars it cannot see anything in the azygos. You would still need to do the venogram for the azygos. So why bother? Just go straight to the venogram and save the cost of the ultrasound.
I agree. When my wife was treated in Albany they did not even look at the ultrasound results before proceeding with the venogarphy the following morning. When I asked why we had to pay for the ultasound when they simply ignored it as a diagnostic tool, I was told that it was useful as a baseline for future followup ultrasounds. I considered this a weak argument and question why I was not given the option to not pay for the ultrasound.
I would suggest that anyone considering the procedure should discuss this with their doctor. It may save them a lot of money. We never planned on getting a followup ultrasound. There is no use in seeing that the flow in compromised unless you are prepared to do something about it. Since we were not planning to have the procedure done again ($$$) then knowing if the flow was good or bad was irrelevant.
BTW, when we did get the results of the pre-procedure ultrasound it showed only 2 of the 5 criteria for CCSVI.
Bruce.