This is an interesting article imo, because the similar treatment to that of Team Arata is performed and dysautonomia is not mentioned, the outcomes are similar or better in this trial than the unsubstantiated anecdotals of the Team Arata work of recent times.
Why does one group attribute or label the difference as dysautonomia treatment and the other not?
Is it because the IR either does or doesn't have dysautonomia personally?
"Results: There were no postoperative complications. Colour Doppler ultrasonography showed significant improvement in cross-sectional area parameters (P < 0.05) and significant decrease in confluence velocity values (P < 0.05). Postoperative gradient pressure decreased, in internal jugular vein (IJV) significantly (P < 0.05). Re-stenosis appeared in 5.3% of patients. EDSS score was significantly improved (P < 0.01) and about half of patients reported significant or mild improvement in disease status and none of them worsening of symptoms.
Conclusion: Endovascular treatment of the IJV and azygous veins in patients with CCSVI and MS is a safe procedure with no post-procedural complications followed by significant improvement of IJV flow haemodynamic parameters and decrease in the EDSS score. Whether CCSVI percutaneous treatment might affect clinical improvement in patients suffering from MS is yet to be seen after completion of major multicentric clinical trials, still it seems like that this procedure is not negligible."