% definition of technical failure of vein angioplasty

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

% definition of technical failure of vein angioplasty

Postby Cece » Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:23 pm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 140602297X

Primary patency was defined as a patent central vein without recurrent stenosis or the need for further intervention within the central veins. Assisted primary patency was defined as a patent central vein that underwent further intervention to improve patency. Loss of patency was defined according to accepted reporting standards.

Technical failure was defined as <50% gain in luminal diameter. Early failure was defined as an inability to cross the lesion at the time of the primary procedure or by the presence of an occlusion or ≥50% restenosis within the first 30 days after the initial procedure.

Residual stenosis was defined as ≥30% remaining stenosis at the conclusion of intervention in comparison to adjacent, nondiseased vein.

This is from a study on central venous stenosis but I thought it was of interest in regard to the PREMiSe study. There should have been a definition of technical failure of the angioplasty itself. And, when the angioplasty was a technical failure, then conclusions could not be drawn from it.

Endovascular therapy with PTA or PTS for central venous stenosis is safe, with low rates of technical failure. Multiple additional interventions are the rule with both treatments. Although neither offers truly durable outcomes, PTS does not improve on the patency rates more than PTA and does not add to the longevity of ipsilateral hemodialysis access sites.

This quote was interesting to me only in our own experiences too, with CCSVI, that some people have had multiple additional interventions and maybe that's not such an unexpected thing.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9119
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: % definition of technical failure of vein angioplasty

Postby PointsNorth » Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:31 pm

It would be interesting if they could nail down the cause of re-stenosis. Is the cause of the original stenosis causing the re-stenosis as well.
Albany 2010. Brooklyn 2011
Hayes inspired Calcitriol+D3 2013-2014
Coimbra Protocol 2014-15
DrG B12 Transdermal Spray 2014-15
Progesterone 2015
My Current Regimen http://www.thisisms.com/forum/regimens-f22/topic25634.html
PointsNorth
Family Elder
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: LeftCoast Canada

Re: % definition of technical failure of vein angioplasty

Postby 1eye » Sun Oct 26, 2014 2:30 pm

I think there are some words on this in Dr. Sclafani's topic/archives and perhaps elsewhere. Like "MS", I don't think we know the whole story. You could throw up your hands and say, any kind of semi-surgical intervention has a host of possible bad outcomes, but there just might be something interfering, or causing both the original and the re-stenosis. That would mean this is not a congenital problem, but maybe the action of another life-form. I think it is interesting that lesions, black holes, webs, septa, Dawson's fingers, swollen ventricles, are all macroscopic, visible to the naked eye. Wouldn't it be great if we could catch some kind of critter in the act?
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service