This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

In a Winnipeg Mb meeting that the MS clinic held on Dec 15, Dr. Brian Hardy (interventional radiologist) stated that they already do angioplasty on jugular viens. It's just done for different reasons. My question is what other reasons would they have for doing angioplasty on jugulars.

Here is the link to the recorded meeting. It was a an informative meeting on CCSVI with a question and answer period.

http://www.hsc.mb.ca/MSclinic/
All links to the video are at the bottom of the page

His comment was in (question and answer period part 4)
It's not as if this is uncharted territory, even in a smaller centre like Winnipeg. He seems to have a problem with stents in veins. In fact he says earlier in that meeting that "veins don't like stents. He says from his experience with dialysis, that there's problem with occlusion with stents over the long term." So that's fine. but if you have experience with angioplasty in jugulars, what's the harm in being just a little proactive and attempting to treat with angioplasty. I know there has to be protocols established. I know they want to be careful about how they approach this, but sometimes we over analyze things before we act.

This is a great link. I just have to say though...I got a little irritated by the comment made by Dr. Cossoy that "Stanford has been shut down, possibly due to the death of one patient due to the stent..."

Argh.

In fact, many comments made by Dr. Cossoy, who did admit up front that his specialty is immunology, made me think he's not quite as open to the theory of CCSVI as he could be.

But overall very informative.

ETA: And one more thing he said that I found odd..he insinuated the comment made by Dr. Haacke that "if only 20% of people with MS could be helped.." might mean Dr. Haacke is not finding the same results as Dr. Zamboni as far as seeing the connection between people with MS and CCSVI. I think that is dirty-pool inuendo. Unless he knows something the rest of us don't yet about Dr. Haacke's findings.

And one more thing he said, which on this point I really don't know so maybe someone else on here can help, he said it is possible the DMD's MS patients are put on may cause the veins to collapse/twist. Chicken vs. the egg. Does anyone know if there were patients in Zamboni's study who weren't taking DMD's? Or has anyone here been found to have CCSVI who has never taked a DMD? Please help me put this nagging question to rest.

Just have a look at the tracking sticky... there are definitly those with CCSVI who where never on any DMD. Moreover, the DMD causing stenoses is kinda ridiculous if you look at the effects of the treatment (of the veins), as it would mean that first you have normal veins, then you take DMD (with little to no effect to MS symptoms) which screw up your veins, and then they are opened with much more effect on MS. Doesn't make any sense.

_________________
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." Socrates

We're all irritated when anyone associates the death that happened to CCSVI. No one is stating that CCSVI was a direct result of it so I wouldn't worry about it.
This was discussed in a previous forum but I'll reitterate. The statement that Dr. Haake made to the effect that "even if 20% of people could be helped it is worth it" speaks for itself. I'm not going to even elaborate on that because anyone that wants to twist those words is just playing a nonsense game. These phrases are just put in to make their point that they want to exercise caution. They weren't arguing anything.

Just a bit of humour here.
I'm thinking that the twisted veins are the initial cause and that better be true. If the DMD's are twisting my veins, I'm gonna be ***st off. Better take the drugs back to the research lab lol.

Yeah, a whole four months of avonex gave me collaterals the same size as my left IJV.

_________________
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwc6QlLVtko, Virtually symptom free since, no relap

I watched these videos - since it's my neurologist who does most of the talking. Don’t you get the feeling that Hardy the IR was much more interested in at least researching CCSVI than the two neuros? And I’ve rarely seen anyone look less happy to be speaking on any topic than the neuro who is head of the clinic. (They seemed to be desperately lacking advice from a qualified Public Relations specialist - they managed to convey neither reassurance nor empathy.)

I’d love to hear Dr Hardy off the record, anyway. As I have said, my off-the-record medical sources have suggested that the IRs in Manitoba are at least interested in CCSVI - but that there seems to be a kind of turf war with the neuros.

-d

I don't know if it's turf wars or if it's the medical system's way of just slowing things down in the interest of caution. If Dr. Hardy doesn't find this whole concept interesting, I'd be very supprised.
I found it interesting when he made the comment that they do angioplasy in jugulars already. Just for different reasons. I was supprised to hear that comment from him. Was he trying to say "Yes WE Can"?

Yeah, while I find the videos of that meeting worse than frustrating, I'm not entirely cynical. Turf wars and different understandings of appropriate caution might be different ways to say the same thing.



It was interesting: Hardy took pains to be explicit both about them having relevant experience with the procedures and about not having the equipment for some of the diagnostic protocols in-house.

Maybe if the early results from Buffalo are what we hope we should tell Dr Hardy we'll put on a social to buy him a new scanner. Maybe a trip to Bologna too.

-d

I'd love to know his thoughts also. I don't know how IR's couldn't be interested in this. My impression was that he wasn't dismissing this senario. He sounded interested but was just urging caution. I understand there's some kinks to work out in the process. I just hope there's interest there. Otherwise, the HSC is the wrong place to be if you're an MS patient. As far as equipment, I'm sure their MRI would have the capabilities to do the proper MRV with the proper protocol. Intercranial Doppler I guess would be the issue.

At least they are talking about it! The neuros looked absolutely miserable.

_________________
Rhonda~
Treated by Dake 10/19/09, McGuckin 4/25/11 and 3/9/12- blockages in both IJVs, azy, L-iliac, L-renal veins. CCSVI changed my life and disease.

these videos are HIGHLY informative! i HIGHLY recommend that everyone here view them!

did they seem rather negitive (beside the IR)???i wanted to ask Dr.Clossey if HE had his V8 today???lol

_________________
GOD BLESS.... CCSVI treatment Dr. Siskin great doc....symptom's improved for about 3 week's (gait, balance, spasticity) now back to square 1...

I don't think I perceived them as negative. They are basically just urging caution. What we have to realize is that a bomb was just thrown at them and they have to figure out a proper strategy to deal with this on a larger scale. Also they have to come up to speed with the necessary testing that must be done PROPERLY to get the right diagnosis. Dr. Hardy said in those video's that he already does angioplasty on jugulars, but for different reasons. If we can get the link between CCSVI and MS established (First step) and can then get the testing up to speed , then treatment through angioplasty should not be an issue. Treatment via stents in veins sounds like its the uncharted territory.
I don't like this anymore than anyone else. I don't know if there's a better solution to all this other than educating yourself and keep putting on the pressure.

Mecjhanically Inclined-
Wouldn't a better solution be to get the MRV and Doppler, and if they show you have occluded veins, go to an interventional Radiologist and get the angioplasty?? Just be sure to conveniently forget to mention your MS..

If you read closely, those at stanford didn't use MS as the reason for the operation, they used the occlusions (ie, Insurance).

I agree with you shye for those that can do that. I'm just speaking from the perspective that on the larger scale for CCSVI to be addressed for everyone concerned the things I previously stated will have to happen so we don't have to beat around the bush with this. The system is not looking after us as it stands.
But , yes if you can get the MRV and Doppler done to prove CCSVI, then yes go and track down an an IR and get it addressed. No disagreement. Steps like this will help the bigger picture.