Findings at FCSC Vancouver/Canada

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

Postby mangio » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:03 pm

So if the researchers are now saying Ultrasound is more
accurate what are we as the potential people to be examined
suppose to make of this new information. How could
previous screenings result therefore be considered accurate? -
i.e. many MRVs at locations without transcranial ultrasound in California????? uhm..
User avatar
mangio
Family Elder
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby mshusband » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:05 pm

post removed by moderator
User avatar
mshusband
Family Elder
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Postby Algis » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:08 pm

Just disregard his posts; as I do :)
User avatar
Algis
Family Elder
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: XinDian, Taiwan

Postby Lyon » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:09 pm

post removed by moderator
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby ElMarino » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:17 pm

Lyon wrote:Specifically I find False Creek info most interesting because, when they are comfortable with their CCSVI recognition numbers, my personal opinion is that those are going to be the most believable numbers we're going to hear in the foreseeable future.


Hey Bob. Why do you think that the False Creek figures will be more reliable than those from Buffalo?

Thanks!
Apologies for my terrible username. I never thought I'd use the forum much when I registered..
User avatar
ElMarino
Family Elder
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby mangio » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:28 pm

Berlin results completely disregarded because they used doppler,
MRV results not as sensitive as BNAC doppler, wow is this
all confusing. No wonder everything is questionable. None of the
researchers seem to be agreeable on any of the equipment or scanning.
User avatar
mangio
Family Elder
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:31 pm

Venography will always be the final word. Once a doctor is inside a patient's veins with a catheter and radiation, the stenosis and reflux become crystal clear. The problem is with the methods currently available BEFORE venography. Dr. Zamboni created a very specific doppler and transcranial doppler protocol - his Italian ethics committee demanded that he have absolute proof of stenosis/reflux before putting patients thru invasive venography. Not many diagnostic centers have transcranial doppler, because they must be utilized by an MD, not a tech, and it's expensive.

Dr. Michael Dake, who I approached with the Zamboni research last year, did not have transcranial doppler at his disposal, so he utilized the best technology he had, doppler and magnetic resonance venography....BUT ONCE INSIDE the patient with venography is when the stenosis and reflux are precisely located and indicated. Interventional radiologists (IR) are doctors, like Dake, who use radiation to see inside veins and treat them with angioplasty or stents.

So, as far as treatment is concerned-the doppler vs. MRV discussion is not a giant issue, because the final procedure to treat CCSVI will involve venography.

We'll have more facts/reporting about the conference from a TIMS member who attended.
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby TFau » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:36 pm

Thanks Cheer!

They don't actually use some type of radiodiagnostic for the venography, do they? Is it only MR imaging, using magnets, with possibly a contrast agent?
User avatar
TFau
Family Elder
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:46 pm

TFau wrote:Thanks Cheer!

They don't actually use some type of radiodiagnostic for the venography, do they? Is it only MR imaging, using magnets, with possibly a contrast agent?


Venography- which is when the catheter is introduced into the femoral vein and threaded up into the area of stenosis, is performed with a dye and x-ray machine. The IR docs wear heavy lead aprons to protect them from the radiation. Venography is NOT MRV....MRV uses an MRI machine and gadolinium and not radiation - magnetic resonance venography uses resonating pulses to view the veins.

Venography is necessary to treat CCSVI. It is the way that the veins can be opened with a balloon or stent. Read up more on venography if you still have questions.
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby TFau » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:48 pm

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I hope your father is doing well!
User avatar
TFau
Family Elder
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:51 pm

TFau wrote:Thanks, I appreciate that.

I hope your father is doing well!


thanks, T...he's still sleeping, which is good, but he's stable and woke up a couple times to say hello and tell us his head hurts...
He's a trooper.
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby Lyon » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:57 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby ElMarino » Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:05 pm

But Bob, surely Buffalo's (non-profit) friends-with-Zamboni status is trumped by False Creek's financial incentive?

No idea exactly how positive Buffalo will be, but I've a feeling it will be on the positive side of positive, but I don't have any suspicion that they might be biased. Double blind is double blind, no?
Apologies for my terrible username. I never thought I'd use the forum much when I registered..
User avatar
ElMarino
Family Elder
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:15 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby ElMarino » Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:50 am

Lyon wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I have strong reason to disbelieve Buffalo's results but I am saying that in this case I find False Creek's financial incentive and skimpy relationships with others in the field a confidence booster.


I would have thought that differences in results would be down to the methodologies used and affiliations/vested interests would be irrelevant. And you're right, of course nothing's double blind..
Apologies for my terrible username. I never thought I'd use the forum much when I registered..
User avatar
ElMarino
Family Elder
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

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