CCSVI: Let's just call it a vascular problem and get treated
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:32 pm
I posed this question on the patientslikeme.com site, but I'm also posting it here for those who don't check both sites.
For all you medical types -
Maybe we're quibbling over what to call the diagnosis rather than dealing with the severity of the problem?
For a moment, forget about MS (yeah, like that's possible). If a patient gets scanned for any reason and the doctor finds the type of blockages in veins that we're seeing in the CCSVI studies, does it require further medical attention?
Maybe the presence of a blockage shouldn't necessarily require any intervention. As I understand it, angioplasties may collapse and require repeated treatment. The problem with stents is that they can get dislodged and then you need further, more invasive surgery to remove them. And any procedure has its own inherent risks.
There are many neurologists who are very against CCSVI as it relates to MS. But what do the vascular folks think about it, just in terms of blockages? Obviously, no blockage is a good one, but would these normally be treated as a vascular condition? Especially now that CCSVI is a recognized congenital condition, won't this give us more leverage for treatment, assuming the blockage(s) found are significant?
And, boy, wouldn't that solve a lot of insurance problems in the short term while the CCSVI/MS issue gets sorted out?
I am completely in favor of the continuation of study regarding the effects of CCVSI on MS patients. This concept mirrors what's going on in Buffalo. They're continuing to look at how these blockages affect MS patients, but they're running a (small) parallel study of treating them with angioplasties.
Rosegirl
For all you medical types -
Maybe we're quibbling over what to call the diagnosis rather than dealing with the severity of the problem?
For a moment, forget about MS (yeah, like that's possible). If a patient gets scanned for any reason and the doctor finds the type of blockages in veins that we're seeing in the CCSVI studies, does it require further medical attention?
Maybe the presence of a blockage shouldn't necessarily require any intervention. As I understand it, angioplasties may collapse and require repeated treatment. The problem with stents is that they can get dislodged and then you need further, more invasive surgery to remove them. And any procedure has its own inherent risks.
There are many neurologists who are very against CCSVI as it relates to MS. But what do the vascular folks think about it, just in terms of blockages? Obviously, no blockage is a good one, but would these normally be treated as a vascular condition? Especially now that CCSVI is a recognized congenital condition, won't this give us more leverage for treatment, assuming the blockage(s) found are significant?
And, boy, wouldn't that solve a lot of insurance problems in the short term while the CCSVI/MS issue gets sorted out?
I am completely in favor of the continuation of study regarding the effects of CCVSI on MS patients. This concept mirrors what's going on in Buffalo. They're continuing to look at how these blockages affect MS patients, but they're running a (small) parallel study of treating them with angioplasties.
Rosegirl