Page 1 of 1
neither national IR nor cardiology groups support it ?
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:10 pm
by Cece
Neither Kaplan nor Wright recommend the procedure, called CCSVI (the acronym for the name). Serious complications have been reported, and neither national interventional radiology nor cardiology groups support it, Kaplan said. She noted that anyone who is interested in it should enter a study.
http://tinyurl.com/3j66og3
If you've been told this, or read it just now ;), I don't think it's true. The Society of Interventional Radiology, SIR, has put out a statement. SIR's statement is also endorsed by the Canadian IR society.
The link is here:
www.sirweb.org/news/newsPDF/SIR_MSstatement_JVIR.pdf
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:40 pm
by KateCW
Their statement is not supportive of CCSVI. It says it is unclear or inconclusive, or words to that effect. They do support research but not specifically CCSVI.
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:59 pm
by Cece
When conclusive evidence
is lacking, SIR believes that these
often difficult decisions are best
made by individual patients, their
families, and their physicians.
1. SIR recognizes the urgent need for
more effective treatments for MS
patients and the public’s interest
in rapidly making such therapies
available to this patient group.
2. SIR recognizes that patients with
MS constitute a particularly vulnerable
population, whose safety
must be protected as new therapeutic approaches are evaluated.
3. At present, SIR considers the published
literature to be inconclusive
on whether CCSVI is a clinically
important factor in the development
and/or progression of MS,
and on whether balloon angioplasty
and/or stent placement are
clinically effective in patients with
MS.
4. Interventional radiologists possess
the ideal skill set to provide
interventional MS therapy with
maximum safety and effectiveness
when clinically appropriate.
5. SIR strongly supports the urgent
performance of high-quality clinical
research to determine the safety and
efficacy of interventional MS therapies,
and is actively working to promote
and expedite the completion
of the needed studies.
There's more of the SIR statement.
I think I found it disingenous of Kaplan and Wright to say that the SIR group does not support CCSVI, as if they had concluded against it. Instead it is as you say more neutral and strongly supportive of further research.
This was the early SIR statement, there was a later publication of a SIR meeting to direct the research agenda for CCSVI:
http://www.nhr.se/PageFiles/6860/SIR_Re ... ne2011.pdf