Re: Haacke, Hubbard new paper-less blood flow in MS
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:08 pm
OK...let me try to make this a bit more palatable.
MRV can give us flow quantification and perfusion information (which is good to have.)
It can also show us the "architecture" of the veins and collaterals.
Doppler can give us intraluminal defects and valve malformations, as well as refluxive flow.
Transcranial doppler gives us a picture of the deep cerebral veins.
Together, they make a terrific way to LEARN about CCSVI,
but not to DIAGNOSE CCSVI.
Diagnosis is really still done the best with doppler and TCD, using the Zamboni protocol.
When Jeff was diagnosed with CCSVI, there was no doppler tech at Stanford who understood Zamboni's technique and there were no TCD machines, so Dr. Dake used the technique he understood, MRV. Now, almost 3 years later, there are doppler techs at Stanford trained in the Zamboni protocol !!! MRV was all that was available, and in Jeff, it showed stenotic veins, collaterals and reduced flow.
Once Stanford announced they were doing MRVs at the Bologna conference, the other US groups wanted to publish about it...let's call it healthy competition. Dr. Zivadinov told me he thought BNAC was the only group looking at MRV. He was surprised by Dr. Dake's presentation. Then Dr. Haacke came forward with his protocol. This is how science moves forward...yes, it is confusing, and conflicting. But it is also illuminating.
The doctors get together once a year to go over all the data, gleen what they can from it, and improve the protocols. And what they are saying is that both MRV and doppler together provide the best overview. But obviously, these machines and protocol are not going to be available in every clinic around the world...so, the protocol will need to be refined, simplifed, further elucidated.
Check out the science program...it was just updated. Most of the conference is about coming together to establish protocols in diagnosis, treatment and aftercare. These docs are working (and publishing) as quickly as they can, but this is happening in real time.
http://www.isnvd.org/files/ISNVD%202012 ... %20v2).pdf
cheer
MRV can give us flow quantification and perfusion information (which is good to have.)
It can also show us the "architecture" of the veins and collaterals.
Doppler can give us intraluminal defects and valve malformations, as well as refluxive flow.
Transcranial doppler gives us a picture of the deep cerebral veins.
Together, they make a terrific way to LEARN about CCSVI,
but not to DIAGNOSE CCSVI.
Diagnosis is really still done the best with doppler and TCD, using the Zamboni protocol.
When Jeff was diagnosed with CCSVI, there was no doppler tech at Stanford who understood Zamboni's technique and there were no TCD machines, so Dr. Dake used the technique he understood, MRV. Now, almost 3 years later, there are doppler techs at Stanford trained in the Zamboni protocol !!! MRV was all that was available, and in Jeff, it showed stenotic veins, collaterals and reduced flow.
Once Stanford announced they were doing MRVs at the Bologna conference, the other US groups wanted to publish about it...let's call it healthy competition. Dr. Zivadinov told me he thought BNAC was the only group looking at MRV. He was surprised by Dr. Dake's presentation. Then Dr. Haacke came forward with his protocol. This is how science moves forward...yes, it is confusing, and conflicting. But it is also illuminating.
The doctors get together once a year to go over all the data, gleen what they can from it, and improve the protocols. And what they are saying is that both MRV and doppler together provide the best overview. But obviously, these machines and protocol are not going to be available in every clinic around the world...so, the protocol will need to be refined, simplifed, further elucidated.
Check out the science program...it was just updated. Most of the conference is about coming together to establish protocols in diagnosis, treatment and aftercare. These docs are working (and publishing) as quickly as they can, but this is happening in real time.
http://www.isnvd.org/files/ISNVD%202012 ... %20v2).pdf
cheer