Findings at FCSC Vancouver/Canada

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.
User avatar
mangio
Family Elder
Posts: 288
Joined: 9 years ago

Post by mangio » 9 years ago

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
mshusband
Family Elder
Posts: 249
Joined: 9 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Contact:

Post by mshusband » 9 years ago

post removed by moderator

User avatar
Algis
Family Elder
Posts: 825
Joined: 9 years ago
Location: XinDian, Taiwan
Contact:

Post by Algis » 9 years ago

Just disregard his posts; as I do :)

Lyon
Family Elder
Posts: 6061
Joined: 12 years ago
Contact:

Post by Lyon » 9 years ago

post removed by moderator

User avatar
ElMarino
Family Elder
Posts: 154
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Post by ElMarino » 9 years ago

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
mangio
Family Elder
Posts: 288
Joined: 9 years ago

Post by mangio » 9 years ago

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
cheerleader
Family Elder
Posts: 5359
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: southern California
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by cheerleader » 9 years ago

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
TFau
Family Elder
Posts: 222
Joined: 9 years ago
Contact:

Post by TFau » 9 years ago

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
cheerleader
Family Elder
Posts: 5359
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: southern California
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by cheerleader » 9 years ago

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
TFau
Family Elder
Posts: 222
Joined: 9 years ago
Contact:

Post by TFau » 9 years ago

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I hope your father is doing well!

User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
Posts: 5359
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: southern California
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by cheerleader » 9 years ago

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

Lyon
Family Elder
Posts: 6061
Joined: 12 years ago
Contact:

Post by Lyon » 9 years ago

.
Last edited by Lyon 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElMarino
Family Elder
Posts: 154
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Post by ElMarino » 9 years ago

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..

Lyon
Family Elder
Posts: 6061
Joined: 12 years ago
Contact:

Post by Lyon » 9 years ago

.
Last edited by Lyon 7 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElMarino
Family Elder
Posts: 154
Joined: 10 years ago
Contact:

Post by ElMarino » 9 years ago

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..

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
  • US vs Canada
    by koneall » 1 year ago » in General Discussion
    12 Replies
    865 Views
    Last post by tzootsi
    4 months ago
  • Canada wins MS
    by jimmylegs » 5 months ago » in General Discussion
    1 Replies
    436 Views
    Last post by jimmylegs
    5 months ago
  • MS in Canada and the Americas
    by jimmylegs » 3 months ago » in General Discussion
    0 Replies
    426 Views
    Last post by jimmylegs
    3 months ago