What has become clear is that CCSVI is a disorder of flow. Diagnosis and treatment rest on venographic evaluation of flow. Anatomic data plays a role but what matters is the flow. I will not speak in terms of stenosis when discussing CCSVI and I urge others to follow suite. At least i/3 of patients in our practice with CCSVI, have NO stenosis. FLOW IS THE ISSUE.
IVUS can help find lesions that are impeding flow in challenging cases. I rely on it for them. If IVUS interrogation is a focus of routine CCSVI evaluation then the focus is deviating towards anatomy and away from flow.
If that is all it took to get Arata on Tims....
He is not interested enough in his clients,
To come and be real.
He doesn't have the integrity of a Sclafani.
Narcissists only come out to brag
Egotists come out to say they are the best in the world.
Words are easy.
Actions not so much.
He will never come out on Tims
He couldn't compete.
He will only be busy looking in the mirror.
Anti-platelet agents such as aspirin or Plavix do not have a role in our CCSVI practice and we discontinue usage unless an alternative indication is present. These agent diminish platelet activation. Platelets become activated at site of increased sheer stress. This is most commonly seen near atherosclerotic plaques in arteries. Venous flow is slower and mostly laminar. Platelet activation is a minor player in the venous thrombosis cascade. To our knowledge there no published data has shown a benefit to usage of anti-platelet agents in CCSVI, venous stents or reduction of venous clotting. At least one published study suggested increased bleeding risk with use of aspirin in venous thrombosis prevention.
Aspirin and Plavix cannot be recommended for CCSVI patients based on mechanism of action, physiology of venous thrombosis and available published data.
I have no reason to doubt that he is Dr. Arata.
Full dose anticoagulation has my support over antiplatelets or nothing at all. I also look for doctors that do not keep doing the same thing but adjust their protocols as they learn. It is good to hear that Synergy is doing this.
When you say a third of patients have no stenosis, does this include valvular stenosis?
One of the suggested uses of IVUS is to accurately measure the size of the vein in order to select an appropriately sized balloon. It is also said to be of use in finding valvular stenosis in the azygous that cannot be seen on flouroscopy alone. I must disagree that the use of IVUS deviates the focus away from flow and toward anatomy. It is a tool that gives more information on what is going on in the veins, including what is causing the flow abnormalities; with more information, better decisions can be made.
Your position on the iliac and renal veins is very different from what we have more commonly heard. Thank you for sharing it, it is good to know both sides of these debates. I would argue that, if CCSVI is about flow, then the impact of stenoses in the iliac and renal vein on the flow in the azygous cannot be denied.
Thank you for all your reponses, they are indeed helpful.
Some responses are a little too convenient to me. Not bothering with US insurance does not help my suspicion. Doctor Hewitt's road trip to "enlighten" the Canadians about the merits of ccsvi could be just self advertising, not that I have anything against, but I just like to know what is what.
The response "Additional veins such as the vertebrals, lumbars, renals etc do NOT cause CCSVI. They do serve as collateral veins. Proper treatment dictates correction of the jugular or azygous problem. NOT Venous angioplasty of Collaterals."
Could be interpreted as not possible to finish with a patient quickly enough if you had to check more than the usual 3 veins let alone use IVUS.
Here is his response on the Newport etc facebook "Use IVUS for problem solving. When I started I used it every case. Once you do a few hundred cases it adds nothing to straightforward cases. April 22"
Their clinic does not have IVUS they say, but he used it in the beginning. I guess in hospitals since they all have it. It seems to me from what I hear from doctors C and S here that many patients if not most have at least one odd vein that warrants a look with IVUS to determine proper treatment, but I suppose most cases look "straight-forward" if one does not use IVUS. I wonder how long they used it for ccsvi as they started treating in various clinics almost right away until they got their new clinic set up. Some members here got treated in clinics and reported it here almost a year ago.
Ballooning the azygos without knowing whether it needs it seems a little rushed to me and could perhaps lead to treatment where non is needed, seems like IVUS is a wonderful solution to that problem but alas takes more time. I guess doctor Sinan started using the "always balloon the azygos approach". I have had trouble finding data on his patients, he should have a lot of data by now one should think.
Ballon size, pressure used, cutting balloon use etc differ from doctor to doctor. We still don't know what works best, but we can still form an opinion and select doctors accordingly.
val57gal wrote:Hello! Katie41 and I have both posted several times about having surgery with Dr. Arata. He has been expensive--not so much him, but the hospitals he works at. One reason is the use of IVUS, which is cutting edge but costly.
www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-132203.html#132203val57gal wrote:Their center won’t have IVUS to start with, but they’re looking into it. Unfortunately, it’s very expensive.
As I understand it, he used IVUS at the hospital but then when he moved to the clinic, he chose to forego IVUS because of the expense.
- Family Elder
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
I believe this is Dr. Arata.Endovasc wrote: I challenge any physician in the world to show me a single case of CCSVI caused by iliac or renal veins.
As physicians we need to educate each other and clean our own house. Renal and iliac venograms and especially angioplasty on CCSVI patients needs to stop and stop now. Our collective credibility is at stake.
Sorry for sucking you into our little world, Doc!
One point - could an obstructed iliac lead to increased flow into the lumbar and ultimately the azygous, thus clogging the network?
Doc A.- you looked at my existing iliac stent to make sure it looked OK and noticed a backflow in the IVC. I had an echocardiogram done (upon your suggestion) and everything looked fine. What else might account for the backflow you saw?
Might a vein that is compressed in the manner of the diagram provided by Cece exhibit lower blood flow which might cause a turbulent (back)flow such as mine?
Could one determine if a vein were compressed like this other than by using IVUS?
I certainly don't mean to hog up your time - we all know what a busy person you are! Thanks for any info or insight you can contribute and thanks for performing the treatments you have done!
- Family Elder
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Summerland. BC Canada
After a consult with Dr. Hewett, I am planning to go in Feb (just because of money). It was also very informative and i love the valve concept, it just makes sense. when i saw my CD's and he showed my valves and how the blood was obviously not flowing through as it should.
this will be my 3rd time, i'd kind of like to hope i'll see improvements, doing something different.
06/05/10 angioplasty RJV-re-stenodsed
26/08/10 stent RJV
28/12/10 follow-up ultrasound intimal hyperplasia
Could you please point me to the published data that demonstrates that destroying valves is 1) safe, and 2) efficacious and has some sustained, demonstrable, tangible and measurable health benefit beyond improved blood flow to your patients? Can you direct me to the published data that shows that improved blood flow in patients translates into neurological benefit and that your methods of achieving it are safe? Thank you.Endovasc wrote: To our knowledge there no published data has shown a benefit to usage of anti-platelet agents in CCSVI, venous stents or reduction of venous clotting. At least one published study suggested increased bleeding risk with use of aspirin in venous thrombosis prevention.
The procedure of entering - and no doubt destroying valves [ your description ] is old hat. This is what IR's do.
I will remind you of the published results of Dr.Hubbard's fMRI study ........ that showed an improvement in cognitive capability's in pwMS that had venoplasty. Post procedure these people matched the ability's of healthy controls . Pre Procedure ...... well below.
If that doesn't knock your socks off ........ there's no hope for you.
Do your homework. The information is readily available .
Do you have any studies to show that impaired blood flow is good for the brain or at least produces no ill-effect? Thank-you.eric593 wrote:Could you please point me to the published data that demonstrates that destroying valves is 1) safe, and 2) efficacious and has some sustained, demonstrable, tangible and measurable health benefit beyond improved blood flow to your patients? Can you direct me to the published data that shows that improved blood flow in patients translates into neurological benefit and that your methods of achieving it are safe? Thank you.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings
Last post by NHE « Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:04 pmReplies: 4
Posted in Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)by Cece » Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:56 pm » in Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)
- 4 Replies
- 1685 Views
Last post by NHE
Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:04 pm