After my second procedure (by a different IR), I had some moderate improvements which have been sustained. This week I traveled back to the hospital and obtained the medical records for this procedure, and just as I suspected, the IR was extremely conservative in his venoplasty. He ballooned only to 7mm X 20mm, enough to partially re-open the stenosis but not really dilated enough to have the IJV fully functional. I am thankful he didn't use a stent! I seem to recall that he made three attempts at ballooning, then stopped trying.drsclafani wrote:cheercheerleader wrote:Dr. Sclafani and all--
as you know, veins can clot even without a stent. The act of angioplasty and ballooning has inherent risk of damage to the endothelial lining, and stenosis and clotting can occur without a stent. This is a real risk, and something that needs to be fully disclosed and discussed with patients prior to treatment.
I am so sorry to read about these events, but we're coming up on 3-6 months since patients are treated, and this is the time when the endothelial thickening happened in my Jeff and a few others.
Hang in there, Mila and others reporting the same. Good thoughts going out-
cheer
i think that the best alternative to stenting is a really good angioplasty, using probably larger balloons than most IRs use for standard venous angioplasty because these lesions are resistant to dilatation by the nature of the stenosis, fused valves, stiff collagen in the wall....
Also IRs really need to back off dilating high lesions at the outset. Too many times high ballooning gives disappointing appearance and this leads to stents that may not be necessary.
The exciting news for me is that the partially opened vein seems to be maintaining itself, so maybe two tries are needed to "crack open" the stenosis? I suspect that the stenosis has scar tissue formation from an old neck injury.
I am impatiently waiting for the Ferrari team to resume racing!
Donnchadh
