The Best Blinded study (so far)

MegansMom · Post by **MegansMom** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:28 am

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/22

This study makes the connection of how the anomalies create the environment in the brain to cause damage and inflammation. this is key to connecting MS and CCSVI!

It connects previous neurological studies that proved hypo perfusion was part of MS , and CCSVI.

Maybe the PwMS WITHOUT CCSVI have some other anomaly that causes their specific hypoperfusion. At least they know a few of the why's now.
It's a beginning

Looking foreword to learning much more.

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:32 am

I'm printing this one off, I still can't follow some of it. VHISS ?

MegansMom · Post by **MegansMom** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:48 am

VHISS venous hemodynamic insufficiency severity Score

It's applying a score to how many anomalies (blockages) and how severe the blockage is

Which is an awesome way....makes sense.

Someone with 2 small 50% would have more perfusion than. another person with 4 vessel each blocked 75% or someone with a completely kinked Azygos and 90% IJV .

Since CCSVI is so variable it makes sense to quantify the impairments if they could.

Rokkit · Post by **Rokkit** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:52 am

All 16 MS patients fulfilled the diagnosis of CCSVI (median VH = 4 and median VHISS = 9) and none of the HC (Table 1) (P < 0.001, Fisher's exact test). This means a CCSVI prevalence in this small group of MS patients of 100%, with prevalence of 0% in HC.

Blinded.

MegansMom · Post by **MegansMom** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:10 am

The higher their VHISS was the lower the cerebral blood flow.

The worse the CCSVI blockages were the more impaired the brain circulation is.

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:47 am

This is an important criteria then. Not just looking for blockages but for the severity of blockages. It hits home too because my jugular blockages were severe.

MegansMom · Post by **MegansMom** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:54 am

Another interesting point at the bottom of this study is that it was presented to the AAN in Oct 2010

I find it fascinating that this was not received with acceptance and I am in a quandary as to why?

ikulo · Post by **ikulo** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:46 am

Thanks for posting, I haven't seen this study before.

What do you mean it wasn't received with acceptance?

Though to clarify, it was presented in April, not October. And it was presented as a poster session. And to be fair, the annual AAN meeting is attended by thousands of professionals, hundreds of presentations are made, and a wide variety of issues besides MS are covered (stroke, dementia, alz, etc.).

This paper was presented in the poster session of the American Academy of Neurology annual meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada, 10 to 17 April 2010.