an argument against leg elevation

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:46 pm

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18326134
It's not the top of my list of concerns, but according to this, the IJV goes from an average of 112 mm2 lying down to 140 mm2 during passive leg elevation. IJVs get bigger during the valsalva maneuver too or the 'trendelenburg' position. In those cases the IJVs get bigger when the flow is not exiting quickly.

So, if I'm interpreting that right, elevating one's legs is on the 'no' list for people with untreated CCSVI or even treated CCSVI. Keep those IJVs flowing, in the right direction....

I came upon this tidbit while searching for the average CSA of jugulars, to compare to my own. This says that the average CSA is 112 mm2. Another article had it at 102 mm2, with wide variability. In my case, if it's 149 mm2 on one side and approximately 60 mm2 on the other side, that adds up to 209 mm2, which is about average, going by 112 + 112 equaling 224 or 102 + 102 equaling 204 mm2.

Prior to my treatment, as seen in the latest post in Dr. Sclafani's thread, my total jugular CSA that was functioning was 33 mm2.

(question: if a 60 mm2 vein is 60% blocked, how much is the CSA through the stenotic valve? Whatever the reduction in total CSA, it would seem to be a relatively small one overall, yet I need that left jugular, as I have seen improvements since my second procedure on top of improvements from my first.)

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:25 pm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... e=abstract

On the remaining 190 CT scans, the diameter and cross-sectional area of the right IJV were significantly greater than those of the left IJV (17 5 mm median: 17 mm, range: 13 to 20 mm vs. 14 5 mm median: 13 mm, range: 10 to 16 mm, P < 0.001; and 181 111 mm2 median: 160 mm2, range: 108 to 235 mm2 vs. 120 81 mm2 median: 102 mm2, range: 63 to 168 mm2, P < 0.001, respectively).

This one has the median CSA of jugulars being 160 on the right and 102 on the left.

I have jugular envy!