Trial reportNeurology2014
Prospective randomized trial of venous angioplasty in MS (PREMiSe).
Trial report in Neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT01450072 (Prospective Randomized Endovascular Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis - PREMiSE), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Prospective Randomized Endovascular Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis - PREMiSE
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) in people with multiple sclerosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Effects of Venous Angioplasty on Cerebral Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis: Expanded Analysis of the Brave Dreams Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial.Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2020Trial
- Safety and efficacy of venoplasty in MS: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled phase II trial.Neurology · 2018Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Extracranial Vein Angioplasty in Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA neurology · 2018Trial
- Results of Numerical Modeling of Blood Flow in the Internal Jugular Vein Exhibiting Different Types of Strictures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Pathogenesis and Management in Cerebrovenous Outflow Disorders.Aging and disease · 2021Review
- Clinical characteristics and neuroimaging findings in eagle syndrome induced internal jugular vein stenosis.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- No association between variations in extracranial venous anatomy and clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis patients over 5 years.BMC neurology · 2019Observational
- Understanding jugular venous outflow disturbance.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2018Review
- Multiple sclerosis: Extracranial venous angioplasty is ineffective to treat MS.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2018Article
- Some recent advances in multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurology · 2016Review
- Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency in Multiple Sclerosis: A Failed Concept.Vascular specialist international · 2015Review
- Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency: the end of "the Big Idea"?Brain and behavior · 2015Article
- "Liberation treatment" for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in multiple sclerosis: the truth will set you free.Brain and behavior · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe report the results of the investigation of safety and efficacy of venous angioplasty in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) with findings of extracranial venous anomalies, considered hallmarks of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), in a 2-phase study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01450072).
methodsPhase 1 was an open-label safety study (10 patients); phase 2 was sham-controlled, randomized, and double-blind (10 sham procedure, 9 treated). All study patients fulfilled venous hemodynamic screening criteria indicative of CCSVI. Assessment was at 1, 3, and 6 months postprocedure with MRI, clinical, and hemodynamic outcomes. Primary endpoints were safety at 24 hours and 1 month, venous outflow restoration >75% at 1 month, and effect of angioplasty on new lesion activity and relapse rate over 6 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in disability, brain volume, cognitive tests, and quality of life.
resultsNo perioperative complications were noted; however, one patient with history of syncope was diagnosed with episodic bradycardia requiring placement of a pacemaker before discharge. Doppler evidence-based venous hemodynamic insufficiency severity score (VHISS) was reduced >75% compared to baseline in phase 1 (at 1 month) but not phase 2. In phase 2, higher MRI activity (cumulative number of new contrast-enhancing lesions [19 vs 3, p = 0.062] and new T2 lesions [17 vs 3, p = 0.066]) and relapse activity (4 vs 1, p = 0.389) were identified as nonsignificant trends in the treated vs sham arm over 6 months. Using analysis of covariance, significant cumulative new T2 lesions were related to larger VHISS decrease (p = 0.028) and angioplasty (p = 0.01) over the follow-up. No differences in other endpoints were detected.
conclusionVenous angioplasty is not an effective treatment for MS over the short term and may exacerbate underlying disease activity. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This is a Class I study demonstrating that clinical and imaging outcomes are no better or worse in patients with MS identified with venous outflow restriction who receive venous angioplasty compared to sham controls who do not receive angioplasty. This study also includes a Class IV phase 1 study of safety in 10 patients receiving the angioplasty procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.