Introduction
The venous system is a complex, low-pressure, freely communicating network of vessels, which contains 75% of the body’s circulating blood volume. The main function of the venous system is to return blood to the heart from the periphery and maintain cardiac output. Pathology in the peripheral venous system is frequently encountered and well-characterized as exemplified by varicose veins and deep vein thrombosis [
1,
2].
The extra-cranial venous system is complex as compared to the peripheral venous system, not well-examined and only partially understood [
3,
4]. It is a complex three-dimensional (3D) structure that is often asymmetric and represents significantly more variability than extra-cranial arterial anatomy. For example, unlike the carotid artery, the vascular wall of the internal jugular veins (IJVs) is much more flexible with a variable lumen diameter which can be influenced by postural change, respiration, cardiac function, hypovolemia and hydration status even by the pulsation of nearby arteries [
5‐
10]. Even less is known about the main drainage routes of the spine, namely the azygous venous system and its pathophysiology. When performing imaging of the extra-cranial venous system, it is almost impossible to take all of the above factors into account, regardless of the imaging modality utilized. Moreover, because of the variant shapes and asymmetry of the IJVs, proper sizing is complex with common under- or over-estimation of the vessel diameter in regards presence of stenosis [
11].
Currently, literature is relatively sparse in terms of investigation of the extra-cranial venous system as compared to the cerebrovascular arterial or peripheral venous systems. For almost two decades, uni- or bi-lateral jugular vein reflux (JVR) has been noted and related to several neurological disorders such as transient global amnesia, transient monocular blindness, cough headache and primary exertional headache [
12‐
17]. However, only recently, a newly-proposed vascular condition, named chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) [
18], has generated an intense interest in better understanding of the role of extra-cranial venous anomalies and developmental variants, particularly in relation to the development of central nervous system (CNS) pathology [
10,
19‐
26]. CCSVI has been described as a vascular condition characterized by anomalies of the main extra-cranial cerebrospinal venous outflow routes that interfere with normal venous outflow in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) [
18,
27,
28].
The presence of the CCSVI implies a pathological condition for which diagnosis is based mainly on color Doppler Sonography (DS) findings in the extra-cranial (neck) and intra-cranial veins by assessing five venous hemodynamic (VH) criteria (with cutoff of ≥2 positive criteria used for diagnosis of CCSVI) [
18,
27]. The reliability of using DS in the diagnosis of CCSVI is questionable without proper training [
29‐
31] and has been the focal point of recent statements from various societies [
32,
33].
Additional noninvasive modalities, such as magnetic resonance venography (MRV) [
30,
31,
34‐
44] or computed tomography venography (CTV), may facilitate greater intra-cranial and extra-cranial vein examination, including that of the azygous vein in the chest, leading to an improved knowledge in this area, specifically, the anatomy of normal cerebrospinal venous outflow.
Although catheter venography (CV) is widely considered the “gold standard” for the assessment of vascular anomalies, including CCSVI [
28,
34,
42,
43,
45‐
51], there is a lack of standard CV protocol or established guidelines for optimal diagnostic assessment of CCSVI diagnosis. There are significant differences between CV techniques and its interpretation among angiographers with no scientific evidence supporting a particular angiographic technique. Moreover, the rules implied in arterial imaging cannot be used for the imaging of extra-cranial veins.
Venous anomalies vs. developmental variants
The venous system development through stages may be associated with a number of developmental variants that do not necessarily represent pathological findings [
52‐
54]. It has been reported that the extra-cranial venous anomalies are likely to be truncal venous malformations [
53] characterized by intra-luminal defects, (such as flaps, webs, septums, membranes and malformed valves) [
18,
31,
45] or by extra-luminal anomalies represented by stenoses of the venous wall [
18,
28,
31,
45,
46,
48,
49,
51]. Pathological studies aimed to define the nature of these venous anomalies/developmental variants are limited and more investigations are needed [
55,
56]. Diaconu
et al. examined the IJVs, the brachiocephalic veins and the azygos vein from 20 cadavers (10 control and 10 MS patients) and concluded that the anatomy of the extra-cranial venous system has significant variability, including a differing number of valves in different regions and variable characteristics of the valves [
56]. Coen
et al. examined specimens from the IJVs of MS patients who underwent surgical reconstruction of the IJV, specimens of the great saphenous vein used for surgical reconstruction and specimens from patients without MS [
55]. They found that extra-cranial veins of MS patients showed focal thickenings of the wall associated with a higher expression of type III collagen in the adventitia. Further studies are needed to define extra-cranial venous anomalies/developmental variants that cause significant hemodynamic alterations in the drainage of intra-cranial venous system and to determine their incidence and prevalence in aging, MS and other CNS disorders.
Controversy and debate that triggered need for standardization and development of imaging procedures
Although the CCSVI hypothesis has provoked great controversy and debate in the MS research community since it was first presented [
20,
23,
24,
57‐
61], it gained popularity among MS patients because of the postulated possibility of venous insufficiency correction using endovascular procedures [
28]. So far, there have been several contradictory studies published [
28,
46,
49,
62‐
68] and verified scientific evidence supportive of a causative relationship between CCSVI and MS is lacking [
10,
69]. As with many promising, yet unproven therapies, many MS patients have undergone endovascular treatment for CCSVI [
70‐
74]. Patients have undergone these endovascular procedures in either open-label or private care settings but largely in non-randomized, non-blinded and poorly controlled clinical settings [
69]. Some of the central tensions of the CCSVI debate are related to the fact that the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment have not been investigated and proven to be beneficial in randomized, controlled, blinded trials. So far there have been several case reports concerning patients who had serious side effects after angioplasty for CCSVI like IJV stent thrombosis requiring open thrombectomy, stent migration, aneurysmal vein dilatation, cranial nerves neuropathy, as well as reports of lethal cases [
48,
49,
63,
75]. Because patients with other neurologic diseases (OND) and healthy individuals may present with CCSVI, it is unclear whether the correction of CCSVI is necessary and whether it can lead to objectively measured improvements [
76].
There is an increasing interest in imaging the extra-cranial venous system and great need for determination of the imaging “gold standard” for the detection of extra-cranial venous anomalies and developmental variants [
76,
77]. In our view, additional research and effort is needed until clear and uniform answers are found [
76].
This article summarizes current knowledge regarding the advantages and disadvantages of both noninvasive and invasive imaging modalities for the detection of these extra-cranial venous anomalies and developmental variants that have been associated with CCSVI (Tables
1 and
2). This article also describes the need for standardization and development of guidelines.
Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of noninvasive diagnostic methods for diagnosis of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency
| - noninvasive | - no standardized guidelines |
- without ionizing radiation | - operator dependent |
- less expensive | - time consuming (60 to 120 minutes) |
- high resolution | - blinding procedures are challenging |
- real time information | - cannot perform global view of the veins (limited window) |
- sensitive to detect flow changes, intra- and extra-luminal abnormalities | - misidentification of the veins |
- ability to measure velocity | - influenced by hydration status |
- possible control of respiratory phases | |
| - noninvasive | - no real time information |
- without ionizing radiation | - cannot detect intra-luminal abnormalities |
- well established method | - low specificity of conventional MRV techniques |
- operator independent | - influenced by hydration status |
- less time consuming than DS | - azygos vein examination needs technical improvements due to important artifacts (breathing, heart movements) |
- provide global view of intra- and extra-cranial venous system | - underestimates the vascular caliber |
- easy to blind | - “snapshot” nature |
- ability to measure flow and velocity with advanced technique (phase contrast MRV) | |
- global view of collateral veins |
- can be performed without contrast (pregnancy, allergy) |
Computed tomography venography[ 5, 103, 104] | - noninvasive | - ionizing radiation |
- less expensive and time consuming than MRV | - no real time information |
- better spatial resolution than MRV | - cannot detect intra-luminal abnormalities |
- global view of veins | - cannot be performed without contrast (allergy, toxicity) |
- lack of experience for extra-cranial venous system | - less contrast resolution than MRV |
| - noninvasive | - higher false-positive rate due to venous compression arising from incorrect patient positioning or the action of extrinsic masses |
- provides valuable information regarding the impact of reflux and obstruction on overall venous function | - low resolution |
| - can monitor the dynamics of venous disease over time and evaluation of treatment outcomes | |
Table 2
Advantages and disadvantages of invasive diagnostic methods for diagnosis of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency
| - considered gold standard | - invasive method |
- real time information can be obtained by using contrast | - ionizing radiation |
- ability to measure pressure | - cannot be performed without contrast (allergy, toxicity) |
- provide “road map” for planning endovascular procedures | - operator dependent |
- can be complemented by use of more sophisticated criteria (time to empty contrast from vein or wasting of the balloon) | - time consuming (>45 minutes) |
| - cannot detect intra-luminal abnormalities |
- no global view of veins and collaterals |
- no standardized definition of significant vein stenoses |
| - offers a 360° view of the vessel’s wall from the inside | - invasive method |
- can detect intra-luminal abnormalities | - lack of experience - no standardized protocols |
- easily accesses all parts of IJVs in comparison with DS | - ring down artifacts |
- provides more accurate assessment of vein stenosis and wall thickness than CV and DS | - geometric distortion - from imaging in an oblique plane |
| | - size of IVUS probe - limitation in the imaging of severe stenosis |
Conclusions
The use of noninvasive methods, such as DS, to confirm the diagnosis of CCSVI presently remains controversial. A consensus on DS protocols to ensure appropriate quality control for the determination of venous anomalies and developmental variants, indicative of CCSVI is essential [
32,
33,
113]. Although a number of authors have proposed use of MRV as an alternative noninvasive diagnostic approach, no consensus currently exists. Thus, at present, the true prevalence of CCSVI in MS patients versus controls has not been adequately assessed.
Diagnostic studies in diseased and control populations using invasive imaging techniques, such as CV and IVUS, to detect venous anomalies and developmental variants indicative of CCSVI are essential to determine their true prevalence.
Because of the complexity and variability of the extra-cranial venous system, it is almost impossible to take all of the factors mentioned above into account, regardless of the imaging modality used. Each noninvasive and invasive imaging modality has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages (Tables
1 and
2). Most likely, only multimodal imaging will eventually become the reliable screening, diagnostic and monitoring tool for the assessment of the extra-cranial venous system.
Further research is needed to determine the spectrum of extra-cranial venous anomalies and developmental variants and to compare findings against pathological examinations [
55,
56]. Undoubtedly, the attention being focused on CCSVI has significantly contributed to the vast surge in research on the extra-cranial venous system.
Unfortunately, as a consequence of uncritical use of endovascular procedures, an increasing number of adverse events have been reported after angioplastic procedures for CCSVI. The ability to diagnose CCSVI noninvasively will be an essential step toward better understanding of its importance in general population and disease states.
Acknowledgements
The authors declare that their CCSVI studies were funded with internal resources of the Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Jacobs MS Comprehensive and Research Center, University at Buffalo. In addition, they received support from the Direct MS Foundation, Kaleida-Health, Volcano, ev3, Codman, the Jacquemin Foundation and from minor donors.
Competing interests
Kresimir Dolic, Yuval Karmon and Karen Marr have no competing interests to disclose.
Dr. Siddiqui has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health (co-investigator: NINDS 1R01NS064592-01A1, Hemodynamic induction of pathologic remodeling leading to intracranial aneurysms) and the University at Buffalo (Research Development Award); holds financial interests in Hotspur, Intratech Medical, StimSox, and Valor Medical; serves as a consultant to Codman & Shurtleff, Inc., Concentric Medical, ev3/Covidien Vascular Therapies, GuidePoint Global Consulting, Penumbra and Stryker Neurovascular; belongs to the speakers’ bureaus of Codman & Shurtleff, Inc. and Genentech; serves on National Steering Committee for Penumbra, Inc., 3D Separator Trial; serves on an advisory board for Codman & Shurtleff; and has received honoraria from American Association of Neurological Surgeons’ courses, Genentech, Neocure Group LLC, Annual Peripheral Angioplasty and All That Jazz Course and from Abbott Vascular and Codman & Shurtleff, Inc. for training other neurointerventionists in carotid stenting and for training physicians in endovascular stenting for aneurysms. Dr. Siddiqui receives no consulting salary arrangements. All consulting is per project and/or per hour.
Dr. Zivadinov received financial support for research activities from Biogen Idec, Teva Pharmaceutical and Teva Neuroscience, EMD Serono, Genzyme-Sanofi, Novartis, Greatbatch, Bracco and Questcor. He also received personal compensation from Teva Pharmaceutical, Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genzyme-Sanofi, EMD Serono, Bayer, Novartis and General Electric for speaking and consultant services.
Authors’ contributions
KD and RZ designed as well as drafted the article, while AHS, YK and KM revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.