PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1777405

Selective variceal decompression: current status.

Abstract

Since its introduction into clinical practice in 1967, selective variceal decompression by means of a distal splenorenal shunt (DSRS) has become one of the more commonly performed portal-systemic shunting procedures in the treatment of variceal hemorrhage throughout the world. In addition to selective decompression of gastroesophageal varices, the DSRS provides the advantages of preservation of portal perfusion of the liver and maintenance of intestinal venous hypertension. Many large, uncontrolled series and the majority of controlled randomized studies have demonstrated a lower incidence of encephalopathy after the DSRS than after nonselective shunt procedures. A secondary advantage of the DSRS is that the hepatic hilum is avoided, thus making subsequent liver transplantation a less formidable procedure. None of the studies have shown an advantage to this shunt with respect to long-term survival in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis. However, some of the large, uncontrolled series have shown that survival is significantly improved in patients with non-alcoholic cirrhosis compared to nonselective shunt procedures in the same population. Controlled trials comparing the DSRS to endoscopic sclerotherapy have shown that chronic endoscopic variceal sclerosis is an appropriate initial therapy for most patients as long as shunt surgery is readily available if sclerotherapy fails.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G L Jin, L F Rikkers. 1991. Selective variceal decompression: current status.. https://doi.org/10.1155/1991%2F19213

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Thrombolytic therapy of acute myocardial infarction. Keeping the unfulfilled promises.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction, evaluating whether inclusion and exclusion criteria should be altered as well as the public health implications of any such alterations. DATA SOURCES: Data obtained were from English-language articles on the use of thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Articles that reported on inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as specific complications of this therapy were specifically sought. The review included articles under the terms thrombolytic therapy and acute myocardial infarction in the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database. STUDY SELECTION: Studies selected for detailed review were those reporting specifics about inclusion and exclusion criteria and efficacy. Data extraction guidelines for assessing data quality included study size, patient population, detail of patient information acquired, and consecutive patient enrollment. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thrombolytic therapy can provide substantial decrements of morbidity and mortality of acute myocardial infarction in the subset of patients who receive this therapy, but is underused in the United States. Advanced age per se should not be an exclusion criterion. Improvements can be made in electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Many of the clinical conditions initially excluded from thrombolytic consideration, such as hypertension or having received cardiopulmonary resuscitation, are only relative contraindications. The benefit/risk ratio in treatment of these patients is often acceptable. Several well-documented points of delay from onset of symptoms to treatment can be minimized, and accelerated therapy can result in a reduction in mortality rates. CONCLUSION: Significant public health benefits will result from greater use of thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.

Contraindications

[Anti-typhoid vaccines].

There are three commercially available vaccines against typhoid fever: parenteral inactivated whole cell vaccine, oral live attenuated (strain ty21a), parenteral polysaccharide vaccine (capsular antigen-Vi). Their protective efficacy is 50 to 88% (inactivated vaccine), 50 to 96% (live attenuated vaccine) and 75 to 80% (polysaccharide vaccine). The frequency of notable adverse reactions with the inactivated vaccine justifies the use of the new vaccines.

Contraindications