Selective and nonselective shunts for variceal bleeding. A prospective study of 103 patients

Based on the experience reported herein, the following conclusions have been made: (1) Although nonoperative means, including sclerotherapy, have an important role in the management of bleeding varices, they are not definitive means of treating recurrent variceal hemorrhage. (2) Because of the maintenance of hepatopetal flow and splanchnic venous hypertension, a selective shunt is associated with a lower incidence of encephalopathy and provides a better quality of life than does a nonselective shunt. Thus, an elective distal splenorenal shunt is the elective operation of choice for recurrent variceal hemorrhage. (3) Nonselective shunts can be performed with similar expectation of patient survival as selective shunts, but because of increased encephalopathy, should be reserved for emergency operations, in cases of unsuitable venous anatomy, and in those patients with intractable ascites. (4) A well-conceived elective shunt procedure can be performed with low operative mortality and long-term patency, results in significant survival, and is still considered the "gold standard" for treatment of variceal bleeding.     

Implications of the 2018 Canadian Cannabis Act: Should regulation differ for medicinal and non-medicinal cannabis use?⋆

The regulatory framework for access to medical cannabis has been established in Canada since 2001, with the number of patients seeking access growing substantially over the years. With the novel enactment of the Cannabis Act in October 2018, Canada now maintains two distinct mechanisms for accessing cannabis - one for medical cannabis and the other for non-medical cannabis. With two regulatory access mechanisms in place, questions have arisen in the country as to the necessity of maintaining regulatory separation and the integrity of the medical access framework. A single framework would remove the gate-keeping function that the medical profession currently holds, streamlining processes and simplifying the current regulatory landscape. This approach has been advocated for by the Canadian Medical Association, despite objections from multiple stakeholders. Critical questions arise should the medical access framework be dissolved into a single, non medical-based regulatory framework. Insurance coverage, control mechanisms, market incentives, and patient obligations represent some examples of these issues. This paper will expand upon these considerations and highlight why maintaining two separate access mechanismss best serves the Canadian public. As medicinal cannabis continues to be liberated in international jurisdictions, this paper can help to illuminate the current status of medical cannabis in Canada, and provide insights to those from other countries on our current approach and domestic challenges.