Advertisement

Effect of Porto-Caval Shunt on Splanchnic Blood Flow in Hemorrhage

  • J. Hamar
  • M. Gergely
  • I. Nyáry
  • A. G. B. Kovách
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 33)

Abstract

Hypovolemic shock of the dogs is regularly accompanied by hemorrhagic necrosis of the intestinal epithelium. According to Lillehei et al., (1962), Seikurt (1970) and Lefler (1970) hemorrhagic enteritis appears to play an etiologic role in the shock state. Although the cause of the widespread intestinal damage is not yet clear, hemodynamic changes undoubtedly play a relevant role in its development. It was repeatedly shown (Fine, 1967; Lillehei et al., 1967; Bashour & McClelland, 1967) that blood flow through organs of the splanchnic area decreases considerably both in hemorrhagic and other forms of shock. Among possible etiologic factors, the long-lasting hypotension, the increased sympathetic activity (Chien & Hitzig, 1964; Fedina et al., 1965; Thämer et al. 1969) and, in dogs only, the constriction of the hepatic sphincters (Conn & Parsons, 1950; MacLean et al., 1956; Knisely et al., 1957) should be considered. However the precise role of the hepatic sphincters in initiating necrosis of the intestinal epithelium has not yet been established. In order to clarify their role we studied the effect of porto-caval shunt on the development of shock in anesthetized dogs.

Keywords

Cardiac Output Arterial Blood Pressure Central Venous Pressure Intestinal Epithelium Hypovolemic Shock 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bashour, F.A. & McClelland, R. (1967) Gastroenterology.52,461.Google Scholar
  2. Chien, S. & Hitzig, B. (1964) Am.J.Phys. 206, 21.Google Scholar
  3. Cohn, R. & Parsons, H. (1950) Am. J. Phys. 160, 347.Google Scholar
  4. Fedina, L., Kovach, A.G.B. & Vanik, M. (1965) Acta physiol. hung. Suppl. 26, 35.Google Scholar
  5. Fine, J. (1967) Gastroenterology 52, 454.Google Scholar
  6. Gouriz, J.T. & Nickerson, M. (1965) In: Shock and Hypotension. Ed. L.C. Mills and J.H. Moyer. Grune & Stratton, New York-London.Google Scholar
  7. Knisely, M., Harding, F. & Debacker, H. (1957) Science, 125, 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kovách, A.G.B. & Mitsányi, A. (1964) Wien Med Wschr.114,401.Google Scholar
  9. Leffer, A. (1970) Fed. Proc. 29, 1836.Google Scholar
  10. Lillehei, R.C., Dietzman, R. & Movsas, S. (1967) Gastroenterology 52, 468.Google Scholar
  11. Lillehei, R.C., Longbeam, J.K. & Rosenberg, J.C. (1962) In: Shock, Pathogenesis and Therapy. Ed. K.D. Bock, Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg, Springer Verl. p. 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacLean, L.D., Weil, M.H., Spink, W.W. & Visscher, M.B. (1956) Proc.Soc.Exp.Biol.Med. 92, 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Selkurt, E. (1970) Fed. Proc. 29, 1832.Google Scholar
  14. Thämer, V., Weidinger, H. & Kirchner, F. (1969). Z. Krelslaufforsen 58, 472.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Hamar
    • 1
  • M. Gergely
    • 1
  • I. Nyáry
    • 1
  • A. G. B. Kovách
    • 1
  1. 1.Experimental Research DepartmentSemmelweis Medical UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations