Slashdot Mirror
Treating the Dead
FlyByPC writes "According to a NewsWeek article, oxygen deprivation doesn't kill patients as much as the resumption of oxygen does. This discovery could bring about new ways of resuscitating people whose hearts have stopped."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Parrots have recently been discovered to follow this exact same pattern during periods of deprivation from their beloved fjords.
the number of things that we, as humans, seem to learn about ourselves each day and week. Theoretically, this could save thousands of people if they figure it out, and would possibly change how we look at the actual moment of death. Might this also be helpful in cryogenics? or how many other branches of medicine? Could this make organ transplants more safe? Could it make heart surgery safer?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I remember reading somewhere in the last few months (possibly here on /.) that the new preferred version of CPR was 10 compressions to one breath, as opposed to the traditional 3. More compressions = less oxygen. . .
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
It does not do any good to have a working body if I am still brain dead at the end of the process.
It might be useful so organs could be used for a transplant.
While I agree that traditional Chinese medicine has disagreed with western treatments, I'd be very interested in seeing any kind of supporting documentation that this specific bit of knowledge has been know to Chinese practitioners for any length of time that would be considered long.
"I recall reading an article in Science News late 70's or early 80's about some research showing it was the blood vessels in the brain spasming that lead to brain death."
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
It even makes sense to me why sudden resumption of oxygen should be lethal. Oxygen is extremely toxic and aerobic organism, such as ourselves, had to evolve complex cellular machinery in order to utilize it for metabolic efficiency, while keeping the oxygen from damaging cellular structures, especially DNA. The sudden surge in oxygenated blood would probably overload this system. Apoptosis in this case may be a protective step by killing the cell before its DNA becomes damaged and possibly cancerous. Thus, flooding the heart with oxygen causes the whole heart to "take one for the team," and shut down completely.
The discovery that the cells are still alive, and can be revived with special treatment is extremely encouraging for the development of better techniques.
Balance deprivation does not kill you, it's the sudden restoration of terra firma that does.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I forget the actual numbers, but the idea was really to simplify the procedure. It's more important to get blood flowing through the heart than do the breaths, so this way inexperienced people spend less time fumbling around with the breaths and more time pumping.
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
Yeah, reprofusion injury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reperfusion_injury.
I wrote about that >20 years ago, when I was writing for a biotechnology newsletter. After >20 years of research, they understand it much better today.
Every surgeon knows about reprofusion injury. You can go to Barnes & Noble and look it up in a surgery textbook.
I don't understand why Newsweek says it's new or that it wasn't known in 1993. I assume those doctors came up with some new detail in its treatment.
anyone else get the world of warcraft ad above this story?
with the panel that reads "RESURRECT FOR FREE"?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes, actually, they are good American names.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Other arguments against socialized medicine include: years-long queues for certain sorts of procedures (which aren't strictly Necessary, but may be Incredibly Useful), the sheer cost of paying for it, and a tricky sort of little moral hazard problem with implications against freedom. (Specifically, if the government has to pay for your health care, then a - you're probably less likely to try and take preventative measures to maintain your health since the Government will deal with it and you won't have to pay for it as heavily as you would otherwise; this contributes to a larger problem: b- being unhealthy means more money out of the federal budget, so the government has a big incentive to make unhealthy activity illegals, and the next thing you know, they could be forcing tofu cubes down your throat screaming "it's good for you!!!!!" when all you want is a hamburger, a simple hamburger, for the love of all that is holy - well, figuratively speaking, anyway; you get the idea.)
The unarguable fact that's in support of socialized medicine is "it will make certain peoples' lives better". It will also probably make people's lives worse - rich people, healthy people who pay taxes, and Future people. For typical middle-class people, it's less than clear.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
This only works on the mostly dead. If someone's all dead, there's only one thing to do -- rifle through their pockets for loose change.
The article has a strange focus on the '5-minute window' of oxygen deprivation to heart muscle. Heart muscle can survive and recover far beyond that 5 minutes. Clot busting drugs can be give hours after a coronary artery becomes occluded, restoring blood supply to heart cells that have been without oxygen that whole time.
It's the brain that's exquisitely sensitive to oxygen deprivation. That 5-minute window refers to irreversible brain damage that begins to occur after ischemia, not heart damage. It's also well known that brain tissue releases toxic metabolites after oxygen deprivation doing damage above and beyond what the lack of oxygen itself did. There are a number of therapies aimed at reversing or blocking this phenomenon, but none have been successful yet.
The intervention that has been shown to be most effective in changing survival outcome once someone's heart has stopped beating is good quality CPR as soon as possible. Most of these other innovations like cooling have only a minimal effect changing a dismal outcome to a not-quite-as-dismal-but-still-pretty-dismal outcome. Most of these intra and post resuscitative interventions only succeed in allowing a patient to linger in the ICU for a few extra days before finally dying.