Abstract
Summary
Experiments on monkeys show that in this primate, temporary occlusion of the blood supply to the legs does not cause any signs of shock until the circulation through the damaged leg is reëstablished. Then severe shock ensues even before any significant amount of fluid can be lost from the blood into the damaged area. This observation is incompatible with the dehydration theory of shock.
Blood taken from the vein of an extremity which was damaged by temporary occlusion of its blood supply does not prove more toxic when assayed on the adrenalectomized mouse than blood coming from an intact extremity. This observation is incompatible with the toxic theory of shock.
Experiments on the rat and cat indicate that the sugar concentration of the blood coming from a damaged extremity is significantly below the corresponding values in normal venous blood, conversely the hemoglobin and N.P.N. concentration is above normal in blood which passed through the damaged area. It appears that damaged tissues remove certain metabolites from the blood while they discharge other substances into it. These observations are considered in the light of the hypothesis according to which the general systemic signs of shock are caused by deficiency in certain substances vital for the economy of the body. According to this assumption, shock would follow after the release of temporarily occluded blood vessels not because substances coming from the limb poison the rest of the body but because active metabolic processes drain the body of certain essential compounds, the lack of which causes shock. The authors wish to point out that meanwhile they regard this interpretation merely as a working hypothesis but as such, they feel that unlike the other shock theories, it has the advantage of being compatible with all experimental observations which have so far been made on the subject of shock.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.