This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

RALPH D. CRESSMAN, M.D.; R. H. RIGDON, M.D.

Arch Surg. 1939;39(4):586-595.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

A difference in the response of narcotized and of normal animals has been observed in anaphylactic shock. Besredka¹ found that sensitized guinea pigs which received the shocking reinjection while under ether anesthesia showed no anaphylactic symptoms. Banzhaf and Famulener² obtained similar results with chloral hydrate. Farmer³ recently has shown that ethyl carbamate (urethane) administered to sensitized guinea pigs prior to the shocking reinjection led to the survival of 15 of 30 animals. Besredka explained the action of the narcotic by assuming that the ether "allowed the nerve cell to remain indifferent to the union" of the antigen and antibody. Farmer, however, stated the opinion that this effect of a narcotic is probably attributable to its peripheral action on the bronchial musculature. The exact mechanism by which anesthesia may alter the animal's reaction is apparently not clearly understood.

Dale and Laidlaw⁴ have pointed out that rabbits under . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NASHVILLE, TENN.

From the Departments of Surgery and Pathology, Vanderbilt University.

Footnotes
Aided by a grant to Vanderbilt University from the Division of Medical Sciences of the Rockefeller Foundation.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?