[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.167.181.242. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 1939

CAPILLARY PERMEABILITY AND INFLAMMATION IN NARCOTIZED RABBITS

Author Affiliations

NASHVILLE, TENN.
From the Departments of Surgery and Pathology, Vanderbilt University.

Arch Surg. 1939;39(4):586-595. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1939.01200160076005
Abstract

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

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×