Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
January 1945


Author Affiliations

From the Medical Service of Grady Hospital and the Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine.

Arch Surg. 1945;50(1):1-5. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1945.01230030004001

To the uninitiated the literature on shock is confusing and difficult to understand. As used in the clinical literature of the last thirty years, the term shock has described a clinical picture characterized either by a sharp fall in arterial pressure or by the peripheral signs and symptoms of a decrease in cardiac output. When a physician said that a patient was in shock he was describing the general appearance of the patient. The term had no specific physiologic connotation. It did not indicate why the circulation had failed; it simply implied that it had failed.

From time to time various authors, including ourselves,1 have attempted to restrict the use of the term shock to the circulatory insufficiency produced by a failure of venous return to the heart. Further work in the clinic has convinced us that a physician many times cannot determine at once the physiologic basis of

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