[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.204.104.49. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 1979

Underlying Flaws in the Sarnoff Curve-Reply

Author Affiliations

Valhalla, NY

Arch Surg. 1979;114(9):1093. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1979.01370330114031
Abstract

In Reply.—In response to Dr Antonio Boba's comments on Dr L. R. M. Del Guercio's comments on the article entitled "Hemodynamic effects of dopamine in septic shock with and without acute renal failure" (Archives 113:1414-1416, 1978), I believe it was Emile Zola who said, "To be simple is to be great." This is particularly true in the case of physiological and clinical concepts. Back in the 1950s, Stanley J. Sarnoff1 described a diagram that neatly displayed the Starling-Frank hypothesis of ventricular function. The original concept, derived from work in animals, has proved to be a valuable clinical tool in man. The Sarnoff ventricular function curve is great because it is simple and it works. Essentially, Dr Boba's complaint is that left ventricular stroke work, which is recorded on the ordinate, is not a single variable but rather the product of the blood pressure and the stroke volume and

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