To:
ADC Online Letters and ADC Education and Practice Letters
Electronic Letters to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Asphyxia, or just hypoxia?
- Theo HM Fenton (26 April 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Theo HM Fenton, Consultant Paediatrician Mayday Umiversity Hospital, London Road, Croydon, Surrey
Send letter to journal:
theo.fenton{at}mayday.nhs.uk Theo HM Fenton
|
Dear Editor, Dr Stenson claims that Fugelseth et al's article [1] showed that "The use of 100% oxygen offered no benefit in terms of restoration of cardiac output or normalisation of pulmonary artery pressure after severe asphyxia". However, if we still take a-sphyxia to mean without-pulse, the pigs were not asphyxiated; they were just rendered hypoxic. Fugelseth et al. largely avoid the term asphyxia in their article, but cite another study from Oslo [2] which they state involved asyphyxiated pigs (though actually that also involved hypoxia alone). My dictionary doesn't help much here. It states that asphyxia used to mean "without pulse", but now just means the same as suffocation. It clearly doesn't. Perhaps it's time for us medics to reclaim this useful, and quite descriptive word. References 1. D Fugelseth, W B Børke, K Lenes, I Matthews, O D Saugstad, and E Thaulow. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2005 90: 229-234. 2. Borke WB, Munkeby BH, Morkrid L, et al. Resuscitation with 100% O2 does not protect the myocardium in hypoxic newborn piglets. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004;89:F156–60. |
|||
