Talk:Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest

message: We need references other than Grey's Anatomy --Gbleem 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this correct. Why exactly is this done. Something about blood pressure? --Gbleem 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No brain activity? 

message: The proper name for this is circulatory arrest.  Did they call it a standstill operation on Grey's Anatomy? Dlodge 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Pubmed Search for "standstill operation" reveals no matches (with quotes, without quotes there are 116 matches for non-consecutive words).  A search on "circulatory arrest" (with quotes) reveals 3515 articles.  This term is something coined by Grey's Anatomy - it has no basis in the medical literature, or as part of common hospital lingo (referred to as "circ arrest"). Dlodge 21:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. Dlodge (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: I propose removal of this odd, unsubstantiated sentence in the opening paragraph of the article. This sentence contradicts the content of the article itself, namely a medico-surgical technique that stops blood from circulating ("circulatory arrest"), for up to 30 minutes or longer, in order to save the life of the patient. At no point during the procedure are the cells that comprise the body "not able to live" because blood isn't circulating. Even in normothermic circulatory arrest, necrosis (unprogrammed cell death) does not occur in cells for many hours after cessation of "blood circulating;" the fact that there are victims of cardiac arrest who've survived more than 7 minutes of normothermic circulatory arrest makes the aforementioned sentence explicitly false. Blacksun1942 (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The body can not live for more than 7 minutes without blood circulating" 

message: I appreciate the work you have done turning this nothing article into something Cryobiologist.   
Some issues with this section... 
# Part of this is constructed like a review paper written by a scientist.   Relevant primary sources have been gathered, and a narrative constructed out of them, based on the author's judgement of what primary sources were important.  That is normal and expected when writing a review.  But that is not how Wikipedia articles are generated.  We read secondary sources and summarize them.  It is is bizarre, i know, but that is what we do here.   Editors can fight all day - and never reach a rational decision, if the sources we use are primary.  Editor A thinks the 1955 dog study is garbage and should get little weight.  Editor B thinks it is super-important and should be elaborated at great length.  There is no end to that.  This is why we use reviews.  They tell us what papers mattered.  What was really significant strides forward. 
# The part at the end moves over into some kind of "reporting" using popular science media.  Again we should be using reviews from the literature to guide content.  
# I'm grateful that through out this distinctions are made between clinical work and work on animals.  I do struggle with descriptions of experiments where there was significant mortality, not mentioning that.
# should we split this, maybe into "history" and "research".  when i come back to this i want to add content about the device development that went on with this, and the regulatory environment around that.  so interesting.
:::Thanks, Jytdog, for taking the time to explain. I agree that rather than just an historical introduction to EPR in the Research section, the article really needs a history section covering the established use of DHCA in elective surgery. I've already found reviews for that that I believe you'll find satisfactory. I'll write the History section this weekend. Then I'll improve the Research section discussion of EPR per your observations. Cryobiologist (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  research section 

message: The following is all unsourced.  The paper from 1958 cannot be a source for the claim that the matters discussed in that paper were the coldest as of 2012
Profound hypothermia (< 14 deg°C) usually isn't used clinically. It is a subject of research in animals and human clinical trials. As of 2012, the lowest body temperature ever survived by a human being was 9°C (48°F) as part of a hypothermic circulatory arrest experiment to treat cancer in 1957. This temperature was reached without surgery, using external cooling alone. Similar low temperatures are expected to be reached in emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) clinical trials described at the end of this article.
-- Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I shouldn't have saved it before I was completely finished. It's fixed now. Cryobiologist (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record coldest