Talk:Air embolism

Untitled

thanks Alex!Erich 06:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

edit

Air emboli as a complication of medical procedures is actually fairly common, it is rare that it causes symptoms however. Arterial embolism seems to usualy be a paradoxical embolous resulting from increased right sided pressure and a patent foramen ovale, so I added that in. I also added a bit about neurosurgery and central lines. Osmodiar 08:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's an article regarding the use of Trendelenburg positioning in the treatment of air emboli. It's older, but I think it still holds water. And the argument for positioning has been debated for a while, though one of the best arguments I've heard is, "What does it hurt?" PMID 3341824 69.85.217.250 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a trauma surgeon and have encountered massive air emboli to the heart several times. I never use the Tredelenberg position (which is the "dubious" position) but always use the left lateral decubitus position (which is the medically recommended position). I indeed have seen air embolus strokes from this condition from lack of appropriate positioning by uninformed medical personnel who have not recognised the dangers of a supine position in this uncommon but potentially very dangerous situation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.212.179 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 20 March 2013

The idea of using trendelenburg is that the entrance and exit points of blood flow through the heart are superiorly located. As such, the physiologic theory behind head down positioning is that the air will rise (to the bottom of the ventricle) where it will hopefully not obstruct blood flow into and out of the ventricle (though the air may decrease the blood volume and decrease SV accordingly). Additionally, the air should theoretically become trapped in the ventricle, preventing it from exiting and therefor moving downstream where it can entirely occlude distal vessels. I don't have any sources to back up trendeleburg positioning, but that's the physiologic theory behind it.

That is interesting, but can you point us to a reliable reference? We are required to cite a suitable publication for this kind of information. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference is already listed in the article: Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. That is one of the bibles of surgical care, unlike the idiocy spouted in Wikipedia. Go to a medical library, pick up a copy, and read it. There are too many fools who confuse little bubbles injected during iv administration with signficant air emoblus that occurs during trauma. It is the large air emboli that are life threatening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.212.179 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 March 2013‎

This is Wikipedia, If it is broken, you can fix it. Your efforts to improve the article are appreciated. Scorn and condescension are not appreciated, and more importantly, not constructive. I do not make substantive edits to medical articles as I have neither the knowledge nor the access to suitable references, I merely monitor the page as it is peripherally relevant to my field of interest. We always need more editors who are experts, as the scope of the project is so large, but also need copyeditors and patrollers to deal with vandalism and questionable changes. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

needs a little work?

I came here looking for how an embolism causes death precisely; that information should probably be in the lead but instead it is burried in the second paragraph. Thoughts? BFD1 12:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty. I think both paragraphs still stand alone, but maybe someone will correct me. BFD1 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

think about it...

The statement that it doesn't cause instant death needs reviewing. It depends on what you mean with 'instant'. If a large enough air bubble is injected into a vein it can physically hault the blood flow when arriving at thinner vessels, and thus cause a heart attack. Its simple physics: a compressible volume (air bubble) injected into an incompressible flowing system (blood). Death will follow maybe not instantaneously but very quickly. I added an extra link for additional reference.

201.26.118.167 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you gotten veins & arteries confused? Air introduced into a vein doesn't arrive at thinner vessels, it goes through progressively wider vessels until it arrives at, & is blocked by, the lungs. Air introduced into an artery does, however, move on to smaller vessels and can cause blockages and this fact is mentioned in the article.

Cheers, Swampy. 203.48.101.131 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Physics?...

If the pressure in veins above the heart (i.e. head and neck) is lower than atmospheric, why do we bleed when hurt in those areas? Am I missing something here? Ronen.

You are not missing something, you are simply confusing arteries and veins. You bleed from your arteries, which are the high pressure, "out" part of the blood system which is always above atmospheric pressure, whereas the veins are a low pressure "return" part which can (but not always) be below atmospheric pressure at the head. Arfgab (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Death

How does an air bubble cause death? And is it painful? 72.82.17.62

Here's an interesting page on it; Death by air injection. Apparently it just causes increased breathing because your body interprets it as a breathing problem; making the sufferer take on gasping breaths, like you're drowning. It however takes, according to that page, around 200cc's of air in the circulatory system to kill someone. That may, however, be able to build up over time. Nagelfar (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaginal

How can blowing air into the vagina cause an embolism? There's no 'open' blood vessels that just accept air, right? You could get a bubble in your uterus but that still wouldn't be air in the blood.

I also found this section odd when I read it however it does appear to be sourced with 2 separate sources. That said, the instances in and of themselves are as the author said rare. Kinda makes you wonder about the person who edited that section in.

I also looked the papers up online, though I cannot view the whole papers the abstracts seem to indicate the claims of the aforementioned section are accurate. I think we can consider the matter closed. Plaidman (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The source for the air blowing is a book with very dubious information. I'll remove the source and mark as citation needed. Tiago Dias ^talk 18:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, watch 1000 ways to die, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.102.28 (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The value of the Pop Culture section

Given that this is about a technical medical condition I am unconvinced that the Pop culture section makes a useful contribution. In practice, this section probably undermines the rest of the article by introducing red herrings, muddying the arguement with confused ideas and perpetuating urban myths. There may be cases where a Pop section is useful, but rarely in an article that sets out to deal with science. It is proposed that this section be deleted; your comment is invited, I'll leave it up for a few days. Ex nihil (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms

This page really needs a separate section about symptoms. Finding the symptoms in the body of the text is currently very difficult. 130.195.86.37 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reader feedback: i want details regarding gas...

112.79.44.30 posted this comment on 11 September 2013 (view all feedback).

i want details regarding gas embolism during cardio pulmonary bypass

Anyone from medical project that can help?

• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air embolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717210438/http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/uptodate/critical%20care/embolic%20disease/air%20embolism.htm to http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/uptodate/critical%20care/embolic%20disease/air%20embolism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air embolism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080502191923/http://www.uhms.org/ResourceLibrary/Indications/AirorGasEmbolism/tabid/271/Default.aspx to http://www.uhms.org/ResourceLibrary/Indications/AirorGasEmbolism/tabid/271/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Air embolism#In society and culture

Do we really need this new section In society and culture? My conviction is that it belittles and trivialises the page, which is dealing with a technical issue. It does not help anybody likely to come to this page to learn something about the subject. We certainly don't need SPOILER ALERT notices in here, it turns it into a popular journal. I was going to just delete the new section but thought that I would seek other views first. Ex nihil ^(talk) 13:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I too don't think this article needs a society and culture section, as it isn't beneficial to the article and adds irrelevant information, though I think a better consensus is needed. However, there is definitely no need for a spoiler warning, Wikipedia doesn't need to give warnings for any spoilers. I will remove it. Christiaanp (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)