Induced Heart Attack in Pig Video

[WTEngel]

Hey guys...a while back, maybe 5 or 6 years ago, I saw a video during a class that showed a beating pig heart in which they induced ischemia and eventually infarct in the pig by throwing a loop of suture around various coronary vessels.

Is anyone familiar with this video? If so, any ideas where I might find it for a class I am teaching? I have looked on youtube, but so far, nothing seems to be familiar.

Many thanks.

 

[TB 3541]

Not quite what you were looking for, but perhaps of interest still:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxcXwk4UHm4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[WTEngel]

You're right, that isn't the video...but very interesting indeed.

I noticed there was a sharp edit in there. I wonder what happened between the first and second shock.

I hate that the piggies have to die, but there sure are some excellent open heart training videos out there.

There is one where a camera has been threaded into the right atrium and progressed to the PA (I think). They record clear video of each valve opening and closing with systole and diastole.

 

[Sandog]

Hey guys...a while back, maybe 5 or 6 years ago, I saw a video during a class that showed a beating pig heart in which they induced ischemia and eventually infarct in the pig by throwing a loop of suture around various coronary vessels.

Is anyone familiar with this video? If so, any ideas where I might find it for a class I am teaching? I have looked on youtube, but so far, nothing seems to be familiar.

Many thanks.

Hopefully the animal rights people got it banned. That is a horrible way to treat an animal just for demonstration purposes.

 

[WTEngel]

I guess you would prefer the surgeons and students practice on humans?

 

[DesertMedic66]

 

[Sandog]

I guess you would prefer the surgeons and students practice on humans?

Matter of fact I would (my ex for starters), but aside from that, a video that only demonstrates heart function via live induced MI serves very little in the learning process since most of this can be made using 3D models.

 

[Sandog]

Your image is very cute, and not relevant to this issue. Animal use in research for pharma use serves a purpose in furthering research and science. Hurting animals just to show how the heart works is needless as technology can reproduce much of this without harming animals.

 

[NomadicMedic]

But how about one animal who is sacrificed to produce a training video?

Is that okay?

I'm an animal lovin', tree huggin' liberal... And even I think that's okay.

 

[DesertMedic66]

Your image is very cute, and not relevant to this issue. Animal use in research for pharma use serves a purpose in furthering research and science. Hurting animals just to show how the heart works is needless as technology can reproduce much of this without harming animals.

And how was most of that technology first made? Have to study something before you can start putting numbers into a computer to replicate it.

 

[Sandog]

But how about one animal who is sacrificed to produce a training video?

Is that okay?

I'm an animal lovin', tree huggin' liberal... And even I think that's okay.

I am by no means a tree hugger, but inducing a MI just for pure demonstration is reprehensible. Animation, 3D modeling has come a long way and can serve the same purpose as Live animal demonstrations.

"In the name of science" has been used on countless occasions, and yes with human subjects as well (See Helsinki Act). For most people, ethics seems to have a line, and animals are behind it. What gives us the right to decide that line?

Now when cutting into Elmer Fudd for developing surgical procedure enhances the progression of science, then yes, but when tying off a major artery in a non willing animal just for the sole-purpose of "See here is what happens" I think it is wrong, especially since animation is so advanced that a video can serve the same purpose.

 

[FLdoc2011]

Why do you assume it was made "just to see what happens?"

 

[WTEngel]

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. My take is that if an animal is properly sedated and the action is to further knowledge, then I have little qualms about it in this case. As far as this pig was concerned, he simply went to sleep, and didn't wake up, as opposed to being pushed through a swine run into a slaughter house where he will be bashed in the head, have his throat sliced, or otherwise die...If I got to choose which way I went, I would choose the former.

Another point we disagree on is that computer simulations can do just as good a job at depicting this event as the real thing.

There is no computer simulation that can accurately predict and demonstrate the effects of a taser shot to the chest in the way the video posted did. There is also no computer that can do justice to the way that the myocardium infarcts as the vessels are closed off or accurately depict the amount of time that the heart will continue to beat before it goes into VT or VF. Also, depicting how the heart responds to defibrillation is in no way the same when depicted by a computer simulation. I could go on and on

People are not out there doing this to pigs left and right. It is done in the clinical education setting, and judging from the difficulty finding various videos on it, it is done sparingly at that. Additionally, if this video helps the concept "click" or "solidify" for one medic student or medical student who may progress on to save a life, then again, I must say that I have no qualms about it.

Anyway, I respect you and your values, and you have your right to post about them. I however, reserve the right to state my opinion that I think you are over reacting a bit about this.

 

[Sandog]

Anyway, I respect you and your values, and you have your right to post about them. I however, reserve the right to state my opinion that I think you are over reacting a bit about this.

Fair enough, a very respectful and descent response. Nuf' said.

 

[bigbaldguy]

I guess you would prefer the surgeons and students practice on humans?

Personally I think that's a great idea. We've got lots of them.

 

[Aidey]

I am by no means a tree hugger, but inducing a MI just for pure demonstration is reprehensible. Animation, 3D modeling has come a long way and can serve the same purpose as Live animal demonstrations.

"In the name of science" has been used on countless occasions, and yes with human subjects as well (See Helsinki Act). For most people, ethics seems to have a line, and animals are behind it. What gives us the right to decide that line?

Now when cutting into Elmer Fudd for developing surgical procedure enhances the progression of science, then yes, but when tying off a major artery in a non willing animal just for the sole-purpose of "See here is what happens" I think it is wrong, especially since animation is so advanced that a video can serve the same purpose.

I think it is worth considering that the OP said they saw the video 5-6 years ago. A lot has changed in computers since then, and just because something can be done on a computer now doesn't mean it could have been done back then.

Also, what would the point be in getting the video banned after the fact? They can't unkill the pig, so the video may as well still to be used for educational purposes.

 

[Sandog]

Also, what would the point be in getting the video banned after the fact? They can't unkill the pig, so the video may as well still to be used for educational purposes.

Many valuable medical discoveries were made some time ago. Debates broke out like wildfire amongst scientist about whether to use this scientific knowledge or not.

The Nazi regime doctors that performed their experiments on the Jewish people had indeed made many scientific discoveries that would benefit mankind, but the world collective decided that using this information as useful as it may be was stained in such a way that the information would never be used.

Granted, pinching off a pigs major artery and using it for study is no comparison, but just to make a point about your argument.

The moral, ethical implications of using animals for science is nothing new and I am sure it will continue for sometime. We as people must recognize the need for research and methods used to obtain them versus the value which this research gains us. It is our responsibility to mitigate unneeded use of animals for science in lieu of technology whenever possible.

In my physiology class we sedated some frogs, opened their chest and zapped them with electricity to just watch the heart action. I was appalled and left the classroom. I got a big fat zero for that day but I told the prof my feelings and I was not forced to participate in any future experiments on live animals.

You can give your opposing views until your blue in the face, but I will not waver in my belief.

 

[EpiEMS]

The Nazi regime doctors that performed their experiments on the Jewish people had indeed made many scientific discoveries that would benefit mankind, but the world collective decided that using this information as useful as it may be was stained in such a way that the information would never be used.

Much of that data has, in fact, been used. Some of it has been cast out as scientifically useless (think Mengele's twin experiments that are quite unscientific, as far as legitimate geneticists and physiologists are concerned). The data that has been used was often scrupulously collected by extremely evil men to further their nefarious regime's bellicose aims. Here's a good reading on the topic: http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/ethicsvol2/ethics-ch-15.pdf Reference pages labeled at the bottom as pgs. 448 through 450.
It's from the Borden Institute, which is "an agency of the US Army Medical Department Center & School, publishes the Textbooks of Military Medicine" (http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/). They have a bunch of very interesting textbooks on various health and medicine topics.

The moral, ethical implications of using animals for science is nothing new and I am sure it will continue for sometime. We as people must recognize the need for research and methods used to obtain them versus the value which this research gains us. It is our responsibility to mitigate unneeded use of animals for science in lieu of technology whenever possible.

Agreed, but we should recognize that human life takes precedence. I, for one, would not hesitate to study something on animals (under the most humane of standards, of course!) if it were necessary to preserve human life.

In my physiology class we sedated some frogs, opened their chest and zapped them with electricity to just watch the heart action. I was appalled and left the classroom. I got a big fat zero for that day but I told the prof my feelings and I was not forced to participate in any future experiments on live animals.

That's a very, very moral and clearly heartfelt perspective that is often so lacking today. It's refreshing to see people who really care.

 

[phideux]

I guess you would prefer the surgeons and students practice on humans?

Hell of a way to cut down on prison overcrowding.
Solves 2 problems in one shot.

 

[firetender]

You would not be doing what you're doing were it not for man's best friends!

Defibrillation technology, which, I posit is the backbone of the paramedic program, was developed by the extensive use of dogs as experimental subjects and, as a few of you are sure to interpret, worse! I'll be talking about that in the next installments of our Newsletter, stay tuned!