X-Message-Number: 11275
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:02:28 -0700
From: "Tony B. Csoka" <>
Subject: Perflourocarbons

Hi,

I have just read the fascinating summaries by Charles Platt of the 21 CM
seminar.
By coincidence, a few days ago I asked about the use of perflourocarbons
in cryonics after reading a (non-cryonics) article in Scientific
American. I'd just like to point out that at that time I was not aware
that perflourocarbons had been discussed at the 21 CM meeting, nor that
they were being considered for rapid cooling procedures. They seem like
a very promising group of compounds! 

Tony B. Csoka, Ph.D.

On Monday 8 February 1999, Charles Platt wrote:

>  Until relatively recently, no one knew how to cool a 
> human patient faster than 0.1 degree Celsius per minute. The 
> new technique of perfluorocarbon perfusion, however, offers a 
> radical improvement. First, the patient would be perfused 
> normally with cryoprotectant. Then the vascular system would 
> be flushed with a perfluorocarbon, which is nontoxic and 
> remains free-flowing at temperatures as low as -130 degrees. 
> Potentially this can produce a cooling rate of almost 10 
> degrees per minute--100 times the best rate for a cryonics 
> patient using conventional methods. Because the temperature 
> differential diminishes as cooling takes place, the cooling 
> rate will diminish also; but 1 degree per minute is still 
> possible even at -110 degrees. This has actually been 
> verified in dog experiments. 
>      The procedure will require a specially insulated room 
> where perfluorocarbon can be sprayed onto the patient and 
> perfused through the patient under remote control. A 
> prototype cold room has been built at 21st Century Medicine. 
>      Perfluorocarbon cooling is such a powerful technique, it 
> enables vitrification with lower concentrations of 
> cryoprotectant. A 7 molar solution of glycerol, with X1 ice 
> blocker added, should be sufficient. Unfortunately, even a 7 
> molar glycerol solution is biochemically toxic to cells. 
> Perhaps chemical damage will be much easier to undo in the 
> future than structural damage, but still we would prefer, 
> obviously, to do no damage at all.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11275