X-Message-Number: 33372
From: 
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:49:14 EST
Subject: Melody Maxim's Distorted Reality 7

This is the report from me that Ms. Maxim  characterizes as follows:  
Mike's  report seemed so hostile, I found his review truly offensive, from 
the first  page, on. (In Mike's defense, many who haven't witnessed some of 
the bad  behavior that goes on within cryonics organizations and who have 
read my posts  on this forum, might feel the same thing about me. At this 
point in time, I can  truly understand Mike's hostility.)  
Even if I could look past what I perceived as Mike's hostility, I  
disagreed with a lot of Mike's advice and opinions, especially in regard to  

perfusion and perfusion equipment. (FD is going to want me to elaborate, but I
truly can't remember many of the details, I just remember disagreeing with a 
lot  of what I read. The technical details of the specifics I can remember 
would take  me too long to explain, on this forum.)  
Judge for yourselves:  
[Note: My agreement with SA was that none of the  consulting done was 
confidential, and at that time SA had a policy of complete  transparency with 
regard to technical and scientific issues.]   
Input From Mike Darwin 08 June,  2006  
My comments below will be in red where embedded in the text below.   
Some Painful and Arduous Background  
Before I get into the text I want to provide some commentary and  

background on the major paradigm shift suggested and shown in the photographs  
below. 
That is principally the use of a hard-shell venous reservoir as opposed  to 
a compliant bag. I like hardshell reservoirs and started out pumping them;  
the very first was the late 1970s era Bentleys, and of course Kay-Cross 
disc  oxygenators before that.  
When we first started doing in-field CPB and blood washout in  cryonics we 
used the dominant technology of the time which was bubble  oxygenators. 
Below is a photo of a typical 1980s in-mortuary cryopatient washout  using a 
Shiley S-100A bubble oxygenator. The gentleman in the picture is  professional 
perfusionist and cryonics pioneer Jerry Leaf (now deceased).   
The picture of  an in-field femoral cutdown (below) is included simply 

because it shows me  (almost 20 years ago) using the same technology (Im the guy
to the right,  opposite Jerry):  
I include these images because I want to provide historical context  and to 
hopefully demonstrate that I am conversant with hard-shell reservoirs and  
am comfortable using them.  
Both Melody and  Boon are correct in the advantages they cite for 

hard-shells and what I am about  to say will probably seem incredible to both of
them.   
The Alcor  Foundation is the largest and most medically oriented of the 

existing cryonics  organizations. Indeed, both of the case photos you see above
are of Alcor  patients. In September of 1991 Jerry Leaf entered 

cryopreservation and a year  later I was dismissed from Alcor. A young woman 
with no 
prior medical, biology,  or basic science background, was given control of the 
cryopreservation team and  transport operations at Alcor. A veterinary 
surgeon with no prior experience in  CPB was brought in to do the thoracic 
surgery.  
Almost all basic  elements of safe (or rational) technique were either 
severely degraded or  disappeared at this time. Rational selection of cannula 
size and even the use of  venous cannula during femoral-femoral washout 
vanished. Mortuary embalming pumps  were used when convenient (often because 
something was missing from the washout  field kit which disabled it). Proper 
securing of cannula via the use of properly  anchored tubing holders and 

securing the red Robinson snares to the tubing with  umbilical tape stopped. An
immediate consequence of this was that arterial  cannula began to pop-out of 
the aortic root in about one in three cases. Since  no one knew to clamp the 
venous line when this happened, and the patients had  little intravascular 
pressure (MAP ~ 35 mm Hg), there was massive air  entrainment in the aortic 
root where it could not be seen with the consequence  being massive air 
embolization of these patients.  
In one case (a  dear friend of mine), the arterial line was mistakenly 
placed in the femoral  vein and a very small bore venous cannula was placed in 
the femoral artery and  bypass was initiated at near physiologic flow rates. 
The result was massive  splanchnic edema and epistaxis due to rupture of 
vessels in the sinuses: one can  only imagine what the effect on the brain 
capillary bed was.   
Standard  practice at Alcor has been to use a very small in-house 

fabricated hard-shell  reservoir for cryoprotective agent (CPA) perfusion which 
is 
run with only 100cc  to 200cc of volume in it. Air is routinely entrained into 
the arterial leg of  the circuit and it is dogma that the air separation 
membrane on the 40 micron  Pall filter will remove this air. This reservoir is 
also stirred continuously,  using a magnetic stir bar to create vortex 

stirring, with accompanying creation  of massive quantities of microbubbles. The
CPA perfusate is at least twice as  viscous as blood and has multiple 

polymers that create very stable foams and  delay the gravity-mediated removal 
of 
microbubbles for many minutes far beyond  the design constraints of 

arterial filters used for blood in CPB circuits. I  have written extensively on
this;  http://www.cryocare.org/index.cgi?subdir=bpi&url=tech5.txt   
However, despite  identifying this problem and creating a solution, no 
changes have been made in  the subsequent 12 years.  
The young woman  I mentioned previously returned to Alcor several years ago 
and continues to be  the dominant technical presence.  
The quote below  is from a brief case summary of a patient perfused in 
Alcors facilities in  August of 2005 
(http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/alcornews043.html):   
"Once at the lab, the open heart surgery for this whole-body   
patient was begun, followed by the introduction of the   
newest cryoprotection protocol. At around 30-40 percent of   
our target concentration, the system filled with foam,   
which was subsequently pumped into the patient. Perfusion   
was stopped, and the foam was methodically removed from the   
cannula and the aorta, to the best of our ability to do so.   
This incident highlighted many problems, not the least of   
which was that the perfusionist had stepped away from his   
station without providing for a replacement. Other problems   
contributing to the foam were the ice blockers themselves   
(X-1000 makes a rather stable foam); the cardiotomy suction   
system was introducing bubbles into the mixing reservoir;   
and the mixing reservoir was being run low. It took us a   
full hour to de-foam as much as we did.   
Cryoprotection  was terminated after refractive readings in  
both arterial and venous samples remained above the target   
for a half hour. The patient experienced severe edema, and   
we have several theories about what contributed; changes   
will be made to the whole-body protocol as a result.   
The patient, Alcors 64th, was pronounced in the early   
morning of May 13, the expected medications were   
administered, and she was then removed to a funeral home.   
Because of extensive sclerosis in the femoral vessels, the   
patient was washed out using the right carotid, but this   
fact was not communicated to the operating room team and   
precipitated an early cryoprotective ramp. Because the neck   
was obscured by ice bags and drapes, we failed to locate the   
additional source of leakage in an already difficult   
surgery. Despite the problems during surgery, the   
cryoprotection went fairly well."  


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33372

Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster sent too many messages per digest.
It thus may need to be rated.