There was an examination of the body forty-eight hours after death. The body was rigid. There was a good amount of fat beneath the integuments. The cartilages of the ribs were ossified. The lungs were large, and did not collapse; they completely filled the cavity of the chest, and seemed by their texture to be emphysematous, although there were no large cells on the surface. There was a little congestion at the posterior surface of the left one, otherwise they were not very vascular. There was a little clear fluid in the pericardium. There was a good deal of fat on the surface of the heart, which was somewhat larger than natural. It was removed by cutting the great vessels before it was opened, and in removing it three or four ounces of dark-coloured fluid blood escaped. The right ventricle was somewhat dilated, otherwise the heart was healthy; the walls of the left ventricle seemed very thick, but it was contracted, so as almost to obliterate the cavity. The liver was vascular, dark-coloured, and friable. The stomach was healthy, and contained only a little mucus. The other organs were not examined. There was no odour of amylene in the body.
I believe the patient had emphysema of the lungs. There was no such force used in the artificial respiration as could permanently dilate the air-cells, and the dilatation of the right ventricle indicates some chronic obstruction to the pulmonary circulation.
The other death from amylene occurred in St. George’s Hospital on July 30th, 1857, in a case in which Mr. Cæsar Hawkins removed a small epithelial tumour from the back. The patient, a short, muscular man, was a tailor, twenty-four years of age, who had been in the Hospital several months, and had had three similar tumours removed, by as many operations, under chloroform; the last of these operations having been performed three weeks previously. He inhaled the amylene without any difficulty; in about two minutes he appeared to be unconscious, and, in another minute, the sensibility of the margin of the eyelids was somewhat diminished, and I told Mr. Hawkins that he might perform the operation. For this purpose the patient, who had been lying on his side on the table, was turned a little more on his face, or at least it was attempted to turn him, when he burst out into a kind of hysterical excitement, laughed loudly, and was with difficulty held on the table. Nothing was done during this excitement, which lasted about a minute. After it had subsided, I administered a little more amylene, although the patient had not recovered his consciousness; and then Mr. Hawkins performed the operation, which I believe did not last more than two minutes altogether. During the operation, the patient was turned on his face. He rested, I think, chiefly on his knees and elbows. He was muttering in an incoherent manner, and making slight attempts to move, but was easily restrained. I gave him an inspiration or two of amylene now and then during the operation, with the intention of preventing his waking prematurely; for this purpose, I turned the head a little to one side, and raised the face a little from the table.[176] I had concluded that the patient would not require any more amylene, and was expecting that he would show signs of returning consciousness or sensibility almost as soon as Mr. Hawkins had tied the suture which he was introducing; but, instead of this, the limbs became relaxed, and the breathing, though free enough, took on a noisy, snoring character.
This is a state which is common enough in the use of chloroform, and excites no alarm whatever, but I felt that it ought not to occur in the use of amylene, especially after it was left off. I therefore sought again for the pulse at the wrist, and could perceive it only with difficulty, if at all. I spoke to Mr. Hawkins, and we immediately turned the patient on his back. His face had already become livid, and his breathing was of a gasping character. Mouth to mouth insufflation of the lungs was performed, and between the insufflations there were spontaneous acts of inspiration, during which the air seemed to enter the lungs freely. In a minute or two, the lips became of a proper colour, and the countenance had altogether such a natural aspect that the patient seemed to be recovering. The pulse at the wrist, however, could not be felt. No one listened to the chest at this time, for fear of interrupting the process of artificial respiration. After two or three minutes, Dr. Marshall Hall’s method of artificial breathing was substituted for the insufflation, and it was continued very perfectly by the house surgeons and others for an hour and a half, with the exception of two short intermissions, which will be mentioned. During three-quarters of an hour of this time, there were spontaneous inspirations, during which air entered the lungs, in addition to that which entered during the turning process. Twenty minutes after the accident, the process of artificial respiration was suspended for about a quarter of a minute, to enable me to listen to the chest. I thought I could hear the heart beating regularly, but very feebly, and certainly there was a good vesicular murmur, and the air seemed to enter the lungs by the patient’s own breathing, almost as freely as in health. At the end of three-quarters of an hour, with the permission of Mr. Hawkins, I introduced two hare-lip pins which had been connected with the electro-magnetic battery, with the intention of performing galvano-puncture of the heart. The needles were introduced to the depth of about an inch and a half between the cartilages of the ribs, just to the left of the sternum, and on a level with the nipple. They were afterwards found to have penetrated the walls of the left ventricle, near the septum, but without reaching the cavity. There was a quivering contraction of the pectoral muscle when the needles were first applied, but no effect on the heart. The needles ought probably to have been coated with some non-conducting substance almost as far as their points. There were no further efforts of inspiration after this time, but this was probably only a coincidence. The electro-magnetic battery had been applied in the early part of the treatment by means of the wet sponges applied to each side of the chest, but it produced no effect.
An examination of the body was made by Mr. Holmes, the Curator of the Hospital Museum, on the following day. A good deal of dark-coloured fluid blood flowed from the right cavities of the heart, and the left cavities contained but little blood. The heart was pale and somewhat friable; but a microscopic examination by Mr. Holmes did not show any fatty degeneration. The lungs were moderately vascular, and contained some small epithelial tumours of the same character as those removed from the back. There was a large cyst in one kidney; but, with these exceptions, the organs were healthy. The vessels of the brain were not distended, and that organ was altogether less vascular than is usual after sudden death. No smell of amylene was perceived in the body.
The continuance of the respiration so long after the heart was paralyzed in these two cases, and especially in the second one, is a remarkably curious event. The respiration continued after the heart had ceased to act in several cases of death from chloroform, but not for so long a time as in these deaths from amylene. It is probable that there must have been some little circulation going on through the brain whilst the respiration lasted, and in fact, the slight fluttering pulse and feeble sounds of the heart, once or twice perceived, indicate that the circulation was not absolutely arrested. Under these circumstances, we may inquire why the action of the heart does not recover. If the circulation were going on in the coronary arteries, it might be expected that the blood from the lungs, which has been aerated by respiration, and freed from the narcotic vapour, would restore the action of the heart. But it is probable, for the reasons stated at page 262, when treating of accidents by chloroform, that the circulation through the coronary arteries is arrested.
The accident clearly commenced at the heart in both these cases, and I believe that the brain was never more than partially under the influence of the amylene in either of them. In the Medical Times and Gazette of July 25th, 1857, M. Devergie is related to have expressed an opinion in the Academy of Medicine of Paris, that the first of the above deaths from amylene was caused, in great part, under the influence of true asphyxia, using that term in its modern acceptation. Now that is altogether an error, arising, probably, from M. Devergie not having seen any original account of the case. There was no cause of asphyxia, either internal or external; the patient breathed well until after his heart had ceased to beat, unless in the most feeble and doubtful manner. The valve which was closed only altered the direction, but not the amount of air. In fact, the patient was throughout supplied with as much air as could enter through a tube twice the size of his windpipe.
I had scarcely any hope of the patient in St. George’s Hospital from the very commencement of the accident; for I felt that if he could be recovered by artificial respiration, his own breathing would have remedied the accident, even before it was discovered. From what has been published respecting the pulse sometimes stopping and commencing again, during the inhalation of chloroform, it is probable that many accidents, in which the heart has been nearly paralysed, have happened, and rectified themselves, without attracting much notice.
I have no doubt that in each of these accidents the patient must have taken into his lungs at one moment air containing upwards of thirty per cent. of vapour of amylene. And there is no doubt that the cause of this was the unsteady boiling point of the agent. If the amylene with which I was supplied had boiled steadily at the same temperature, there is no doubt that the means which I was employing, and which had enabled me for ten years, whilst exhibiting chloroform, to give four per cent. of the vapour, probably without ever allowing the quantity to exceed six per cent., would have enabled me to give fifteen per cent. of vapour of amylene without permitting the quantity to exceed twenty per cent.
The alteration in the boiling point of a specimen of amylene from 86° to 115° Fah. would cause it to give off more than twice as much vapour in the beginning of its evaporation as towards the end; and, moreover, the different specimens of it did not always possess the same amount of volatility.
The temperature of the external air as it influenced that of the water-bath of the inhaler would have some influence over the evaporation of the amylene, but I altered the amount of evaporating surface of paper according to the season of the year for amylene, as I was in the habit of doing for chloroform. The highest temperature of April 7, the day on which the first accident happened, was at Greenwich, according to the Report of the Astronomer Royal, 62°; and on July 30, the day on which the second accident happened, was 78·7°. After the first accident, I had reduced the surface of bibulous paper in the inhaler to one-half of what it had previously been.
The first of the above accidents happened in the 144th case in which I administered amylene, and the second in the 238th case. In the ninety cases and upwards in which I administered amylene between these two accidents, I never had occasion to feel a moment’s uneasiness about it.
In the future cases in which I employ amylene, it is my intention to administer it from a bag or balloon, putting in so much of the liquid as will make fifteen per cent. of vapour when the bag is filled up with air. In this manner, the variability in the boiling point of the amylene can have no influence whatever on the amount of vapour which the patient breathes; and if the vapour be breathed over again, within certain limits, in the manner of nitrous oxide gas, there will be a great saving in the amount of amylene consumed.
In my first paper on amylene, which was read on January 10th, 1857, I said: “While I cannot venture to predict for it the absolute safety which seems to attend sulphuric ether under all circumstances, I trust that it will be perfectly safe with careful management”[177] And I added further on, “It is my opinion that the cold produced during its evaporation would, in all the ordinary methods of inhalation, prevent the air from taking up a quantity of the vapour which would be dangerous.”
Although amylene was largely used in Paris, Strasbourg, Montpelier, and Lyons, soon after I published my first account of it, and although I have lately heard that it is still employed in Paris and Berlin, nearly eighteen months after its first use in these places, I am happy that I have not heard of any accident from its use except the two which happened in my own hands.
M. Giraldis, of Paris, who was present at the operating theatre of St. George’s Hospital when the accident happened at that institution, had already employed amylene in 100 cases in children, and I believe that he continues to use it. Given on a handkerchief or sponge, I believe that amylene is safer than chloroform, owing to the greater cold produced during its evaporation, and the limit thereby put to the amount of vapour which is given off; but I have seldom given it in this manner, as I do not think it would be certain and regular in its action, and any doubt on these points would, with me, have quite overbalanced its other advantages. In applying amylene on a sponge, M. Rigaud of Strasbourg used 100 grammes (between four and five fluid ounces) in making an adult patient insensible, although half a fluid ounce suffices with the inhaler I employed.
Mr. Clarke, of Bristol, in a paper which he published on amylene,[178] says: “It seemed impossible to get too much into the system, and with this I have been greatly impressed; it is this fact that appears to me to promise an immunity from danger.... It requires to be given almost unintermittingly, and requires the same amount of attention to keep up its effects as chloroform does to keep the patient safe. The direction of the attention, however, is one less calculated to give anxiety.”
Dr. Debout stated, as the result of some experiments on animals, in which he was assisted by M. Duroy, that if it sufficed to double the quantity of chloroform in order to transform the anæsthetic dose of that agent into a poisonous dose, it was necessary to quadruple that of ether, and to quintuple that of amylene, in order to arrive at the same result; and that, therefore, the innocuousness of the new agent was still greater than that of sulphuric ether.[179]
In a paper which Professor Tourdes, of Strasbourg, read before the Academy of Medicine of Paris, he came also to the conclusion, from a series of experiments and observations, that “amylene was evidently much less dangerous than chloroform, perhaps even than ether.”[180]
According to my experiments, amylene ought to be placed between chloroform and ether in respect to its comparative safety by the ordinary methods of administration; and by breathing it from a bag, in the manner previously mentioned, it would be absolutely safe, so long as the right quantity were put into the bag.
Papers on amylene were read to the Academy of Medicine of Paris by Dr. Debout and M. Tourdes, and were reported on favourably. M. Giraldis afterwards presented a paper in which he stated the very favourable result of seventy-nine cases in which he had employed it. The Academy on this occasion recommended the disuse of amylene on account of the accidents which had happened in my hands, apparently overlooking the circumstance that M. Giraldis himself had been much more successful in the use of amylene than in that of chloroform. M. Jobert de Lamballe, the reporter of the Commission, stated that amylene deprived the blood of its red colour and that chloroform does not. But there is no difference between these agents in this respect; the blood retains its proper colour under the use of either of them, unless the effects are carried so far as to interfere with the breathing.