After much research, I believe that I have found the way to a girl's 
heart...



...it's through her superior vena cava, just like anybody else's heart! :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 7/2/2010 10:22 AM, Invisible wrote:

> ...it's through her superior vena cava, just like anybody else's heart! :-P

Good god.. he's making cardiology jokes.. :/

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> ...it's through her superior vena cava, just like anybody else's 
>> heart! :-P
> 
> Good god.. he's making cardiology jokes.. :/

I'm still waiting for Andrel to pop up and go "actually it's through the 
inferior vena cava" or something. :-.

Post a reply to this message

On 6-7-2010 15:25, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 10:22 AM, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> ...it's through her superior vena cava, just like anybody else's 
>> heart! :-P
> 
> Good god.. he's making cardiology jokes.. :/
> 
Well, at least he is trying to. I decided not to correct him, because 
that would be too easy for me.

Post a reply to this message

>> Good god.. he's making cardiology jokes.. :/
>>
> Well, at least he is trying to. I decided not to correct him, because 
> that would be too easy for me.

Hey, I spent about 2 hours researching that. OK, it's not the same as a 
lifetime, but I tried. (Wikipedia is surprisingly unhelpful here...)

At least I didn't say it was through the aorta. (That, of course, would 
be the way *from* the heart, not *to* it.) I bothered to get that much 
right. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 7/6/2010 8:33 AM, andrel wrote:

>> Good god.. he's making cardiology jokes.. :/
>>
> Well, at least he is trying to. I decided not to correct him, because
> that would be too easy for me.

I won't even fathom a guess as to what is wrong ... This is something 
well beyond my domain.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 6-7-2010 15:42, Invisible wrote:
>>> Good god.. he's making cardiology jokes.. :/
>>>
>> Well, at least he is trying to. I decided not to correct him, because 
>> that would be too easy for me.
> 
> Hey, I spent about 2 hours researching that. OK, it's not the same as a 
> lifetime, but I tried. (Wikipedia is surprisingly unhelpful here...)
> 
> At least I didn't say it was through the aorta. (That, of course, would 
> be the way *from* the heart, not *to* it.) I bothered to get that much 
> right. ;-)

yes and no ;) Blood exits the heart via the aorta, but it used to be the 
standard entry point for catheters if you wanted to go to the left 
ventricle (where many arrhythmias originate). Nowadays the route via the 
right atrium, though the atrial septum, to the left atrium and from 
there to the left ventricle is also often used.
BTW as you rightly guessed, that implies that the vast majority of 
catheterizations go via the inferior vene cava. Entering via the 
superior vene cava is very uncommon, except for the wires of a pacemaker 
or ICD (I guess you ended up in webpages describing those procedures).

In principle you can also enter via the right outflow tract and there 
are also in general 4 lung venes (that transport oxygenated blood from 
the lungs to the left atrium). Of the top of my head I don't know of any 
procedure that uses any of those entry points.

To complete the picture you can also us a sternotomy or a laporoscopic 
procedure, but don't try that at home.

Post a reply to this message

>> At least I didn't say it was through the aorta. (That, of course, 
>> would be the way *from* the heart, not *to* it.) I bothered to get 
>> that much right. ;-)
> 
> yes and no ;) Blood exits the heart via the aorta, but it used to be the 
> standard entry point for catheters if you wanted to go to the left 
> ventricle (where many arrhythmias originate).

Heh. I don't know if it's a rule of the Internet, but it probably should 
be: For any conceivable topic, somebody else will know way, way more 
about it than you. :-}

I would have thought trying to enter against the flow of blood through 
the single largest blood vessel in the entire human body would be quite 
difficult - then again, I'm sure many people far more knowledgeable than 
me have actually tried this out. Also, I guess it would depend on where 
the hell you're trying to actually get to in the first place...

> Nowadays the route via the 
> right atrium, though the atrial septum, to the left atrium and from 
> there to the left ventricle is also often used.

Hmm, OK.

> BTW as you rightly guessed, that implies that the vast majority of 
> catheterizations go via the inferior vene cava. Entering via the 
> superior vene cava is very uncommon, except for the wires of a pacemaker 
> or ICD (I guess you ended up in webpages describing those procedures).

Actually, I just looked up the major blood vessels of the heart and 
tried to figure out which name goes with which tube on the diagram. 
(You'd think this would be easy... you'd be wrong.) I eventually 
determined that the two vena cavae are where the majority of blood 
enters from, and arbitrarily selected the superior one.

Firstly because "superior" sounds better [although in fact I gather it 
just means "higher up" in medical jargon], and partly because I imagined 
the route from the brain to the heart. Most people perceive their body 
looking down from where their head is. (Not that this has anything 
remotely to do with the surgical feasibility of inserting stuff from 
that direction...)

> In principle you can also enter via the right outflow tract and there 
> are also in general 4 lung venes (that transport oxygenated blood from 
> the lungs to the left atrium). Of the top of my head I don't know of any 
> procedure that uses any of those entry points.

Yeah, the heart is a double-pump, so there ought to be *two* entrances 
in theory. (There are apparently more because humans have two lungs, and 
because blood from above and below returns through different routes.)

On a completely unrelated note, apparently in some animals the heart is 
a single pump, and in yet others it's just a tube that sort of squirts, 
and there are no blood "vessels" at all. The internal organs just sit in 
a soup of... well, it's not even blood, it's haemolymph.

Then again, apparently some animals don't have red blood cells, the 
haemoglobin just floats in solution. Larger animals don't do that 
because to have enough haemoglobin to transport sufficient oxygen, their 
blood would be like treacle. So RBCs evolved which are packed with this 
oxygen-transport protein, but the blood remains liquid.

In other news, I spent a really absurd amount of time on Wikipedia. o_O

> To complete the picture you can also us a sternotomy or a laporoscopic 
> procedure, but don't try that at home.

Yeah, that or any other medical procedure even remotely involving your 
heart! o_O

Although I did hear about an off-duty medic who saved someone from a 
collapsed lung on an airoplane using a tube and a coathanger or 
something random like that...

Funny stuff, blood. Everybody seems to think it's red. Certainly if you 
spill it, everything within an 8-mile radius is coated scarlet and it 
looks like a chainsaw massacre has happened (when actually you merely 
got a paper cut)! But from what I've seen, blood is nearer black than 
red. I mean, if you get any real *quantity* of the stuff. It's very dark 
indeed.

Reminds me of the last time I had a nose bleed. Sure, it's only a small 
volume of blood. But it gets *everywhere*. And it feels really, really 
hot against your skin. Almost scalding hot. It really makes you feel 
like something very serious is happening - especially when it's dripping 
fast.

Somewhat unrelated, but... I remember my dad working on some plasma 
samples. He proffered a tube at me and said "well, you can definitely 
tell which volunteers had a good breakfast!" I swear, the amount of cow 
lard floating on the top of some of these samples was discusting! :-S

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 6-7-2010 23:12, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> At least I didn't say it was through the aorta. (That, of course, 
>>> would be the way *from* the heart, not *to* it.) I bothered to get 
>>> that much right. ;-)
>>
>> yes and no ;) Blood exits the heart via the aorta, but it used to be 
>> the standard entry point for catheters if you wanted to go to the left 
>> ventricle (where many arrhythmias originate).
> 
> Heh. I don't know if it's a rule of the Internet, but it probably should 
> be: For any conceivable topic, somebody else will know way, way more 
> about it than you. :-}

except that in this case you knew I would be such a somebody.

> 
> I would have thought trying to enter against the flow of blood through 
> the single largest blood vessel in the entire human body would be quite 
> difficult 

As you point out, it is big. Catheters are thin.

> - then again, I'm sure many people far more knowledgeable than 
> me have actually tried this out. Also, I guess it would depend on where 
> the hell you're trying to actually get to in the first place...
> 

>> BTW as you rightly guessed, that implies that the vast majority of 
>> catheterizations go via the inferior vene cava. Entering via the 
>> superior vene cava is very uncommon, except for the wires of a 
>> pacemaker or ICD (I guess you ended up in webpages describing those 
>> procedures).
> 
> Actually, I just looked up the major blood vessels of the heart and 
> tried to figure out which name goes with which tube on the diagram. 
> (You'd think this would be easy... you'd be wrong.) I eventually 
> determined that the two vena cavae are where the majority of blood 
> enters from, and arbitrarily selected the superior one.
> 
> Firstly because "superior" sounds better [although in fact I gather it 
> just means "higher up" in medical jargon], and partly because I imagined 
> the route from the brain to the heart. Most people perceive their body 
> looking down from where their head is. (Not that this has anything 
> remotely to do with the surgical feasibility of inserting stuff from 
> that direction...)

IIRC the first catheter insertion was via the arm, so that would have 
been the superior side. Aside, I think that you as a programmer would be 
more careful in selecting an apparently arbitrary choice of two. 
Especially if you know they are not interchangeable. Why didn't you go 
for e.g. the vena cava without mentioning wither inf. or sup.?

>> In principle you can also enter via the right outflow tract and there 
>> are also in general 4 lung venes (that transport oxygenated blood from 
>> the lungs to the left atrium). Of the top of my head I don't know of 
>> any procedure that uses any of those entry points.
> 
> Yeah, the heart is a double-pump, so there ought to be *two* entrances 
> in theory. (There are apparently more because humans have two lungs, 

with in most cases two venes entering from each lung (indeed an inferior 
and a superior).

> and because blood from above and below returns through different 
> routes.)
> 
> On a completely unrelated note, apparently in some animals the heart is 
> a single pump, and in yet others it's just a tube that sort of squirts,

In humans (and mammals and birds and probably also the reptiles and 
fishes) it starts out as a tube with peristaltic contractions only later 
the two separate circulations are formed. E.g. crocodiles have a single 
chamber, but don't make the assumption that therefore their heart is 
more primitive. For them that functions better than any 4 chambered 
heart would do.

Pity that given your interest in this topic (and in e.g. MathML) that 
you seem to be stuck in MK.

> and there are no blood "vessels" at all. The internal organs just sit in 
> a soup of... well, it's not even blood, it's haemolymph.
> 
> Then again, apparently some animals don't have red blood cells, the 
> haemoglobin just floats in solution. Larger animals don't do that 
> because to have enough haemoglobin to transport sufficient oxygen, their 
> blood would be like treacle. So RBCs evolved which are packed with this 
> oxygen-transport protein, but the blood remains liquid.
> 
> In other news, I spent a really absurd amount of time on Wikipedia. o_O

I think we noticed, and on WA.

>> To complete the picture you can also us a sternotomy or a laporoscopic 
>> procedure, but don't try that at home.
> 
> Yeah, that or any other medical procedure even remotely involving your 
> heart! o_O

I am not sure that sternotomy is 'remotely' involving hearts. I have 
been present at quite a number of procedures where this was the approach 
to open the heart and treat the inside.

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. I don't know if it's a rule of the Internet, but it probably 
>> should be: For any conceivable topic, somebody else will know way, way 
>> more about it than you. :-}
> 
> except that in this case you knew I would be such a somebody.

Well, perhaps. But if I posted something about, say, iambic pentamiter, 
somebody here would probably turn out to be an expert on the subject.

> IIRC the first catheter insertion was via the arm, so that would have 
> been the superior side. Aside, I think that you as a programmer would be 
> more careful in selecting an apparently arbitrary choice of two. 
> Especially if you know they are not interchangeable. Why didn't you go 
> for e.g. the vena cava without mentioning wither inf. or sup.?

Well, I was going for comic effect rather than technical accuracy. A 
long technical term sounds more impressive.

>> Yeah, the heart is a double-pump, so there ought to be *two* entrances 
>> in theory. (There are apparently more because humans have two lungs, 
> 
> with in most cases two venes entering from each lung (indeed an inferior 
> and a superior).

OK, I didn't read that far.

>> On a completely unrelated note, apparently in some animals the heart 
>> is a single pump, and in yet others it's just a tube that sort of 
>> squirts,
> 
> In humans (and mammals and birds and probably also the reptiles and 
> fishes) it starts out as a tube with peristaltic contractions only later 
> the two separate circulations are formed. E.g. crocodiles have a single 
> chamber, but don't make the assumption that therefore their heart is 
> more primitive. For them that functions better than any 4 chambered 
> heart would do.

Well, the word "primitive" means "simpler", and it's sometimes taken to 
mean "less evolved". And people seem to think that simpler is worse, and 
more complex is better. Then agian, people think that worms are "less 
evolved" than humans - but they severely out-number us, so they can't be 
doing it that badly wrong...

> Pity that given your interest in this topic (and in e.g. MathML) that 
> you seem to be stuck in MK.

Heh. I'm "interested" in many, many topics. Fractals, data compression, 
encryption, statistics, artificial intelligence, digital signal 
processing, sound synthesis, logic design, biology, evolotion... the 
list goes on.

The GHC User Manual has a section "for over-interested souls". I think 
this is possibly the term that describes me...

>> In other news, I spent a really absurd amount of time on Wikipedia. o_O
> 
> I think we noticed, and on WA.

Ah WA... Very cool, but not especially useful. Like the data glove, it 
seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Post a reply to this message