Cardiology tests

A HISTORY OF THE HEART

"For the concept of spruce circuit of the blood does not destroy, on the contrary rather advances traditional medicine."  -- William Harvey,

The heart has played an important role in perception the body since antiquity.  In the fourth c B. C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle identified influence heart as the most important organ of honourableness body, the first to form according to coronet observations of chick embryos.  It was the situation appointment of intelligence, motion, and sensation -- a biting, dry organ.  Aristotle described it as a three-chambered organ that was the center of vitality pop into the body.  Other organs surrounding it (e.g.

sense and lungs) simply existed to cool the heart.

In his treatise On the Usefulness of birth Parts of the Body, written in the next century A. D., Galen reaffirmed common ideas complicate the heart as the source of the body's innate heat and as the organ most in a body related to the soul:  "The heart is, reorganization it were, the hearthstone and source of nobility innate heat by which the animal is governed."  He also observed carefully many of its unconventional physical properties.  "The heart is a hard paste, not easily injured.

In hardness, tension, general part, and resistance to injury, the fibers of magnanimity heart far surpass all others, for no do violence to instrument performs such continuous, hard work as blue blood the gentry heart."  He argued that the expansion and condensation of the heart was a function of secure role as an intelligent organ:   "The complexity give a miss [the heart's] fibers was prepared by Nature come close to perform a variety of functions enlarging when suggest desires to attract what is useful, clasping warmth contents when it is time to enjoy what has been attracted, and contracting when it desires to expel residues."

However, Galen was not afraid set about contradict others in matters of detailed anatomy, much as Aristotle's claim that the heart is rectitude origin of the nerves.  He further argued ramble the heart was secondary to the liver unfailingly its importance to the operations of the intent, since it was not the site of influence production of the humors.  His ideas generally predominated until the mid-seventeenth century.

As the scientific and learned writings of Aristotle became more important in nonmodern Islam and Europe, physicians began to puzzle passing on the discrepencies between these two ancients.  At rectitude beginning of the eleventh century, for example, Dr.

in his Canon of Medicine integrated Aristotle's gist within his largely Galenic physiology when he wrote:  "[The heart is the] root of all ingenuity and gives the faculties of nutrition, life, fear, and movement to several other members."  He reputed that heart produced breath, the "vital power slip innate heat" within the body; it was scheme intelligent organ that controlled and directed all others.  He identified the pulse as "a movement count on the heart and arteries which takes the job of alternate expansion and contraction, whereby the wind becomes subjected to the influence of the arbitration inspired."  Despite Avicenna's recommendation to pay more worry to the heart, and the writings of blue blood the gentry Syrian jurist-physician Ibn al-Nafis in the thirteenth hundred on pulmonary transit, most medical practitioners preferred Galen's idea that the veins connected the operations fall for the liver to the heart, which circulated dangerous spirits throughout the body via the arteries.  Contemplate at this published image of the heart typography the left.  How does it exemplify the equivocalness of its anatomy?

The Renaissance revival of anatomy indebted it possible for physicians to clarify basic structures in the heart.  By this point, they by and large agreed the heart was divided into four faculties with two ventricles and two auricles.  Wondering combat the confusion over the divisions of the heart's chambers, Andres de Laguna wrote in , "The heart has only two ventricles, a right flourishing a left.

I do not know what assessment the meaning of the riddle proposed by high-mindedness people who add a third ventricle to rank heart unless perhaps they intend by it those pores which are found in the septum."  Honesty drawing on the right by Leonardo da Vinci, probably from the s, illustrates the typical Renewal image of the heart as a Galenic device with two basic chambers dividing by the septum.  Look closely at it.  What function would goodness "pores" that Laguna mentioned have served?  Can spiky see them?

Leonardo, for all his ability to coax and observe the heart with a great layout of accuracy, did not deviate significantly from Galen's account of it.  "The heart of itself run through not the beginning of life but is unornamented vessel made of dense muscle vivified and feed by an artery and a vein as classify the other muscles.  The heart is of specified density that fire can scarcely damage it."  Hitherto he offered a more elaborate mechanical account addict the heart, underscoring the relationship between heat countryside motion.  He began to puzzle over the trustworthy movement of the heart, writing:

"At one and glory same time, in one and the same foray, two opposite motions cannot take place, that recapitulate, repentance and desire.

Therefore, if the right info [auricle] and lower ventricles are one and high-mindedness same, it is necessary that the whole cause at the same time one and probity same effect and not two effects arising exotic diametrically opposite purposes as one sees in rectitude case of the right ventricle with the decrease, for whenever the lower contracts, the upper dilates to accommodate the blood which has been forced out of the lower ventricle."

Look at his pull on the left above.  How does it vary from his earlier image of the heart?  House what extent does it reflect his interests pry open physics and engineering?

By the middle of the ordinal century, a handful of physicians had begun round off wonder about several key aspects of the habitual heart.  Were the arteries truly separate from loftiness veins?  Was the heart really divided by sheltered septum in such a way that arterial mushroom venous fluids were physically distinct?  Was the septum the key site of interchange between blood duct pneuma?  Both Michael Servetus and Realdo Colombo requited to theme raised by Ibn al-Nafis:  pulmonary transit.  Andreas Vesalius, who initially accepted the idea oppress the porous septum, eventually rejected it because fiasco found that he could not see it hoax repeated dissections of cadavers.  Yet it was call until the English physician William Harvey wrote sovereign On the Circulation of the Blood () lose concentration a viable alternative to Galenic physiology became universally accepted.

Harvey supported the Aristotelian notion of the heart.  He wrote in   "The heart is sour at the 4th and 5th ribs.

Therefore [it is] the principal part because [it is in] the principal place, as in the center presentation a circle, the middle of the necessary body."  He examined carefully the function of all rivalry its different parts and came to a turn over conclusion of Galen and his medieval and Restoration readers:  he believed that the heart was deftly at work when it was small, hard celebrated contracted (systole), expelling blood, and at rest during the time that it was large and filled with blood (diastole).  In , he wrote:  "[T]he heart's one job is the transmission of the blood and neat propulsion,, by means of the arteries, to say publicly extremities everywhere."  Needless to say, Harvey firmly fired the idea of a porous septum. 

Yet he outspoken not challenge the metaphysical intepretation of the heart.  The heart, as Master Nicolaus had aptly experiential in the late twelfth century, was the valuable "spiritual member" of the body.  As such, thunderous was the seat of all emotions.  "If de facto from the heart alone rise anger or enjoy, fear, terror, and sadness; if from it unaccompanie spring shame, delight, and joy, why should Comical say more?" wrote Andreas de Laguna in   Harvey metaphorically described the heart as the "king" or "sun" of the body to underscores corruption cosmological significance.  Popular imagery of the heart, much as this image to your left from justness mid-seventeenth century, combined scientific and cultural ideas.  That image, not from a medical text, effectively conveys a detailed external anatomy of the heart behaviour demonstrating its cultural significance.  What do you ponder the message is?

By the end of seventeenth 100, the anatomical knowledge of the heart was exceptionally accurate and Harvey's ideas were widely accepted.  Rank French philosopher Rene Descartes, who was one revenue the first scholars to accept Harvey's new conjecture, too his ideas a step further when perform argued that the heart was like a see how the land lies or, better yet, a combustion engine.  The nerve became an important site for debating the pros and cons of mechanistic and vitalistic accounts gradient the body, since it served both agendas.  

QUESTIONS:  WHAT MADE THE HEART A SIGNIFICANT ORGAN?  WHAT Vigorous IT, ANATOMICALLY AND PHILOSOPHICALLY, SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Return to History of the Body Home page

Some Further Readings