Is the entire plot of 'Flatliners' hinged on a popular misconception about medical equipment?

The Explanation given was that by cooling the body down below normal temp. during the “dead” part, you minimized damage to the system; some surgeries do that on purpose now. (It was discovered that when people fell into cold water, they could sometimes be revived after 30 or 45 min. with less damages than people who had been underwater in warm water for a shorter time).

When the revival process started, they used a heating blanket to warm the body up again.

But did they really use one blanket? I thought they switched blankets. Still, you can do heating with electricty or water; so you could change from a blanket for cooling using cold water to heating with warm water at least theoretically.

In the name of all that is sensible, why? This is a film about ghosts coming back from the dead. You have no problem with that, but are upset over the medical accuracy? If you grant the ghosts, then your claim to wanting accuracy goes right out the window.

When you flatline, do you hear a whooshing sound or…?

Well, they do have hyper/hypothermia blankets, as well as vests and headwraps, used to raise, lower, or keep a patient’s temperature stable. (ETA for clarity: It’s one blanket for both cooling and heating, the temperature is controlled by the temperature of the water you run through it.) They’re used post-cardiac arrest, sometimes, and of course for treating patients who are hypo or hyperthermic under some conditions. They can also be used during some surgeries to cool the patient and thereby slow metabolic processes.

I don’t think they have lights, though. I haven’t seen them in person yet. They’re essentially bladders which water of varying temperatures is run through. There are lighted “blankets” (pads, really), called biliblankets, which are something else entirely. (The light itself is the treatment, breaking down bilirubin in the blood closest to the skin.) Quite possibly, they did lights in the movie because it looked cool, and phototherapy geniuses stole the idea from movies to create the biliblanket!

Not trying to jack the thread, but what about heart transplants? The donor heart isn’t still beating when it goes in. I seem to recall reading that they zapped the donor heart after it was placed in the recipient, and it started beating. Would that work because they were zapping the heart directly, as opposed to through the chest wall? Or if my recollection is wrong, how DO they restart hearts in transplant procedures?

ROFLMAO.

This is such a mainstay of movie and TV doctors that I felt ripped off when I found out too. It’s not as if this device was only misused in a movie or two. Practically every doctor show has featured the chiseled MD rubbing the paddles together, shouting “CLEAR!”, (quick glance at the monitor to see that the line is still flat) then calling for the voltage to be upped for the next blast.

Yes, yes, I know, I should have figured this out by now (I just watched the new “Robin Hood” last night) but it still surprises me how willfully ignorant TV and movie makers can be.

They’ve been doing that for decades with CPR too. In movies and TV, people are constantly being brought back from the dead with manual CPR (which is never done correctly in the movies). In reality, manual CPR virtually never revives anybody whose heart has stopped. It just keeps the blood circulating somewhat until some EMT’s can get there. In the movies, a few breaths, some pounding on the chest, and the afore-mentioned “don’t die on me, dammit” is sufficient wake up a mummy. In reality, if you’re performing full CPR on somebody, they are basically already dead.

My CPR teacher claimed that CPR without an AED works in about 2% of witnessed cardiac arrests. It works in 0.000000001% (or thereabouts) of unwitnessed events. It’s mostly used to stall for time until EMS can take the body away and convince onlookers that you’ve “tried everything you can”.
**
Romeo and Whatsherface**, that’s a really good question, and I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to it. My guess (only a guess) is that it has to do with how quickly the remove the heart and get it onto ice. That’s going to slow the decay of the heart considerably, and maybe that allows them to restart it later. I don’t know if it preserves the electrical activity in the heart or not, but I was also taught as VunderBob, that once there’s no more electrical activity (“flatline”) then there’s no restarting the heart. Hmmm…

There is one researcher who’s doing “beating heart” transplants, though. They keep the heart beating on a machine, pumping body temperature blood through it, until they can get it into the recipient body.

Also, not really on topic at all, but didja know that some heart transplants only add a donor heart, they don’t remove the recipient’s one? They hook the vessels up to both hearts. That way, if the donor heart fails or is rejected, they can remove it and the recipient’s own (sick) heart takes over again, until they can (hopefully) get another transplant. How cool is that?!

OK, so now I’m wondering if there’s something about the still-beating heart in the transplant patient that makes the donor heart start beating. It seems unlikely.

Argh! Ignorance is not bliss!:confused:

That was basically the instructor’s response (in my company-mandated first aid class) to concerns about breaking the person’s ribs while performing CPR. If they’re not breathing and the heart isn’t beating, they’re already dead, and you’re not really going to do any more damage compared to that. If the person revives, they’re generally going to be happy to trade some broken ribs for being alive.

I have to get recertified in CPR once a year for my job, and have been taking the classes annually for I don’t know how many years. I have noticed that there had been a shift in both the mechanics of what’s being taught (much more emphasis on chest compressions now, and less on breathing), as well as in adjusting expectations. Instructors seem to have become more open in the last few years about letting students know that CPR is probably not going to save anybody unless someone gets there really fast with an AED.

I’d heard that too, **Dio **- I remember reading something recently about the new CPR classes not even including the breathing anymore. New conventional wisdom seems to be that it’s more important to keep the blood circulating than try to get in the 2 breaths every 15 compressions (or whatever it was; it’s clearly been a while since my CPR certification).

They’ve changed the ratio several times, too.

Compression-only CPR is what they’re teaching to laypeople now. It’s what you’ll get in a basic CPR class. Worries about disease transmission from the oral to oral contact (and really, who other than EMT’s carries around a dental dam or CPR mask?) have made people very reluctant to perform CPR. It’s been discovered that you actually have quite a bit of oxygen in your bloodstream from your last breath that can still get to cells as long as you keep the blood moving. So removing breaths gets more people to actually do CPR.

CPR for Healthcare Providers, though, still includes breaths. 30:2 is the current ratio for adults.

What we’re taught is that death is the second worst outcome of a cardiac arrest.
Persisting too long and bringing back a beating heart and functioning lungs without higher brain function- that’s the worst outcome. They probably emphasise this more to the doctors, as the ones who actually have to call time on resuscitation attempts.

If you’ve been doing CPR in a hospital for more than 30 minutes, and at no time have you got a pulse, and you don’t have a good reason to continue (e.g. they aren’t warm, or you’ve given clot busting drugs and need to give them time to work, or you’re waiting for family/religious person to arrive) you really, really need to think about stopping. Making that call isn’t easy, so they have to train you to consider carefully when you should.

Brings to mind the scene from Airplane with the beating disembodied heart jumping around on the desk.

I just wanted to say that it’s pretty obvious that you’re doing very well in nursing school - that you understand your stuff. You’ve answered a crapload of medical questions and I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say you got it wrong. You also explain things in a way that regular people can understand. Thanks for that.

Oh, I can think of a couple of times when I’ve gotten it wrong! But that’s how I learn, right?

My passion is patient education, so, as I’ve said before, I “use” y’all to practice on. I’m not rushed, I can make edits (up to a point), so I can figure out how I’d explain it to a patient if only I had the time to choose my words carefully. Then when it comes up for a real patient, I’ve already got an idea of how to phrase it. The more feedback and requests for clarification and/or corrections I get here, the better I get there. So thank you!

:slight_smile:

I did not see this movie.
I wonder if some of the confusion is around whether or not the term “flatline” is being used for asystole.
Perhaps, as someone whose career was spent occasionally resuscitating the nearly dead, I can comment.

In a normothermic heart, asystole means all of the natural pacemaking cells have ceased to function. There are an assortment of these, all the way from the sinus node to the ventricle itself. In a typical cardiac arrest, eventually these cells become ischemic enough to stop their depolarizing/repolarizing cycles, and there is no electrical activity. That patient is “flatline” because the cardiac monitor shows no electrical activity at all. Using a countershock on such a patient will not generate a heartbeat. Treatment for asystole includes various drugs and/or pacemakers, and in the setting of a typical cardiac arrest is not usually effective, either.

If the heart has been chilled (as it is for many cardiac surgeries, for example) it may regain a natural heartbeat on its own as it is warmed up and the pacemaking cells begin to function again. It may also simply recover to a chaotic and disorganized rhythm called ventricular fibrillation. This electrical activity is too disorganized to sustain a cardiac output. A countershock in that instance will reset all of the cells at once by depolarizing all of them, so the natural pacemaker cells (or an artificial pacemaker) can then re-establish normal function.

There are a variety of abnormal rhythms treated with emergent or elective countershocks; sometimes these shocks are synchronized to the pathologic rhythm since a shock at the wrong time in the natural cycle can precipitate abnormal rhythms, including ventricular fibrillation.

During an actual resuscitation, a pulseless patient with a “flatline” monitor is often countershocked on the assumption that one cannot rule out fine ventricular fibrillation with absolute certainty, and there’s not much to lose since asystole is almost uniformly fatal. Ventricular fibrillation is the commonest lethal treatable rhythm for a typical cardiac arrest. Fine v fib creates tiny squiggles on the monitor, and the monitor in real life is never so perfectly flatline as it is on TV. Leads attached to a patient pick up any tiny amount of activity, whether from the heart or not. You don’t get a literal “flat” line.

I don’t know if it’s a popular misconception that defibrillators can help asystole, but it is correct that a countershock is of no value in true asystole. Countershocks work by depolarizing all cells at once. This is followed by a period of electrical silence as the cells recover, and at the end of that standstill, the idea is that the natural pacemaker cells start their cycle first (as they are supposed to) and can then trigger the natural process of spreading depolarization to the cardiac muscle through the conduction system of the heart.

Hope that’s clear as mud. Perhaps I should have just said we sometimes shock pulseless asystole in case it’s fine v fib. In a chilled heart warming up, a shock for v fib re-establishes a normal rhythm.

I heart you. THANK YOU! That was so much more clear than my teachers have been. :slight_smile:

I don’t know if it’s a popular misconception that defibrillators can help asystole, but it is correct that a countershock is of no value in true asystole. Countershocks work by depolarizing all cells at once. This is followed by a period of electrical silence as the cells recover, and at the end of that standstill, the idea is that the natural pacemaker cells start their cycle first (as they are supposed to) and can then trigger the natural process of spreading depolarization to the cardiac muscle through the conduction system of the heart.

In a chilled heart warming up, a shock for v fib re-establishes a normal rhythm.
[/QUOTE]

Whew! What a relief to get an answer to my question about transplanted hearts! Thank you! That’s some clear mud you’re serving there!