Editing Shock (circulatory) (section)

==History==
There is no evidence of the word shock being used in its modern-day form prior to 1743. However, there is evidence that [[Hippocrates]] used the word ''exemia'' to signify a state of being "drained of blood".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Cannon |first=Walter Bradford |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yf4zAQAAMAAJ&q=exemia+hippocrates&pg=PA89 |title=The Nature and Treatment of Wound Shock and Allied Conditions |date=1918 |publisher=American Medical Association}}</ref> Shock or "choc" was first described in a trauma victim in the English translation of [[Henri François Le Dran|Henri-François LeDran]]'s 1740 text, Traité ou Reflexions Tire'es de la Pratique sur les Playes d'armes à feu (A treatise, or reflections, drawn from practice on [[Gunshot wound|gun-shot wounds]].)<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bloch |first1=Jack H. |last2=Dietzman |first2=Ronald H. |last3=Pierce |first3=Charles H. |last4=Lillehei |first4=Richard C. |date=April 1966 |title=Theories of the Production of Shock |journal=British Journal of Anaesthesia |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=234–49 |doi=10.1093/bja/38.4.234 |issn=0007-0912 |pmid=5328405 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In this text he describes "choc" as a reaction to the sudden impact of a missile. However, the first English writer to use the word shock in its modern-day connotation was James Latta, in 1795.{{cn|date=February 2025}}

Prior to [[World War I]], there were several competing hypotheses behind the [[pathophysiology]] of shock. Of the various theories, the most well regarded was a theory penned by [[George W. Crile]] who suggested in his 1899 monograph, "''An Experimental Research into Surgical Shock"'', that shock was quintessentially defined as a state of circulatory collapse ([[vasodilation]]) due to excessive nervous stimulation.<ref name="crile">{{Cite book |last=Crile |first=George W. |author-link=George Washington Crile |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LINGAQAAMAAJ |title=An Experimental Research Into Surgical Shock |date=1899 |publisher=[[J. B. Lippincott & Co.]] |location=Philadelphia, PA |lccn=99000784}} [https://archive.org/details/b28099163/page/n139/mode/2up Alt URL]</ref> Other competing theories around the turn of the century included one penned by Malcom in 1907, in which the assertion was that prolonged vasoconstriction led to the pathophysiological signs and symptoms of shock.<ref name="malcolm">{{Cite journal |last=Malcolm |first=John D |date=23 September 1905 |title=The condition of the blood vessels during shock |url=https://ia600708.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/22/items/crossref-pre-1909-scholarly-works/10.1016%252Fs0140-6736%252800%252968799-8.zip&file=10.1016%252Fs0140-6736%252800%252969075-x.pdf |journal=[[The Lancet]] |volume=166 |issue=4282 |pages=922–923 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(00)69075-X}}</ref> In the following World War I, research concerning shock resulted in experiments by Walter B. Cannon of Harvard and William M. Bayliss of London in 1919 that showed that an increase in permeability of the capillaries in response to trauma or toxins was responsible for many clinical manifestations of shock.<ref name="wb cannon">{{Cite journal |last=Cannon |first=W. B. |author-link=Walter Bradford Cannon |date=19 July 1919 |title=The Course of Events in Secondary Wound Shock |url=https://ia800708.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/28/items/crossref-pre-1923-scholarly-works/10.1001%252Fjama.1919.02610250060026.zip&file=10.1001%252Fjama.1919.02610290016008.pdf |journal=[[Journal of the American Medical Association]] |volume=73 |issue=3 |pages=174 |doi=10.1001/jama.1919.02610290016008}}</ref><ref name="cannon-bayliss report">{{Cite journal |last1=Cannon |first1=W. B. |author-link1=Walter Bradford Cannon |last2=Bayliss |first2=W. M. |author-link2=William Bayliss |date=1919 |title=Note on Muscle Injury in Relation to Shock |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15587588554098844460&hl=en&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39 |journal=Special Report Series, Medical Research Council, London |publisher=Medical Research Committee, Special Investigation Committee on Surgical Shock and Allied Conditions |volume=26 |issue=8 |pages=19}}</ref> In 1972 Hinshaw and Cox suggested the classification system for shock which is still used today.<ref name="hinshaw cox">{{Cite conference |last1=Hinshaw |first1=Lerner B. |last2=Cox |first2=Barbara G. |date=1 October 1971 |title=The Fundamental mechanisms of shock |url=https://archive.org/details/fundamentalmecha0000unse |conference=Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, October 1–2, 1971 |series=[[Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology]] |publisher=United States Navy Project THEMIS, [[University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center]] |volume=23 |doi=10.1007/978-1-4615-9014-9 |isbn=9780306390234 |issn=0065-2598 |lccn=72077225 |oclc=549969 |eissn=2214-8019}}</ref><ref name="IrwinRippe" />