The origins of heart catheterization: Part I

The modern era of heart disease care was born from an accident, quirky personalities, and even a little daring.

The notion of heart catheterization to visualize the human heart began rather ignominiously in 1929 at the Auguste-Viktoria Hospital in Eberswalde, Germany, a technological backwater of the day. Inspired by descriptions of a French physician who inserted a tube into the jugular vein of a horse and felt transmitted heart impulses outside the body, Dr. Werner Forssmann, an eager 25-year old physician-in-training, was intent on proving that access to the human heart could be safely gained through a surface blood vessel. No one knew if passing a catheter into the human heart would be safe, or whether it would become tangled in the heart’s chambers and cause it to stop beating. On voicing his intentions, Forssmann was ordered by superiors not to proceed. But he was determined to settle the question, especially since his ambitions captured the interest of nurse Gerda Ditzen, who willingly even offered to become the first human subject of his little experiment.

Secretly gathering the necessary supplies, he made his first attempt in private. After applying a local anesthetic, he used a scalpel to make an incision in his left elbow. He then inserted a hollow tube, a catheter intended for the bladder, into the vein exposed under the skin. After passing the catheter 14 inches into his arm, however, he experienced cold feet and pulled it out.

One week later, Forssman regained his resolve and repeated the process. Nurse Ditzen begged to be the subject, but Forssmann, in order to allow himself to be the first subject, tricked her into being strapped down and proceeded to work on himself while she helplessly watched. After stanching the oozing blood from the wound, he threaded the catheter slowly and painfully into the cephalic vein, up through the bicep, past the shoulder and subclavian vein, then down towards the heart. He knew that simply nudging the rubber catheter forward would be sufficient to direct it to the heart, since all veins of the body lead there. With the catheter buried 25 inches into his body, Forssmann untied the fuming Ditzen. Both then ran to the hospital’s basement x-ray department and injected x-ray dye into the catheter, yielding an image of the right side of his heart, the first made in a living human.



Thus, the very first catheterization of the heart was performed.



An x-ray image was made to document the accomplishment. Upon hearing of the experiment, Forssmann was promptly fired by superiors for his brazen act of self-experimentation. Deflated, Forssmann abandoned his experimentation and went on to practice urology. He became a member of the Nazi party in World War II Germany and served in the German army. Though condemned as crazy by some, physicians in Europe and the U.S., after hearing of his experience, furthered the effort and continued to explore the potential of the technique. Forssmann himself was never invited to speak of his experiences outside of Germany, as he had been labeled a Nazi.

Many years after his furtive experiments, the once intrepid Dr. Forssmann was living a quiet life practicing small town medicine. He received an unexpected phone call informing him that he was one of three physicians chosen to receive the 1956 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his pioneering work performing the world’s first heart catheterization, along with Drs. André Cournand and Dickinson W. Richards, both of whom had furthered Forssmann’s early work. Forssmann remarked to a reporter that he felt like a village pastor who was made a cardinal.

Strange, but true.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (2) -

  • Anonymous

    3/12/2008 10:32:00 AM |

    You have to love the Germans.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 12:26:31 PM |

    One week later, Forssman regained his resolve and repeated the process. Nurse Ditzen begged to be the subject, but Forssmann, in order to allow himself to be the first subject, tricked her into being strapped down and proceeded to work on himself while she helplessly watched.

Loading
An epidemic of heart disease reversal

An epidemic of heart disease reversal

Heart disease reversal is nothing new in my office. However, I have to admit that it's not something that generally happens each and every day.

As our approach is refined, we are witnessing an unprecedented frequency of plaque reversal. Since Monday (today is Tuesday), I've seen four people who have regressed their coronary plaque and dropped their heart scan score.

Pat was the most recent addition to this list. At age 53, I was honestly surprised at the ease of dropping her heart scan score from 128 to 42 in the space of a year. I was surprised because among her lipoprotein patterns was the dreaded combination of lipoprotein(a) and small LDL, probably the most aggressive risk for heart disease I know of and also among the most difficult to gain control over. She also suffered a deep personal tragedy in her family, an emotional convulsion that can sometimes wipe out any hope of plaque reversal.

I'm hopeful that this virtual epidemic of heart disease reversal continues. And I hope that you participate in it.

Comments (3) -

  • Bill, the songwriter

    1/30/2008 12:58:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis, I have been reading your site off and on for months. I guess only a doc can answer this.

    I am confused about the options a "reasonable person" would have upon learning that he has coronary heart disease (CHD). By that, I mean blockage in a major artery.

    Take me for example. (First, I'm doing fine now.) Two years ago, I had the "felt like a band tightening around my chest." 911 ambulance ride to the hospital. Bummer. My family history is terrible, all the men died of heart disease. I'm 54 now. I was disappointed and a bit apprehensive, although not "scared." I just figured they'd fix it. It usually works out that you don't die. (Although I lost a good friend on the bypass table who was seemingly healthy as could be the day before... routine physical and a stress test and they recommended bypass right away. He died on the table from the surgery!)

    Back to me... over the next few days, CHD confirmed. LAD had 99% blockage and a branch had 90%.

    I assume that my options at that time were...

    1. Get angioplasty and that's it
    2. Get angioplasty and a stent(s)
    3. Get bypass surgery
    4. Treat the heart disease with aggressive therapy. Which if you buy into the mainstream medicine way, it's drugs, low-fat diet, exercise, stress reduction. If you buy into alternative methods, it can include low-carb diet and powerful supplements.

    Confusion revolves around #4. My question is...

    >>>
    Do you think #4 is apropos for a person in this situation? (99% blockage in LAD)
    >>>

    I am confused because I'm thinking, okay, confirmed blockage. But it was the first sign I had ever had that I had heart problems.

    I realize that the percentage is a guess on the cardiologist's part, they don't measure it. But if it's 99% I tend to think... what is the risk of walking away to treat it without #1, 2 or 3? A blood clot that occurs for whatever reason hits that blockage and I could die. Could happen at any moment. Hours, days, weeks, months, years later.

    I also realize that there is risk in angioplasty, stents and bypass. Even discounting risk (of complication or dying on the table), restenosis is a common problem. And of course, you can have other blockages manifest themselves.

    But you could take the aggressive alternative therapy route and hope to stop the growth of plaque. At that time, I was not convinced that the blockages could be "reversed." Now, it appears that this can occur.

    I'll assume that you can reverse the situation and actually clean up your arteries. Is it a reasonable risk to opt for #4 or is this only for people who have less severe blockage? You're risking that you DON'T have a blood clot hit a blockage and kill you before you can achieve the artery-cleaning effect by your therapy, whatever it is.

    Seems I have read that stats are showing that #1, 2 or 3 do not necessarily beat #4 ... that #4 does just as well (lifespan) after the diagnosis.

    If quality of life was an issue, such as a person who has angina so severe or such difficulty breathing that a normal life was not possible, maybe that person is a definite candidate for #1, #2 or #3. But I wasn't there. I felt fine before AND after the event.

    As mentioned, I'm doing fine now. I love my low-carb diet, my lipids are great, I've lost weight, I exercise. This is just something that I would like to clear up for my own education. And who knows, a friend might ask me about this if s/he is diagnosed.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/30/2008 1:12:00 AM |

    You've made great changes in your lifestyle that will likely translate into much reduced risk for more struggles with heart disease. However, it is highly unlikely that you've put a stop to it, let alone reversing it.

    I would refer you to the website that this blog accompanies, www.trackyourplaque.com. Please keep in mind that I nor any other responsible physician can diagnose or offer individualized medical information over the net.

  • Bill, the songwriter

    1/30/2008 2:03:00 PM |

    Thanks for answering. I didn't mean to infer I am asking about me in particular for a present situation, I just used me as an example because that's what I know. I was asking about a hypothetical person.

    I've read much on your site but I'll go back again.

    IMO, 99% (at least) of all people who get a recommendation from a cardiologist to undergo an invasive procedure... they do it. And I'm curious about one taking another approach.

    Oh well, thanks again, Doc.

Loading