Publications

Export 2 results:
Sort by: [ Author  (Asc)] Title Type Year
A B C D E F G H I J K L M [N] O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z   [Show ALL]
N
Nagy, KA, Kooyman GL, Ponganis PJ.  2001.  Energetic cost of foraging in free-diving emperor penguins. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology. 74:541-547.   10.1086/322165   AbstractWebsite

Hypothesizing that emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) would have higher daily energy expenditures when foraging for their food than when being hand-fed and that the increased expenditure could represent their foraging cost, we measured field metabolic rates (FMR; using doubly labeled water) over 4-d periods when 10 penguins either foraged under sea ice or were not allowed to dive but were fed fish by hand. Surprisingly, penguins did not have higher rates of energy expenditure when they dove and captured their own food than when they did not forage but were given food. Analysis of time-activity and energy budgets indicated that FMR was about 1.7 x BMR (basal metabolic rate) during the 12 h d(-1) that penguins were lying on sea ice. During the remaining 12 h d(-1), which we termed their "foraging period" of the day, the birds were alert and active (standing, preening, walking, and either free diving or being hand-fed), and their FMR was about 4.1 x BMR. This is the lowest cost of foraging estimated to date among the eight penguin species studied. The calculated aerobic diving limit (ADL(C)), determined with the foraging period metabolic rate of 4.1 x BMR and known O-2 stores, was only 2.6 min, which is far less than the 6-min ADL previously measured with postdive lactate analyses in emperors diving under similar conditions. This indicates that calculating ADL(C) from an at-sea or foraging-period metabolic rate in penguins is not appropriate. The relatively low foraging cost for emperor penguins contributes to their relatively low total daily FMR (2.9 x BMR). The allometric relationship for FMR in eight penguin species, including the smallest and largest living representatives, is kJ d(-1) = 1,185 kg(0.705).

Newsome, LR, Ponganis PJ, Reichman R, Nakaji N, Jaski B, Haltley M.  1992.  Portable percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass: use in supported coronary angioplasty, aortic valvuloplasty, and cardiac arrest. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 6:328-331.   10.1016/1053-0770(92)90151-V   Abstract

Portable cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) systems consisting of a battery source and charger, centrifugal pump, hollow-fiber oxygenator, pump tubing, and large-bore thin-walled femoral arterial and venous cannulae have been commercially available for the past few years. Modifications of the Seldinger technique to allow percutaneous placement facilitate the expeditious institution of CPB in virtually any hospital setting.‘” As a result of this new technology, “supported” percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and aortic valvuloplasty (AVP), which use the prophylactic institution of percutaneous CPB prior to the beginning of these procedures, were reported in 1990. Additionally, these portable systems have been used at various medical centers to help resuscitate patients suffering from cardiac arrest from a variety of causes. Two case histories representative of the use of such a system in both scenarios and including some anesthetic considerations for the use of such systems, specifically in supported angioplasties, are reported. In addition, the authors’ total experience with portable CPB is described.