Transfusion, apparatus for, 115, 126, 127, 130-133 in early experiments, 10, 13 recent improvements in, 15 continuous, 60 direct method, technique, 108-111 early objections to, 9 history of, 1 ideal method of, 124, 132 indirect method, technique, 111-112 of infants, 134 technique, 134 recent advances in knowledge and technique of, 15-17 repeated, 57 Robertson’s citrate method, 121, 124 apparatus for, 124, 134 whole blood, with syringes, technique, 112 with anticoagulants, technique, 118-134 with Kimpton-Brown tube, 114 Traumatic toxæmia, 30-32 Tuberculosis, transfusion in, 62 Twins, blood groups in, 92 Typhoid, transfusion in, 62 “Universal donors,” 72, 73 “Universal recipients,” 72 Urine, hæmoglobin in, 39, 70, 76 suppression of, 76, 77 Urticaria, following transfusion, 77 Uterus, rupture of, 42 Vaccine, injection of, into blood donors, 59, 60 Vaso-motor failure, in shock, 26 Vein, for direct transfusion, 108, 109 injection of blood into, 134, 135 insertion of cannula in, 131 occlusion of, prevention of, 109 puncture of, 113 technique, 126-128 prevention of injury to, 113, 124 Venesection, preceding transfusion, 60 in carbon monoxide poisoning, 65 Venospasm, 27 Venous circulation, condition during shock, 39 Viscosity, 36 significance of, 36 Vital red, use of, 23 War, transfusion in, 17 Water, during severe shock, 34 Whole blood transfusion, apparatus for, 114 objections to, 118 prevention of clotting, 114, 118 with Kimpton-Brown tube, technique, 114-118 with syringes, 112-114 Willis, Thomas, 3 “Wound shock,” 29 Wren, Sir Christopher, vein injections by, 2, 3 FOOTNOTES: [1] The first reference to this that I can find is in “Moines et Papes,” by Emile Gebhardt, _La Chronique Médicale_, November 1912. [2] _Life and Times of Rodrigo Borgia_, A. H. Mathew, D.D., 1912, p. 66. [3] This refers to the experiment of Denys, mentioned above. [4] Birch’s _History of the Royal Society_, 1756, ii. p. 216. [5] The notation used here is that initiated by Moss in 1910. This does not agree with the notation introduced three years previously by Jansky, the Groups I and II of Moss corresponding to the Groups IV and III of Jansky and _vice versa_. The difference has given rise to confusion and some disasters, and it has been recently recommended by an American Medical Committee that the notation of Jansky be universally adopted on grounds of priority. This decision is no doubt fully justified in American practice, but in this country the notation of Moss has been so generally used that I have not attempted to reverse it. The possible dangers that may arise should, however, be realized. [6] _Mendelism_, R. C. Punnett, 5th ed., Macmillan, 1919.