In illustration may be cited the comparatively familiar description of Sydenham.53 These are his words: "There is vomiting to a great degree, and there are also foul, difficult, and straining motions from the bowels. There is intense pain in the belly, there is wind, and there are distension, heartburn, and thirst. The pulse is quick and frequent, at times small and unequal. The feeling of sickness is most distressing, and is accompanied with heat and disquiet. The perspiration sometimes amounts to absolute sweating. The legs and arms are cramped and the extremities cold. To these symptoms, and to others of a like stamp, we may add faintness." ... "As the summer came to a close the cholera morbus raged epidemically, and, being promoted by the unusual heat of the weather, it brought with it worse symptoms, in the way of cramps and spasms, than I had ever seen. Not only, as is generally the case, was the abdomen afflicted with horrible cramps, but the arms and legs, indeed the muscles in general, were afflicted also." ... At the risk of repetition an additional passage may be quoted from Sydenham's later definition of cholera morbus: "This is limited to the month of August or the first week or two of September. Violent vomiting, accompanied by the dejection of depraved humors, difficulty on passing them, vehement pain, inflation and distension of the bowels, heartburn, thirst, quick, frequent, small, and unequal pulse, heat and anxiety, nausea, sweat, cramps of the legs and arms, faintings, and coldness of the extremities, constitute the true cholera—and it kills within twenty-four hours."
53 Works, Sydenham Soc. ed., i. 163; ii. 8, 266.
In spite of the general likeness between this description and the symptoms of Asiatic cholera, there are differences of considerable importance which have been italicized in the quotations. These differences are such as may be attributed to the action of a harsh irritant in the case of cholera morbus, while in the epidemic (Asiatic) disease the distinctive phenomena are the result of a sudden and profuse intestinal flux. Macpherson, who had a long and extensive experience of epidemic cholera in India, after contrasting in detail its phenomena with those of cholera nostras, sums up the discussion in these words: "Cholera indica is essentially a very fatal disease, while cholera nostras is usually a mild affection and is seldom fatal, although it was called atrocissimus et peracutus, and has undoubtedly killed in from eight to twenty-four hours."54 In regard to the individual symptoms this very competent reporter does not recognize a single one as being absolutely peculiar to either disease. Even the ancients, already referred to, after describing bilious evacuations as being characteristic of cholera nostras, add that sometimes also they are whitish; and modern writers, both before and since the advent of Asiatic cholera in Europe, have made a similar observation. Thus, Quinquaud, in his description of cholera nostras, of which a slight epidemic occurred in 1869 at the Hospital St. Antoine in Paris, says: "The principal symptoms were vomiting and purging, sometimes of a bilious and sometimes of a rice-water liquid; a shrivelled and cyanotic skin, the latter appearance being sometimes strongly marked; anxiety, coldness, cramps, altered voice, and suppression of urine."55 In 1875 thirty-three cases of this disease occurred at Valenciennes, near Paris, and its symptoms were thus summarized by Manouvriez:56 "Repeated vomiting, first of food, and then of a dark-green liquid; diarrhoea, which was at first fecal and then bilious, but afterward serous and like rice-water; painful tension of the epigastrium and tenderness of this part; headache, cramps in the legs, suppression of urine; pallor, coldness, and dryness of the skin, especially of the limbs; pinched features, a blue circle around the eyes, a small and scarcely perceptible pulse, and a faltering and whispering voice." Yet of the thirty-three cases only two were fatal—the one a child of four years and the other an infant of as many months. The substantial identity of nature of these two local epidemics, and the almost equally close relation of their symptoms to those of epidemic cholera, must be quite apparent.
54 Times and Gaz., Dec., 1870, p. 725.
55 Archives gén., Mars, 1870, p. 308.
56 Archives gén., Sept., 1877, p. 298.
Yet the contrasts are neither slight nor unimportant; and the most striking and significant is the trifling mortality of the European as compared with the Asiatic disease, notwithstanding the grave symptoms present in the former. It may be regarded as certain, we think, that the reason of this difference of danger lies in a corresponding difference in the nature of the causes of the two forms of disease. The rapid recovery from cholera morbus produced by changes of weather, acid fruits, and indigestion renders it certain that no material lesion of the gastro-intestinal mucous membrane has been produced; while, on the other hand, inspection after death from epidemic cholera or by corrosive poisoning renders it equally certain that the damage to that membrane is substantial and widespread, as well as often irreparable, and that, therefore, "the powers of life that resist death" must be engaged in a very unequal and often fruitless struggle. The cramps in cholera nostras are, as a rule, less severe than in epidemic cholera, while the colicky, and in general the abdominal, pains are greater in the former than in the latter disease. The reason of this difference appears to be that muscular spasm is the natural result of depletion, whether sanguine or serous, while colic is an effect of irritation of the surface of the mucous coat of the bowel, and not of its destruction, such as occurs in epidemic cholera.
It is true only in a limited degree, and indeed only upon a superficial survey of the symptoms, that the effects of irritant poisoning are like those produced by Asiatic cholera. The analogy between the two was pointed out, among others, by Sedgwick in 1867.57 The resemblance appeared so striking to the vulgar eye that in Paris, and perhaps elsewhere, a popular tumult followed the first violent outbreak of epidemic cholera, and it was charged that the wells had been poisoned. The cases that most resemble cholera are the following: "Acute poisoning by corrosive sublimate, by arsenic, and by mineral acids, especially nitric acid; the effects which follow the eating or drinking of poisonous animal matters, such as tainted or simply unwholesome meat or fish, and milk which has undergone some injurious but yet unknown change, decomposing vegetables and some of the poisonous fungi, and the excessive action of certain drugs, for the most part belonging to the class of drastic purgatives," as elaterium and croton oil. The effects produced by these agents constitute a cholera morbus, and therefore resemble cholera, and have been occasionally, and almost unavoidably, mistaken for it. It is remarkable that suppression of urine may occur among them, as well as vomiting, purging, and collapse. As Griesinger and others have pointed out, the order in which the symptoms occur is a valuable, and generally an available, ground of diagnosis. In cholera, diarrhoea always occurs before vomiting, while in the various irritant poisonings mentioned vomiting precedes diarrhoea. In irritant poisoning also there is generally severe abdominal pain—not so much colicky and paroxysmal as constant and burning; the stools are not so copious as in cholera, and they do not possess the rice-water aspect, but are rather dark, bloody, and fetid, and are voided with tenesmus or with heat in the anus; and even when the urine is suppressed it is less persistently and completely so than in cholera, and attempts to void it are attended with vesical tenesmus and strangury. In a doubtful case it is important to ascertain whether a metallic or other unpleasant taste is perceived in the mouth, whether this cavity or the throat bears marks of corrosion, whether any unusual article of food has been used, etc. Moreover, it is of extreme importance to learn whether Asiatic cholera prevails, not merely in the immediate neighborhood, but at any place from which diseased persons or infected goods may have arrived. The instances should not be forgotten in which cholera-infected clothing from Europe has developed the disease in the valley of the Mississippi. Nor should those still more numerous cases be overlooked in which travellers affected with choleraic diarrhoea have disseminated the disease at great distances from their starting-point, although unconscious of the nature of their own ailment, whose seed they were sowing along their route.
57 Med.-Chir. Trans., li. 1.
PROGNOSIS.—Like the diseases called septic, of which the eruptive fevers may be taken as examples, and also like the effects of irritant poisons, the gravity of cholera must mainly depend upon the amount and the activity of the specific poison that is received into the system. It is most probable that the cholera poison is organic, and that it has a limited power of reproduction and term of existence, a period also of intense activity and a period of exhaustion; in a word, that either by progressive dilution as an inorganic substance or by organic senescence it finally ceases to exist. By no other theory is it possible to explain the numerous degrees of severity which cholera exhibits, from a mild indisposition to a malignant and rapidly fatal disease. On the one hand, the patients, if they may so be called, are hardly prevented from attending to their customary occupations. They may even be able to travel and carry the disease to distant places, and so appear to justify the erroneous and irrational doctrine of the atmospheric or spontaneous origin of cholera. On the other hand, the entire apparent duration of an attack may not exceed two or three hours, during which all the distinctive symptoms of the disease may be crowded together in the most appalling forms. Such grave cases are always most numerous at the commencement of an epidemic. These statements are true not only in regard to individual cases in the greater number of epidemics, but they represent the distinctive character of particular epidemics, some of which are as remarkable for their benignity as others are for their extreme malignity. For such contrasts no plausible reason can be suggested, unless it be a difference either in the essential virulence of the morbid poison or in the dose of it imbibed. That they are due to the activity rather than to the quantity of the poison seems to be proved by the progressive weakening in the gravity of the cases; for if the quantity of the poison remained the same some malignant cases might be expected to occur even during the decline of an epidemic.