Comparison of a Supraglottic Airway Device (v-gel®) with Blind Orotracheal Intubation in Rabbits.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving a secure airway in rabbits is generally considered more difficult than in cats or dogs. Their relatively large tongue, small oropharyngeal cavity and glottis limit direct visualization. A rabbit-specific supraglottic airway device (SGAD) may offer benefits over blind orotracheal intubation. ANIMALS AND METHODS: Fifteen adult New Zealand white rabbits were randomized to SGAD or orotracheal intubation (ETT). All animals were sedated with dexmedetomidine (0.1 mg kg-1 IM) and midazolam (0.5 mg kg-1 IM), followed by induction with alfaxalone (0.3 mg kg-1 IV). Two CT scans of the head and neck were performed, following sedation and SGAD/ETT placement. The following were recorded: time to successful device insertion, smallest cross-sectional airway area, airway sealing pressure, and histological score of tracheal tissue. Data were analyzed with a Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Two rabbits were excluded following failed ETT. Body masses were similar [ETT; n = 6, 2.6 (2.3-4.5) kg, SGAD; n = 7, 2.7 (2.4-5.0) kg]. SGAD placement was significantly faster [33 (14-38) s] than ETT [59 (29-171) s]. Cross-sectional area (CSA) was significantly reduced from baseline [12.2 (6.9-3.4) mm2] but similar between groups [SGAD; 2.7 (2.0-12.3) mm2, ETT; 3.8 (2.3-6.6) mm2]. In the SGAD group, the device tip migrated into the laryngeal vestibule in 6/7 rabbits, reducing the CSA. ETT airway seals were higher [15 (10-20) cmH2O], but not significant [SGAD; 5 (5-20) cmH2O, p = 0.06]. ETT resulted in significantly more mucosal damage [histological score 3.3 (1.0-5.0)], SGAD; 0.67 (0.33-3.67). CONCLUSION: The SGAD studied was faster to place and caused less damage than orotracheal intubation, but resulted in a similar CSA.

Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of 2 meloxicam oral dosage formulations in healthy adult horses.

Meloxicam, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is approved for use in horses in several countries, but an equine formulation is not available in North America. However, meloxicam is being used in an extra-label manner in horses in Canada. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to assess the bioequivalence of an approved oral meloxicam suspension (Metacam 15 mg/mL for horses; Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmBH, Ingelheim, Germany) from the European Union with human meloxicam tablets (Meloxicam 15 mg tablets; TEVA Canada, Toronto, Ontario) compounded with molasses to improve palatability and administration. The geometric mean ratios (GMR test/reference) and the 90% confidence intervals of the pivotal pharmacokinetic parameters (area under the curve and maximum concentration) were within the defined limits of 80% to 125% generally accepted for products to be considered bioequivalent. Therefore, use of human meloxicam tablets compounded with molasses would be expected to produce a similar clinical response in horses as the approved oral product from the European Union.

Pharmacocinétique et bioéquivalence de 2 formulations de posologie orale de méloxicam chez des chevaux adultes en santé. Le méloxicam, un médicament anti-inflammatoire non stéroïdien, est approuvé pour utilisation chez les chevaux dans plusieurs pays, mais une formulation équine n'est pas disponible en Amérique du Nord. Cependant, le méloxicam est utilisé en dérogation des directives de l'étiquette chez les chevaux du Canada. Par conséquent, le but de la présente étude était d'évaluer la bioéquivalence d'une suspension orale approuvée de méloxicam (Metacam 15 mg/ml pour les chevaux; Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmBH, Ingelheim, Allemagne) de l'Union européenne avec celle des comprimés de méloxicam pour les humains (comprimés de 15 mg de méloxicam; TEVA Canada, Toronto, Ontario) préparés avec de la mélasse pour améliorer la sapidité et l'administration. Les ratios géométriques moyens (test RGM/référence) et les intervalles de confiance de 90 % des paramètres phamacocinétiques clés (secteur sous la courbe et concentration maximale) se situaient dans les limites définies de 80 % à 125 % généralement attendues pour des produits considérés comme bioéquivalents. Par conséquent, l'utilisation des comprimés de méloxicam pour humains préparés avec de la mélasse devrait produire une réponse clinique semblable chez les chevaux à celle du produit oral approuvé provenant de l'Union européenne.(Traduit par Isabelle Vallières).

A comparison of tissue oxygen saturation measurements by 2 different near-infrared spectroscopy monitors in 21 healthy dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a difference exists in tissue oxygen saturation (StO2 ) measurements between 2 near-infrared spectroscopy monitors on the sartorius muscle in healthy dogs. DESIGN: Prospective experimental study. SETTING: University veterinary teaching facility. ANIMALS: Seventeen healthy student volunteered dogs and 4 healthy veterinary medicine teaching dogs. INTERVENTIONS: An Inspectra 650 and INVOS 5100C StO2 probe were simultaneously placed on the medial right and left sartorius muscles of each dog for 2 minutes of real-time recording while standing and in left lateral recumbency. Left and right probe locations were reversed for both standing and lateral measurements. The peak value over the first 30 seconds on the Inspectra was also recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Peak StO2 values on the Inspectra over 30 seconds yielded an average of 89.9 ± 4.8%. There was no significant difference between groups above or below 9 kg, or between male and female dogs. The 2-minute averaged mean for the Inspectra was statistically higher than the INVOS (87.7 ± 5.47% and 64.1 ± 5.51%, respectively). The linear mixed-effects model showed that there is a 1.82% decrease in StO2 when standing compared to left lateral recumbency, which was elicited on both machines. On average, the INVOS underestimated the StO2 by 23.7% compared to the Inspectra. CONCLUSIONS: The INVOS significantly underestimates StO2 when compared to the Inspectra. Given this difference is on average 23.7%, StO2 cut off values used to guide therapy based on Inspectra readings cannot be applied to the INVOS. While there was a statistically significant difference in standing versus lateral positions on both devices, it is unlikely to be clinically significant. Studies using different devices should not be directly compared, and it is important to use the same monitor when taking serial measurements.