Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Continuous fluid infusion per rectum compared with intravenous and nasogastric fluid administration in horses.
Khan, A; Hallowell, G D; Underwood, C; van Eps, A W.
Afiliação
  • Khan A; School of Veterinary Science, the University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
  • Hallowell GD; School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, the University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK.
  • Underwood C; School of Veterinary Science, the University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
  • van Eps AW; School of Veterinary Science, the University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
Equine Vet J ; 51(6): 767-773, 2019 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30900297
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Rectal fluid administration may offer a simple, safe and inexpensive alternative to intravenous or nasogastric fluid therapy in equine clinical cases.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the tolerance and effects of rectally administered fluid and compare the measurements of haemodilution and intravascular volume with those during nasogastric and intravenous fluid administration. STUDY

DESIGN:

Randomised controlled experimental trial.

METHODS:

Six clinically normal Standardbred geldings were used in a 4-way crossover study each received three different fluid treatments (intravenous, nasogastric and rectal) at 5 mL/kg/h for 6 h and underwent a control (no treatment) with water and feed withheld. Bodyweight was measured at baseline and 6 h. Packed cell volume (PCV), total solids (TS), albumin, electrolytes, lactate, urine specific gravity, vital parameters, gastrointestinal borborygmi and central venous pressure were measured every 2 h.

RESULTS:

Rectal fluid administration with plain water was well tolerated and caused clinical chemistry changes consistent with haemodilution, indicating absorption. Mean (95% confidence interval) PCV decreased from 40% [40-42] at 0 h to 35% [34-36] at 6 h during rectal fluid treatment (P<0.001), similar to decreases in PCV occurring also with i.v. and nasogastric (NGT) treatment (P<0.001). The TS also decreased with i.v. and rectal fluid (P<0.001). There was a decrease in bodyweight in the control (P<0.001) but not with any of the fluid treatments. MAIN

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size of healthy, euhydrated horses and a relatively short duration of fluid administration was used.

CONCLUSIONS:

Rectal fluid administration requires clinical evaluation, but may offer an inexpensive, safe alternative or adjunct to i.v. fluid administration, particularly when administration via NGT is not possible or contraindicated. The Summary is available in Portuguese - see Supporting Information.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Administração Retal / Administração Intravenosa / Hidratação / Doenças dos Cavalos / Intubação Gastrointestinal Limite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Equine Vet J Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Administração Retal / Administração Intravenosa / Hidratação / Doenças dos Cavalos / Intubação Gastrointestinal Limite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Equine Vet J Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article