RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: There is currently no consensus regarding the use of intravenous fluid therapy in feline patients post-blood donation in veterinary medicine. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether blood donation can be performed safely without post-donation intravenous fluid therapy. The secondary aim was to report owner-noted post-donation changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study aimed to enrol 100 conscious feline blood donations by client-owned cats performed at a veterinary teaching hospital. Donors were randomised to either receive intravenous compound sodium lactate (twice the volume of blood donated over 2 hours) immediately after blood donation, or to receive no post-blood donation intravenous fluid therapy. Systolic blood pressure was measured non-invasively at 0, 60 and 120 minutes post-donation. Median blood pressures were compared between the two groups using a Shapiro-Wilk test. Owners were called the day following the donation to collect information on changes in their cat post-donation. RESULTS: One hundred cats were enrolled and the data of 97 cats were analysed; 46 who received intravenous fluid therapy and 51 who did not. Mean donation volume was 9.95 mL/kg for the intravenous fluid therapy group and 9.72 mL/kg for the non-intravenous fluid therapy group. At each time point, the median blood pressure did not differ significantly between the two groups. The main reported changes in both goups were bruising at the venepuncture site with 27.3% (12/44) in the IVFT group and 23.4% (9/37) in the no-IVFT group, and mild lethargy up to a maximum of 24 hours post donation with 11.4% (5/44) in the IVFT group and 18.9% (7/37) in the no-IVFT group. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests that the use of intravenous fluid therapy post-feline blood donation may not be necessary. This could mean reduced hospitalisation time for feline donors, possibly decreasing feline stress.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of accidental placement of nasoenteric tubes into the respiratory tract. To compare the methods of checking correct tube placement. To compare the complication rates between nasoesophageal and nasogastric tubes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Animals requiring nasoenteric feeding tubes were prospectively randomised to have either nasoesophageal or nasogastric tube placement. Various techniques for assessing tube position were compared with thoracic radiographic findings. Complications during placement and use were recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-seven animals (82 dogs and 15 cats) were studied. The tube was misplaced into the respiratory tract in three (3.1%) cases. No technique for checking placement was completely concordant with radiography but the presence of negative pressure at the thoracic inlet during placement was consistent with the presence of the tube in the oesophagus in 86.2% cases, while capnography can be considered to confirm tracheal placement. The overall rate of complications during tube placement was 25.8%, with mostly minor clinical complications reported. There was no significant difference in the new-onset regurgitation/vomiting rate, or complications while the tube was in situ between the nasoesophageal and nasogastric groups. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Misplacement of nasoenteric tubes is uncommon but a consistent alternative test to radiography for checking correct nasoenteric tube placement was not demonstrated. The choice of placement of either a nasoesophageal or nasogastric tube should be guided by clinician preference, and clients should be warned about possible complications during placement and while the nasoenteric tube is in situ.