ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of lidocaine as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate and anesthetized with isoflurane. ANIMALS: 40 client-owned dogs (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification I or II and age ≥ 6 months) scheduled to undergo anesthesia for elective procedures. PROCEDURES: In a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial, dogs received 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution (2.0 mg/kg [0.9 mg/lb], IV; n = 20) or buffered crystalloid solution (0.1 mL/kg [0.05 mL/lb], IV; 20; control treatment) after premedication with acepromazine (0.005 mg/kg [0.002 mg/lb], IM) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg, IM). Anesthesia was induced with propofol (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb], IV, with additional doses administered as needed) and maintained with isoflurane. Sedation was assessed, and anesthetic and cardiopulmonary variables were measured at various points; values were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: Propofol doses, total sedation scores, and anesthetic and most cardiopulmonary measurements did not differ significantly between treatment groups over the monitoring period; only oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry differed significantly (lower in the lidocaine group). Mean ± SD propofol dose required for endotracheal intubation was 1.30 ± 0.68 mg/kg (0.59 ± 0.31 mg/lb) and 1.41 ± 0.40 mg/kg (0.64 ± 0.18 mg/lb) for the lidocaine and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: No propofol-sparing effect was observed with administration of lidocaine as a coinduction agent for the premedicated dogs of this study. Mean propofol doses required for endotracheal intubation were considerably lower than currently recommended doses for premedicated dogs. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2020;256:93-101).
Subject(s)
Acepromazine , Dogs/physiology , Heart/drug effects , Lung/drug effects , Propofol , Anesthetics, Intravenous , Animals , Hydromorphone , LidocaineABSTRACT
Objective: The objective of this study was to assess dog owners' concern regarding peri-operative nausea and vomiting, and their willingness to pay for treatment. Design: Descriptive survey. Sample: A survey was administered to 104 dog owning clients with non-emergent surgical (52) or non-surgical (52) appointments at a University teaching hospital. Procedure: Descriptive statistics were calculated. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect differences between clients expecting their pet to undergo elective general anesthesia and those that did not. A Spearman's Rank Co-efficient was used to correlate predictive data. Results: Ninety-seven (93%) dog owners had at least some worry regarding their dog experiencing nausea associated with opioid analgesics and anesthesia, with 39/104 (37.5%) moderately to very worried. Forty-one owners (39%) would definitely and 59/104 (56.7%) would likely choose treatment to decrease or prevent signs of nausea. Ninety-four owners (90.4%) had at least some worry regarding vomiting, and 48/104 (46%) indicated they were moderately to very worried. Fifty-three owners (51.4%) would definitely and 49/103 (47.6%) would likely choose treatment to prevent vomiting. The median and mean amount owners were willing to pay was 50 and 76.47 USD, respectively. Ninety-five (91.3%) were likely or very likely to opt for treatment if required to arrive 1 h earlier for their appointment. There was no correlation between age, income, or owner's PONV experience with likelihood of choosing treatment but there was a significant positive correlation with the owner's level of education. Conclusion: Canine owners are concerned with their pets experiencing nausea and vomiting in relation to opioid analgesics and anesthesia and are willing to pay and stay the required time for effective treatment.
ABSTRACT
By the nature of their environment and behavior, free-roaming cats are at increased risk of exposure to a wide range of pathogens compared with client-owned cats. Consequently, free-roaming cats can act as a reservoir for possible zoonotic infections. In this study, 140 cats were prospectively recruited over a 12-month period from a free-roaming cat spay and neuter clinic and a local animal shelter in the state of Iowa. The presence of antileptospiral antibodies was measured using a microscopic agglutination test against six leptospiral serovars (canicola, pomona, icterhemorrhagiae, bratislava, hardjo, and grippotyphosa). In addition, serum samples were tested for the presence of antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii and Dirofilaria immitis using an ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay, respectively. Serum samples from 12/139 cats (8.6%) were positive for the leptospiral serovars tested, with bratislava having the highest prevalence. Cats were more likely to be positive in the spring than in the fall or summer. Positive titers to T. gondii and D. immitis were present in 42/140 cats (30%) and 9/140 cats (6.4%), respectively. Cats >72 months of age were more likely to be seropositive to T. gondii than cats in younger age groups. Feline Leptospira spp. seroprevalence was higher in this Midwestern location than has previously been reported elsewhere in the United States. Contrary to previously reported seasonal trends, this population was more likely to be Leptospira spp. seropositive in the spring rather than fall or summer. Seroprevalence of D. immitis in this geographical location was substantially lower than previous reports of free-roaming cats in the United States.