Systolic blood pressure measurements with Doppler ultrasonic flow detector and high-definition oscillometry are comparable on population level but show large intra-individual differences in apparently healthy elderly dogs.

OBJECTIVE: Agreement of systolic blood pressure measurements (SBP) between noninvasive blood pressure devices in conscious dogs is poorly studied. Situational hypertension is expected in clinics, but studies are lacking. This study aimed to compare SBP measurements obtained with Doppler ultrasonic flow detector (Doppler) versus high-definition oscillometry (HDO) in clinics and at home and to estimate the prevalence of situational hypertension in conscious, apparently healthy elderly dogs. ANIMALS: 122 apparently healthy elderly or geriatric dogs were prospectively recruited. PROCEDURES: Systolic blood pressure was obtained consecutively with Doppler and HDO techniques in a randomized order per dog, following a standardized protocol. An at-home measurement was advised for in-clinic hypertensive dogs (SBP ≥ 160 mmHg), also using both devices. RESULTS: Dual measurements were available in 102 dogs. Median SBP was 147.3 mmHg (range, 105 to 239 mmHg) for Doppler and 152.3 mmHg (range, 113 to 221 mmHg) for HDO. Forty-six percent (56/122) were hypertensive, of which 9% (11/122) were hypertensive with both methods. No significant difference was found between the 2 devices in the global study population or within the group of hypertensive dogs. Repeated at-home measurements were performed in 20/56 (35.7%) hypertensive dogs, resulting in a 10 and 26 mmHg lower median SBP value for Doppler and HDO, respectively (P > .05). In-clinic situational hypertension was presumed in 8/20 (40%) dogs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The choice of the noninvasive blood pressure device did not significantly impact SBP results, but large interindividual differences in SBP between techniques occurred. Situational hypertension was frequently observed in clinic.

Evaluation of potential thiamazole exposure of owners of orally treated hyperthyroid cats.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the presence of traces of thiamazole in the urine of owners of hyperthyroid cats treated with antithyroid drugs. METHODS: Urine was collected from 24 owners of hyperthyroid cats, five human patients treated with thiamazole and five healthy humans without any contact with antithyroid drugs. All owners of hyperthyroid cats were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Urine of hyperthyroid cats was collected by spontaneous micturition. All urine samples were stored at -20°C until analysis by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution quadrupole Orbitrap mass spectrometry. RESULTS: These owners were assessed to have a lot of contact with their cat. Adherence to antithyroid medication handling guidelines was rather poor. High concentrations of thiamazole were detected in all feline samples (median concentration 2818 ng/ml; range 104-15,127) and in the urine of all human patients treated with thiamazole (median concentration 4153 ng/ml; range 1826-5009). No thiamazole was detected in the urine of owners of hyperthyroid cats (limit of detection 3.88 ng/ml; limit of quantification 11.75 ng/ml). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results regarding the potential exposure of owners of hyperthyroid cats to antithyroid drugs are reassuring. Nevertheless, prudence is still warranted when administering antithyroid drugs. Whether these results can be extrapolated to the use of transdermal application requires further investigation.