Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001) · 2019
Assessment of hydromorphone and dexmedetomidine for emesis induction in cats.
Clinical Trial, VeterinaryСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nystrom Michael R, Odunayo Adesola, Okafor Chika C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of hydromorphone and dexmedetomidine at inducing emesis in cats.
DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study.
SETTING: Veterinary university teaching hospital.
ANIMALS: 12 healthy purpose-bred cats.
INTERVENTIONS: Cats were randomly assigned to receive hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg, subcutaneously) or dexmedetomidine (7 μg/kg, IM). Following administration, the incidences of emesis, number of emetic events, signs of nausea (hypersalivation, lip licking), temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, and sedation score were recorded for 6 hours.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Emesis was successful in 9 of 12 (75%) cats when treated with hydromorphone and in 7 of 12 (58%) cats when treated with dexmedetomidine (P = 0.67). Dexmedetomidine was more likely to cause sedation than hydromorphone (P < 0.001). Heart rate in cats was significantly decreased at 1 and 2 hours post-hydromorphone (P = 0.003, 0.014, respectively) and at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 hours post-dexmedetomidine (P = 0.001, 0.003, 0.038, 0.013, 0.001, respectively). Cats were more likely to develop an increase in body temperature with hydromorphone administration although this was not clinically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present study indicate that hydromorphone is an effective alternative to dexmedetomidine for the induction of emesis in cats. Hydromorphone appears to cause less sedation and less decrease in heart rate. Further investigation into the most adequate dose of hydromorphone for optimizing emesis is warranted.
DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study.
SETTING: Veterinary university teaching hospital.
ANIMALS: 12 healthy purpose-bred cats.
INTERVENTIONS: Cats were randomly assigned to receive hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg, subcutaneously) or dexmedetomidine (7 μg/kg, IM). Following administration, the incidences of emesis, number of emetic events, signs of nausea (hypersalivation, lip licking), temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, and sedation score were recorded for 6 hours.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Emesis was successful in 9 of 12 (75%) cats when treated with hydromorphone and in 7 of 12 (58%) cats when treated with dexmedetomidine (P = 0.67). Dexmedetomidine was more likely to cause sedation than hydromorphone (P < 0.001). Heart rate in cats was significantly decreased at 1 and 2 hours post-hydromorphone (P = 0.003, 0.014, respectively) and at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 hours post-dexmedetomidine (P = 0.001, 0.003, 0.038, 0.013, 0.001, respectively). Cats were more likely to develop an increase in body temperature with hydromorphone administration although this was not clinically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present study indicate that hydromorphone is an effective alternative to dexmedetomidine for the induction of emesis in cats. Hydromorphone appears to cause less sedation and less decrease in heart rate. Further investigation into the most adequate dose of hydromorphone for optimizing emesis is warranted.