-
PeerJ 2020The Feline Grimace Scale (FGS) is a facial expression-based scoring system for acute pain assessment in cats with reported validity using image assessment. The aims of...
BACKGROUND
The Feline Grimace Scale (FGS) is a facial expression-based scoring system for acute pain assessment in cats with reported validity using image assessment. The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical applicability of the FGS in real-time when compared with image assessment, and to evaluate the influence of sedation and surgery on FGS scores in cats.
METHODS
Sixty-five female cats (age: 1.37 ± 0.9 years and body weight: 2.85 ± 0.76 kg) were included in a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Cats were sedated with intramuscular acepromazine and buprenorphine. Following induction with propofol, anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and cats underwent ovariohysterectomy (OVH). Pain was evaluated at baseline, 15 min after sedation, and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after extubation using the FGS in real-time (FGS-RT). Cats were video-recorded simultaneously at baseline, 15 min after sedation, and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after extubation for subsequent image assessment (FGS-IMG), which was performed six months later by the same observer. The agreement between FGS-RT and FGS-IMG scores was calculated using the Bland & Altman method for repeated measures. The effects of sedation (baseline versus 15 min) and OVH (baseline versus 24 h) were assessed using linear mixed models. Responsiveness to the administration of rescue analgesia (FGS scores before versus one hour after) was assessed using paired -tests.
RESULTS
Minimal bias (-0.057) and narrow limits of agreement (-0.351 to 0.237) were observed between the FGS-IMG and FGS-RT. Scores at baseline (FGS-RT: 0.16 ± 0.13 and FGS-IMG: 0.14 ± 0.13) were not different after sedation (FGS-RT: 0.2 ± 0.15, = 0.39 and FGS-IMG: 0.16 ± 0.15, = 0.99) nor at 24 h after extubation (FGS-RT: 0.16 ± 0.12, = 0.99 and FGS-IMG: 0.12 ± 0.12, = 0.96). Thirteen cats required rescue analgesia; their FGS scores were lower one hour after analgesic administration (FGS-RT: 0.21 ± 0.18 and FGS-IMG: 0.18 ± 0.17) than before (FGS-RT: 0.47 ± 0.24, = 0.0005 and FGS-IMG: 0.45 ± 0.19, = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS
Real-time assessment slightly overestimates image scoring; however, with minimal clinical impact. Sedation with acepromazine-buprenorphine and ovariohysterectomy using a balanced anesthetic protocol did not influence the FGS scores. Responsiveness to analgesic administration was observed with both the FGS-RT and FGS-IMG.
PubMed: 32322445
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.8967 -
BMC Veterinary Research Apr 2020Specific behaviors associated with pain in cats with oral disease have not been consistently studied. The aim of this exploratory study was to identify pain-induced...
BACKGROUND
Specific behaviors associated with pain in cats with oral disease have not been consistently studied. The aim of this exploratory study was to identify pain-induced behaviors in cats before and after treatment of oral disease using video assessment. Twenty-four cats (6 ± 3.3 years old; 4.9 ± 1.7 kg) were included in a prospective, blinded, randomized clinical trial. Cats were equally divided into minimal (G1: minimal dental treatment) or severe (G2: multiple dental extractions) oral disease groups. After acclimation at day 0, they underwent oral examination, radiographs, scaling, and dental extractions under general anesthesia (anesthetic protocol: acepromazine, hydromorphone, propofol, isoflurane, meloxicam, and local anesthetic blocks; day 1), and were discharged at day 6. Cats were filmed remotely for 10 min using a wide-angle glass lens camera before surgery (baseline) and throughout the study at different time points (36 h of video recording). The videos consisted of four parts namely general, playing, feeding and post-feeding behaviors. A board-certified behaviorist evaluated the duration/frequency of different behaviors based on an ethogram, which were analyzed using linear mixed models and a generalized linear model, respectively (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
In comparison with baseline, duration of "not pawing the face" was significantly shorter at day 3 in G2. These cats spent significantly longer time "standing" and "laying" at days 3 and 6, respectively; G1 spent significantly less time "walking" and "standing" at days 3 and 4, respectively and significantly longer time "immobile" at day 3. Duration of "no/slow tail movement" was significantly longer in G2 than G1 at day 5. Duration of "pawing the ribbon" (playing) was significantly shorter in G2 than G1 at day 1. Feeding and post-feeding behaviors with soft food were not significantly different between groups or over time. Frequency of "difficulty grasping dry food" was significantly higher in G2 than G1 up to day 6. Frequency of post-feeding "head shaking" was significantly higher in both groups at day 6 when compared with baseline.
CONCLUSIONS
This study identified pain-induced behaviors in cats undergoing treatment of oral disease. These behaviors may be used to differentiate painful versus pain-free cats in clinical practice.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Local; Animals; Behavior, Animal; Cats; Eating; Female; Male; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Periodontal Diseases; Play and Playthings; Random Allocation; Single-Blind Method; Tooth Extraction; Video Recording
PubMed: 32272922
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02302-w -
BMC Veterinary Research Mar 2020Infiltration of the surgical site with local anesthetics combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may play an important role in improving perioperative pain...
Comparison of perioperative analgesia using the infiltration of the surgical site with ropivacaine alone and in combination with meloxicam in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
BACKGROUND
Infiltration of the surgical site with local anesthetics combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may play an important role in improving perioperative pain control. This prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate intraoperative isoflurane requirements, postoperative analgesia, and adverse events of infiltration of the surgical site with ropivacaine alone and combined with meloxicam in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy. Forty-five cats premedicated with acepromazine/meperidine and anesthetized with propofol/isoflurane were randomly distributed into three treatments (n = 15 per group): physiological saline (group S), ropivacaine alone (1 mg/kg, group R) or combined with meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg, group RM) infiltrated at the surgical site (incision line, ovarian pedicles and uterus). End-tidal isoflurane concentration (FE'ISO), recorded at specific time points during surgery, was adjusted to inhibit autonomic responses to surgical stimulation. Pain was assessed using an Interactive Visual Analog Scale (IVAS), UNESP-Botucatu Multidimensional Composite Pain Scale (MCPS), and mechanical nociceptive thresholds (MNT) up to 24 h post-extubation. Rescue analgesia was provided with intramuscular morphine (0.1 mg/kg) when MCPS was ≥6.
RESULTS
Area under the curve (AUC) of FE'ISO was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) in the RM (17.8 ± 3.1) compared to S (23.1 ± 2.2) and R groups (22.8 ± 1.1). Hypertension (systolic arterial pressure > 160 mmHg) coinciding with surgical manipulation was observed only in cats treated with S and R (4/15 cats, P = 0.08). The number of cats receiving rescue analgesia (4 cats in the S group and 1 cat in the R and RM groups) did not differ among groups (P = 0.17). The AUC of IVAS, MCPS and MNT did not differ among groups (P = 0.56, 0.64, and 0.18, respectively). Significantly lower IVAS pain scores were recorded at 1 h in the RM compared to the R and S groups (P = 0.021-0.018). There were no significant adverse effects during the study period.
CONCLUSIONS
Local infiltration with RM decreased intraoperative isoflurane requirements and resulted in some evidence of improved analgesia during the early postoperative period. Neither R nor RM infiltration appeared to result in long term analgesia in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Animals; Cats; Female; Hysterectomy; Meloxicam; Ovariectomy; Pain, Postoperative; Perioperative Care; Ropivacaine
PubMed: 32178668
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02303-9 -
PloS One 2020To evaluate the effects of intravenous maropitant on arterial blood pressure in healthy dogs while awake and under general anesthesia.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects of intravenous maropitant on arterial blood pressure in healthy dogs while awake and under general anesthesia.
DESIGN
Experimental crossover study.
ANIMALS
Eight healthy adult Beagle dogs.
PROCEDURE
All dogs received maropitant (1 mg kg-1) intravenously under the following conditions: 1) awake with non-invasive blood pressure monitoring (AwNIBP), 2) awake with invasive blood pressure monitoring (AwIBP), 3) premedication with acepromazine (0.005 mg kg-1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly followed by propofol induction and isoflurane anesthesia (GaAB), and 4) premedication with dexmedetomidine (0.005 mg kg-1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly followed by propofol induction and isoflurane anesthesia (GaDB). Heart rate (HR), systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP), and mean blood pressures (MAP) were recorded before injection of maropitant (baseline), during the first 60 seconds of injection, during the second 60 seconds of injection, at the completion of injection and every 2 minutes post injection for 18 minutes. The data were compared over time using a Generalized Linear Model with mixed effects and then with simple effect comparison with Bonferroni adjustments (p <0.05).
RESULTS
There were significant decreases from baseline in SAP in the GaAB group (p < 0.01) and in MAP and DAP in the AwIBP and GaAB (p < 0.001) groups during injection. A significant decrease in SAP (p < 0.05), DAP (p < 0.05), and MAP (p < 0.05) occurred at 16 minutes post injection in GaDB group. There was also a significant increase in HR in the AwIBP group (p < 0.01) during injection. Clinically significant hypotension occurred in the GaAB group with a mean MAP at 54 ± 6 mmHg during injection.
CONCLUSION
Intravenous maropitant administration significantly decreases arterial blood pressure during inhalant anesthesia. Patients premedicated with acepromazine prior to isoflurane anesthesia may develop clinically significant hypotension.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthesia, Inhalation; Animals; Antiemetics; Blood Pressure; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypotension; Injections, Intravenous; Linear Models; Models, Animal; Premedication; Quinuclidines; Wakefulness
PubMed: 32108177
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229736 -
Journal of the American Association For... Mar 2020Studies of visual responses in isoflurane-anesthetized mice often use the sedative chlorprothixene to decrease the amount of isoflurane used because excessive isoflurane...
Studies of visual responses in isoflurane-anesthetized mice often use the sedative chlorprothixene to decrease the amount of isoflurane used because excessive isoflurane could adversely affect light-evoked responses. However, data are not available to justify the use of this nonpharmaceutical-grade chemical. The current study tested whether pharmaceutical-grade sedatives would be appropriate alternatives for imaging pupillary light reflexes. Male 15-wk-old mice were injected intraperitoneally with 1 mg/kg chlorprothixene, 5 mg/kg acepromazine, 10 mg/kg chlorpromazine, or saline. After anesthetic induction, anesthesia maintenance used 0.5% and 1% isoflurane for sedative- and saline-injected mice, respectively. A photostimulus (16.0 log photons cm s; 470 nm) was presented to the right eye for 20 min, during which the left eye was imaged for consensual pupillary constriction and involuntary pupil drift. Time to immobilization, loss of righting reflex, physiologic parameters, gain of righting reflex, and degree of recovery were assessed also. The sedative groups were statistically indistinguishable for all measures. By contrast, pupillary drift occurred far more often in saline-treated mice than in the sedative groups. Furthermore, saline-treated mice took longer to reach maximal pupil constriction than all sedative groups and had lower heart rates compared with chlorpromazine- and chlorprothixene-sedated mice. Full recovery (as defined by purposeful movement, response to tactile stimuli, and full alertness) was not regularly achieved in any sedative group. In conclusion, at the doses tested, acepromazine and chlorpromazine are suitable pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to chlorprothixene for pupil imaging and conceivably other in vivo photoresponse measurements; however, given the lack of full recovery, lower dosages should be investigated further for use in survival procedures.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthesia; Animals; Chlorpromazine; Chlorprothixene; Dopamine Antagonists; Isoflurane; Light; Male; Mice; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Reflex, Pupillary
PubMed: 31915106
DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-19-000094 -
American Journal of Veterinary Research Jan 2020To evaluate the sedative and cardiorespiratory effects of IM administration of alfaxalone and butorphanol combined with acepromazine, midazolam, or dexmedetomidine in...
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the sedative and cardiorespiratory effects of IM administration of alfaxalone and butorphanol combined with acepromazine, midazolam, or dexmedetomidine in dogs.
ANIMALS
6 young healthy mixed-breed hounds.
PROCEDURES
Dogs received each of 3 treatments (alfaxalone [2 mg/kg] and butorphanol [0.4 mg/kg] combined with acepromazine [0.02 mg/kg; AB-ace], midazolam [0.2 mg/kg; AB-mid], or dexmedetomidine [0.005 mg/kg; AB-dex], IM) in a blinded, randomized crossover-design study with a 1-week washout period between treatments. Sedation scores and cardiorespiratory variables were recorded at predetermined time points. Data were analyzed by use of mixed-model ANOVA and linear generalized estimating equations with post hoc adjustments.
RESULTS
All treatments resulted in moderate to deep sedation (median score, ≥ 15/21) ≤ 5 minutes after injection. Sedation scores did not differ among treatments until the 40-minute time point, when the score was higher for AB-dex than for other treatments. Administration of AB-dex resulted in median scores reflecting deep sedation until 130 minutes, versus 80 and 60 minutes for AB-ace and AB-mid, respectively, after injection. Heart rate, cardiac output, and oxygen delivery decreased significantly after AB-dex, but not AB-ace or AB-mid administration. Respiratory variables remained within clinically acceptable ranges after all treatments. Undesirable recovery characteristics were observed in 4 dogs after AB-mid treatment. Four dogs required atipamezole administration 180 minutes after AB-dex injection.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
All protocols produced reliable sedation. The results indicated that in young, healthy dogs, AB-mid may produce undesirable recovery characteristics; AB-dex treatment caused cardiovascular depression and should be used with caution.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Animals; Butorphanol; Cardiovascular System; Cross-Over Studies; Deep Sedation; Dexmedetomidine; Dogs; Female; Heart Rate; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Intramuscular; Male; Midazolam; Pregnanediones
PubMed: 31887090
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.81.1.65 -
Journal of the American Veterinary... Jan 2020To evaluate the effects of lidocaine as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with...
Effects of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate.
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. ( 2020;256:93-101).
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Animals; Dogs; Heart; Hydromorphone; Lidocaine; Lung; Propofol
PubMed: 31841086
DOI: 10.2460/javma.256.1.93 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2019The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of intraperitoneal bupivacaine vs. bupivacaine-dexmedetomidine in combination with intramuscular...
The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of intraperitoneal bupivacaine vs. bupivacaine-dexmedetomidine in combination with intramuscular buprenorphine in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy. Sixty healthy adult cats (2.8 ± 0.7 kg; = 30/group) were included in a randomized, prospective, blinded, clinical trial after owners' written consent. After premedication with acepromazine (0.02 mg/kg) and buprenorphine (0.02 mg/kg) intramuscularly, anesthesia was induced with propofol to effect (6.2 ± 1.4 mg/kg) and maintained with isoflurane. Bupivacaine 0.25% alone (BG; 2 mg/kg) or bupivacaine (same dose) with dexmedetomidine (BDG; 1 μg/kg) were instilled/splashed over the ovarian pedicles and caudal aspect of uterus before ovariohysterectomy. Final injectate volume was standardized between groups. Sedation was evaluated using a five-point simple descriptive scale. Pain was evaluated using the short-form UNESP-Botucatu composite pain scale (SF-CPS) before, and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Rescue analgesia was provided with buprenorphine (0.02 mg/kg intravenously) and meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg subcutaneously) when SF-CPS ≥ 4. The Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used for analyzing ordinal variables (e.g., SF-CPS pain scores). The effect of time in SF-CPS scores was assessed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for repeated measures. The alpha level for each contrast was adjusted downward with the sequential Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. The number of cats receiving rescue analgesia was analyzed using χ2 test ( < 0.05). The prevalence of rescue analgesia was the same for the two treatments ( = 1.000) [BG, = 6, 20%; BDG, = 6, 20%] and similar for timing of rescue analgesia ( = 0.16). The SF-CPS scores were significantly increased between 1 and 12 h in BG, and between 0.5 and 8 h in BDG when compared with baseline values. Median (interquartile range) pain scores were higher in BG [1 (1-2)] than BDG [1 (0-1)] at 12 h ( = 0.023). Sedation scores were not significantly different between groups throughout the study. In terms of prevalence of rescue analgesia, but not duration of action, the analgesic efficacy of bupivacaine-dexmedetomidine was similar to bupivacaine alone after intraperitoneal administration in cats receiving buprenorphine.
PubMed: 31572740
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00307 -
Journal of the American Veterinary... Jul 2019To evaluate potential associations between preanesthetic administration of acepromazine or dexmedetomidine and development of arterial hypotension or bradycardia in...
Investigation of associations between preoperative acepromazine or dexmedetomidine administration and development of arterial hypotension or bradycardia in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.
To evaluate potential associations between preanesthetic administration of acepromazine or dexmedetomidine and development of arterial hypotension or bradycardia in isoflurane-anesthetized dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy. 341 dogs. Medical records were searched to identify dogs that underwent ovariohysterectomy between January 2009 and December 2010 and received hydromorphone with acepromazine or dexmedetomidine as preanesthetic agents. Demographic data, sedative and anesthetic drugs, duration of anesthesia, average vaporizer setting, positive pressure ventilation, occurrence of hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 60 mm Hg) or bradycardia (> 50% reduction in heart rate, compared with the preanesthetic value), time to first occurrence and duration of hypotension, and treatment with dopamine or anticholinergic agents were recorded. Data were compared between dogs that received acepromazine and dexmedetomidine. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between the treatments of interest (and other putative risk factors) and development of hypotension or bradycardia. For dogs that received acepromazine, the odds of developing hypotension were 2.61 times those for dogs that received dexmedetomidine. Hypotension occurred earlier and lasted longer in dogs that received acepromazine, and this group was treated with dopamine more frequently than the group that received dexmedetomidine. Lower body weight was associated with increased odds of hypotension. Odds of developing bradycardia were greater for dogs sedated with dexmedetomidine (vs acepromazine) and for dogs that underwent anesthetic induction with propofol or a ketamine-benzodiazepine combination (vs thiopental). Anesthetic complications differed between isoflurane-anesthetized dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy after premedication with acepromazine or dexmedetomidine in this study; future prospective investigations are warranted to investigate these effects in other, less homogenous populations of dogs.
Topics: Acepromazine; Animals; Bradycardia; Dexmedetomidine; Dogs; Female; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Ovariectomy
PubMed: 31260409
DOI: 10.2460/javma.255.2.193