Effect of sedation protocol on glomerular filtration rate in cats as determined by use of quantitative renal scintigraphy

Matthew D. Winter Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610

Search for other papers by Matthew D. Winter in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Kristina G. Miles Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Search for other papers by Kristina G. Miles in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
, and
Dean H. Riedesel Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Search for other papers by Dean H. Riedesel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effect of several sedation protocols on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in cats as measured by use of quantitative renal scintigraphy and to analyze interobserver differences in GFR calculation.

Animals—5 cats (1 sexually intact male, 1 neutered male, and 3 sexually intact females).

Procedures—Effects on GFR of 3 sedation protocols commonly used at the Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine were evaluated. The protocols were medetomidine (11 μg/kg) and butorphanol tartrate (0.22 mg/kg) administered IM; ketamine hydrochloride (10 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) administered IV; and ketamine (10 mg/kg), midazolam (0.5 mg/kg), and acepromazine maleate (0.05 mg/kg) administered IM. Results for the 3 protocols were compared with results of GFR measurements obtained in these same cats without sedation (control protocol).

Results—No significant difference between GFR measurements was associated with the 3 sedation protocols, compared with GFR measurements for the control protocol. The greatest mean GFR values were for the medetomidine-butorphanol and ketamine-midazolam protocols. There were no significant differences between observers for calculation of GFR.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that none of the 3 sedation protocols had significant effects on GFR calculated by use of quantitative renal scintigraphy, compared with results for GFR evaluations performed in the cats when they were not sedated. No significant interobserver error was evident. However, the statistical power of this study was low, and the probability of a type II error was high.

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effect of several sedation protocols on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in cats as measured by use of quantitative renal scintigraphy and to analyze interobserver differences in GFR calculation.

Animals—5 cats (1 sexually intact male, 1 neutered male, and 3 sexually intact females).

Procedures—Effects on GFR of 3 sedation protocols commonly used at the Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine were evaluated. The protocols were medetomidine (11 μg/kg) and butorphanol tartrate (0.22 mg/kg) administered IM; ketamine hydrochloride (10 mg/kg) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) administered IV; and ketamine (10 mg/kg), midazolam (0.5 mg/kg), and acepromazine maleate (0.05 mg/kg) administered IM. Results for the 3 protocols were compared with results of GFR measurements obtained in these same cats without sedation (control protocol).

Results—No significant difference between GFR measurements was associated with the 3 sedation protocols, compared with GFR measurements for the control protocol. The greatest mean GFR values were for the medetomidine-butorphanol and ketamine-midazolam protocols. There were no significant differences between observers for calculation of GFR.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that none of the 3 sedation protocols had significant effects on GFR calculated by use of quantitative renal scintigraphy, compared with results for GFR evaluations performed in the cats when they were not sedated. No significant interobserver error was evident. However, the statistical power of this study was low, and the probability of a type II error was high.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 100 0 0
Full Text Views 1872 1385 117
PDF Downloads 468 187 30
Advertisement