Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Clive Davis x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract

Objective—To determine the effectiveness and safety of 2 sedative-analgesic protocols to facilitate assisted ventilation in healthy dogs.

Animals—12 healthy dogs.

Procedures—Dogs were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Mean dosages for protocol 1 were diazepam (0.5 mg/kg/h [n = 3 dogs]) or midazolam (0.5 mg/kg/h [3]), morphine (0.6 mg/kg/h [6]), and medetomidine (1.0 μg/kg/h [6]). Mean dosages for protocol 2 were diazepam (0.5 mg/kg/h [n = 3]) or midazolam (0.5 mg/kg/h [3]), fentanyl (18 μg/kg/h [6]), and propofol (2.5 mg/kg/h [6]). Each dog received the drugs for 24 consecutive hours. All dogs were mechanically ventilated with adjustments in minute volume to maintain normocapnia and normoxemia. Cardiorespiratory variables were recorded. A numeric comfort score was assigned hourly to assess efficacy. Mouth care, position change, and physiotherapy were performed every 6 hours. Urine output was measured every 4 hours.

Results—Use of both protocols maintained dogs within optimal comfort ranges > 85% of the time. The first dog in each group was excluded from the study. Significant decreases in heart rate, oxygen consumption, and oxygen extraction ratio were evident for protocol 1. Cardiac index values in ventilated dogs were lower than values reported for healthy unsedated dogs. Oxygen delivery, lactate concentration, and arterial base excess remained within reference ranges for both protocols.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Use of both protocols was effective for facilitating mechanical ventilation. A reduction in cardiac index was detected for both protocols as a result of bradycardia. However, oxygen delivery and global tissue perfusion were not negatively affected.

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

Objective—To determine the level of clinical agreement between 2 methods for the measurement of resting energy expenditure (REE).

Design—Prospective case series.

Animals—77 dogs.

Procedure—Oxygen consumption (O2) and CO2 production (CO2) were measured with an open-flow indirect calorimeter in healthy (n = 10) and ill (67) dogs. Measurements were collected at 3 time periods on 2 days. The O2 and the CO2 measurements were then used to calculate the REE values.

Results—Mean values of measured (MREE) and predicted (PREE) REEs in healthy dogs and a dog with medical illnesses or trauma were not significantly different. There was a significant difference on day 2 between the MREE and PREE in the group of dogs recovering from major surgery. More importantly, there was significant variation between the PREE and MREE on an individual-dog basis. The PREE only agreed to within ± 20% of the MREE in 51% to 57% of the dogs.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The level of agreement between these two methods for determining the 24-hour REE was poor in individual dogs. The level of disagreement between the 2 methods indicates that these methods may not be used interchangeably in a clinical setting. Measurement of REE by use of indirect calorimetry may be the only reliable method of determining REE in an individual ill or healthy dog. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:58–64)

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association