Objective—To compare detomidine hydrochloride
and romifidine as premedicants in horses undergoing
Animals—100 client-owned horses.
Procedure—After administration of acepromazine
(0.03 mg/kg, IV), 50 horses received detomidine
hydrochloride (0.02 mg/kg of body weight, IV) and 50
received romifidine (0.1 mg/kg, IV) before induction
and maintenance of anesthesia with ketamine
hydrochloride (2 mg/kg) and halothane, respectively.
Arterial blood pressure and blood gases, ECG, and
heart and respiratory rates were recorded. Induction
and recovery were timed and graded.
Results—Mean (± SD) duration of anesthesia for all
horses was 104 ± 28 minutes. Significant differences
in induction and recovery times or grades were not
detected between groups. Mean arterial blood pressure
(MABP) decreased in both groups 30 minutes
after induction, compared with values at 10 minutes.
From 40 to 70 minutes after induction, MABP was
significantly higher in detomidine-treated horses,
compared with romifidine-treated horses, although
more romifidine-treated horses received dobutamine
infusions. In all horses, mean respiratory rate ranged
from 9 to 11 breaths/min, PaO2 from 200 to 300 mm
Hg, PaCO2 from 59 to 67 mm Hg, arterial pH from 7.33
to 7.29, and heart rate from 30 to 33 beats/min, with
no significant differences between groups.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Detomidine
and romifidine were both satisfactory premedicants.
Romifidine led to more severe hypotension than detomidine,
despite administration of dobutamine to more
romifidine-treated horses. Both detomidine and romifidine
are acceptable α2-adrenoceptor agonists for
use as premedicants before general anesthesia in
horses; however, detomidine may be preferable
when maintenance of blood pressure is particularly
important. (Am J Vet Res 2001;62:359–363)
3 dogs with retroperitoneal masses (2 renal and 1 located near the diaphragm) were treated by percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA).
Dogs between 11 and 13 years of age weighing between 13.7 and 43.8 kg had either a renal mass (n = 2) or a mass located in the caudodorsal aspect of the retroperitoneal space near the right side of the diaphragm (1). Cytology revealed that one of the renal masses and the mass located near the diaphragm were malignant neoplasias. Findings on cytologic evaluation of a sample of the other renal mass was nondiagnostic. Maximum mass diameters ranged between 1.4 and 2.5 cm.
TREATMENT AND OUTCOME
All dogs were treated by percutaneous MWA. Probes were directed into tumors by use of ultrasound and CT guidance, and microwave energy was applied to each mass. Findings on imaging of each mass following MWA was consistent with successful treatment. No intraprocedural or major postprocedural complications occurred, and all dogs were discharged from the hospital within 3 days of treatment. Two dogs died at 3 and 21 months after MWA with no known local recurrence; 1 dog was still alive 64 months after treatment.
Although the indications for MWA in the treatment of neoplasia in companion animals are limited, the outcomes of dogs in the present report provided preliminary evidence that percutaneous MWA can be safely used to effectively treat retroperitoneal neoplasia. This procedure was successfully performed with image guidance in all 3 dogs.
To describe the procedure of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) in dogs with prostatic carcinoma and to evaluate the short-term outcome for treated dogs.
20 client-owned dogs with prostatic carcinomas between May 2014 and July 2017.
In this prospective cohort study, dogs with carcinoma of the prostate underwent PAE with fluoroscopic guidance. Before and after PAE, dogs underwent CT and ultrasonographic examinations of the prostate, and each owner completed a questionnaire about the dog's clinical signs. Results for before versus after PAE were compared.
Prostatic artery embolization was successfully performed in all 20 dogs. Tenesmus, stranguria, and lethargy were significantly less common 30 days after PAE (n = 2, 1, and 0 dogs, respectively), compared with before PAE (9, 10, and 6 dogs, respectively). Median prostatic volume was significantly less 30 days after PAE (14.8 cm3; range, 0.4 to 48.1 cm3; interquartile [25th to 75th percentile] range, 6.7 to 19.5 cm3), compared with before PAE (21.7 cm3; range, 2.9 to 77.7 cm3; interquartile range, 11.0 to 35.1 cm3). All dogs had a reduction in prostatic volume after PAE, with a median prostatic volume loss of 39.4% (95% CI, 20.3% to 59.3%).
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Prostatic artery embolization was associated with decreased prostate volume and improved clinical signs in this cohort. The short-term response to PAE appears promising, and evaluation of the long-term impact on survival time is needed.