Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: David R. Gross x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
History

A 1-year-old sexually intact male mixed-breed dog was evaluated within an hour of being hit by an automobile. On physical examination, the rectal temperature was 38.5°C (101.2°F), the heart rate was 160 beats/min, and the respiratory rate was 60 breaths/min. Femoral pulses were weak and mucous membranes tacky. The dog was alert and responsive; both pupils were miotic, and conjunctival hemorrhage was detected in the right eye. Direct and indirect pupillary light reflexes were absent in the right eye. Several small lacerations were detected on the head, and a contusion was detected on the lateral side of the left

Restricted access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

Objective—To determine the hemodynamic consequences of the coadministration of a continuous rate infusion (CRI) of medetomidine with a fentanyl bolus in dogs.

Animals—12 healthy sexually intact male dogs weighing 30.3 ± 4.2 kg (mean ± SD).

Procedure—Dogs received either fentanyl alone (15.0 µg/kg, IV bolus) or the same dose of fentanyl during an 11-hour CRI of medetomidine (1.5 µg/kg/h, IV). Prior to drug administration, dogs were instrumented for measurement of cardiac output, left atrial pressure, and systemic arterial blood pressures. Additionally, blood samples were collected from the pulmonary artery and left atrium for blood gas analysis.

Results—Medetomidine infusion reduced the cardiac index, heart rate, and O2 delivery while increasing left atrial pressure. Subsequent fentanyl administration further decreased the cardiac index. The PaO2 was not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups; however, fentanyl transiently decreased PaO2 from baseline values in dogs receiving a CRI of medetomidine.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Because of the prolonged hemodynamic changes associated with the CRI of medetomidine, its safety should be further evaluated before being clinically implemented in dogs. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1222–1226)

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research