To evaluate skin perfusion in cats receiving dexmedetomidine compared to a placebo.
9 healthy adult research cats.
A randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study design was used. Two sites, the dorsal metatarsus (site: limb) and lateral flank (site: flank), were evaluated with laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) at baseline and following administration of dexmedetomidine (1, 3, or 5 mcg/kg, IV) or a placebo (0.9% saline, IV). Mean speckle contrast (MSC), a surrogate for perfusion, was obtained from LSCI and compared between treatments. Heart rate, sedation score, and body temperature were recorded. Skin perfusion to the flank and limb, reported as MSC, was assessed via LSCI at baseline and at 5, 10, and 15 minutes posttreatment.
There was a significant decrease in heart rate (P < .001) in cats receiving 1, 3, and 5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine compared to placebo. There was a significant increase in median sedation score at all time points postsedation compared to baseline (P < .018). Changes in MSC for the metatarsus were not significantly different between treatments at any time point (P = .12). For the flank, MSC was significantly higher for cats treated with dexmedetomidine compared to baseline (P ≤ .01). Skin perfusion to the flank decreased as early as 5 minutes posttreatment with dexmedetomidine and persisted for at least 15 minutes, regardless of dexmedetomidine dose.
Dexmedetomidine decreased skin perfusion in cats, even at low doses. Veterinarians may elect for an alternative sedative medication when decreased skin perfusion is a concern.
OBJECTIVE To determine the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of midazolam following IV and IM administration in sheep.
ANIMALS 8 healthy adult rams.
PROCEDURES Sheep were administered midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) by the IV route and then by the IM route 7 days later in a crossover study. Physiologic and behavioral variables were assessed and blood samples collected for determination of plasma midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam (primary midazolam metabolite) concentrations immediately before (baseline) and at predetermined times for 1,440 minutes after midazolam administration. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by compartmental and noncompartmental methods.
RESULTS Following IV administration, midazolam was rapidly and extensively distributed and rapidly eliminated; mean ± SD apparent volume of distribution, elimination half-life, clearance, and area under the concentration-time curve were 838 ± 330 mL/kg, 0.79 ± 0.44 hours, 1,272 ± 310 mL/h/kg, and 423 ± 143 h·ng/mL, respectively. Following IM administration, midazolam was rapidly absorbed and bioavailability was high; mean ± SD maximum plasma concentration, time to maximum plasma concentration, area under the concentration-time curve, and bioavailability were 820 ± 268 ng/mL, 0.46 ± 0.26 hours, 1,396 ± 463 h·ng/mL, and 352 ± 148%, respectively. Respiratory rate was transiently decreased from baseline for 15 minutes after IV administration. Times to peak sedation and ataxia after IV administration were less than those after IM administration.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated midazolam was a suitable short-duration sedative for sheep, and IM administration may be a viable alternative when IV administration is not possible.
To characterize gastrointestinal transit times (GITTs) and pH in dogs, and to compare to data recently described for cats.
7 healthy, colony-housed Beagles.
The GITTs and pH were measured using a continuous pH monitoring system. For the first period (prefeeding), food was withheld for 20 hours followed by pH capsule administration. Five hours after capsule administration, dogs were offered 75% of their historical daily caloric intake for 1 hour. For the second period (postfeeding), food was withheld for 24 hours. Dogs were allowed 1 hour to eat, followed by capsule administration. Both periods were repeated 3 times. The GITTs and pH were compared to published feline data.
The mean ± SD transit times in dogs for the pre- and postfeeding periods, respectively, were esophageal, 3 ± 5 minutes and 13 ± 37 minutes; gastric, 31 ± 60 minutes and 829 ± 249 minutes; and intestinal, 795 ± 444 minutes and 830 ± 368 minutes. The mean ± SD gastrointestinal pH in dogs for the pre- and postfeeding periods, respectively, were esophageal, 6.6 ± 0.6 and 5.7 ± 1.0; gastric, 3.0 ± 1.4 and 1.8 ± 0.3; intestinal, 7.9 ± 0.3 and 7.7 ± 0.6; first-hour small intestinal, 7.6 ± 0.5 and 7.1 ± 0.4; and last-hour large intestinal, 7.9 ± 0.6 and 7.7 ± 1.0. The first-hour small intestinal pH and total transit times varied between dogs and cats depending on feed period (P = .002 and P = .04, respectively). Post hoc analysis revealed significantly shorter total transit times in dogs prefeeding (P = .005; mean ± SD for cats, 2,441 ± 1,359 minutes; for dogs, 828 ± 439 minutes) and postfeeding (P = .03; mean ± SD for cats, 3,009 ± 1,220 minutes; for dogs, 1,671 ± 513 minutes). Total transit time for dogs was also shorter pre- versus postfeeding (P = .003).
GITT is faster in Beagles compared to cats, but gastrointestinal pH are similar when fed the same diet.