The anesthetic mortality rate in horses is between 1% and 19.5%, depending on several factors that include the reason for anesthesia and time of day anesthesia is performed.1,2 Serious injury (most frequently long-bone fracture) during recovery that results in death is responsible for 12.5% to 38% of anesthetic-related deaths in horses.1 Consequently, identification of factors that increase morbidity and fatalities and methods and techniques that improve the quality of anesthetic recovery for horses is warranted. Numerous studies3–9 have been conducted to investigate various methods of improving the quality of the recovery period for horses. Examples of variables that have been evaluated include inhalation and injectable anesthetics, sedatives, analgesics, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, recovery stall illumination, recovery surface, sling use during recovery, and use of a pool.
Evaluation of the quality of recovery from anesthesia for horses is most often performed by use of subjective visual grading scales. These include a VAS or numeric rating scale, which assigns 1 number to the overall recovery event; an SDS, which assigns a single word to the overall recovery event; or a CGS, which assigns a score to individual aspects of recovery that are summed to yield an overall score.10,11 Because these scales are subjective, they have more sources of systemic errors than do objective measurements.12 Additionally, subjective scoring systems for recovery of horses can have low sensitivity, low repeatability, and high variability; tend to be overly complex; and have institutional and sex bias in certain populations.13–16
Diplomates of the ACVAA are recognized as experts in veterinary anesthesia. They complete rigorous training programs and must pass certification examinations to be awarded diplomate status. Extensive training and demonstrated knowledge in equine anesthesia is a requirement of the training programs. Thus, ACVAA diplomates may have similar opinions and biases regarding quality of recovery of horses from anesthesia. However, it is unknown whether subjective recovery scores assigned by ACVAA diplomates would be similar.
Accelerometry is the quantitative determination of acceleration and deceleration of an object during movement. It is the measure of how rapidly velocity changes and is measured in g or m/s2. It can be used to measure acceleration during physical activity of animals. Three-axis accelerometry is measured with a device that has 3 separate accelerometers mounted orthogonally, which allows for measurement of acceleration in any direction. In human medicine, accelerometry has been widely used, including within the discipline of anesthesia to assess movement disorders of patients after anesthesia and surgery.17 In veterinary medicine, accelerometry has been used to detect estrus in cattle,18 investigate physical activity in dogs,19 assess analgesic treatments in dogs,20 perform gait analysis in dogs,21 and evaluate severity of osteoarthritis in cats.22 For horses, accelerometry has been used to assess lameness,23 racing surfaces,24 load weight,25 and response to flexion testing.26 A system that involves the use of objective accelerometry measurements of horses during recovery from anesthesia would minimize or eliminate subjective biases. However, a standardized system for this purpose has not yet been developed.
Objectives of the study reported here were to evaluate agreement among diplomates of the ACVAA for scores determined by use of an SDS for horses during recovery from anesthesia and evaluate agreement among other diplomates of the ACVAA for scores determined by use of a CGS for horses during recovery from anesthesia. If ACVAA diplomates were not in agreement for scores determined by use of a subjective measurement scale, it was our intent to develop a system that involved the use of 3-axis accelerometry for evaluation of horses during recovery from anesthesia. On the basis that there was common training and testing to achieve diplomate status, hypotheses for the first 2 objectives were that diplomates of the ACVAA would be in agreement when using an SDS or subjective CGS to evaluate horses during recovery from anesthesia.
Presented in abstract form at the 12th World Congress of Veterinary Anaesthesiology, Kyoto, Japan, September 2015.
American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia
Composite grading scale
Simple descriptive scale
Visual analogue scale
Exselle surcingle, National Bridle Shop Inc, Lewisburg, Tenn.
GP1-L programmable accelerometer, Sensr, Elkader, Iowa.
AnaSed, Akorn, Decatur, Ill.
Hospira Inc, Lake Forest, Ill.
Ketaset, Fort Dodge, Fort Dodge, Iowa.
Replay video capture, Applian Technologies Inc, San Anselmo, Calif.
OneDrive, Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash.
Sensware, version 22.214.171.124, Sensr, Elkader, Iowa.
CurveExpert Pro, DG Hyams, Madison, Ala.
SAS, version 9.3, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC.
3. Chesnel MA, Clutton RE. A comparison of two morphine doses on the quality of recovery from general anesthesia in horses. Res Vet Sci 2013; 95: 1195–1200.
4. Clark-Price SC, Posner LP, Gleed RD. Recovery of horses from general anesthesia in a darkened or illuminated recovery stall. Vet Anaesth Analg 2008; 35: 473–479.
5. Posner LP, Kasten JI, Kata C. Propofol with ketamine following sedation with xylazine for routine induction of general anaesthesia in horses. Vet Rec 2013; 173: 550.
6. Ray-Miller WM, Hodgson DS, McMurphy RM, et al. Comparison of recoveries from anesthesia of horses placed on a rapidly inflating-deflating air pillow or the floor of a padded stall. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 229: 711–716.
7. Wiese AJ, Brosnan RJ, Barter LS. Effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibition on quality of recovery from isoflurane-induced anesthesia in horses. Am J Vet Res 2014; 75: 223–230.
8. Woodhouse KJ, Brosnan RJ, Nguyen KQ, et al. Effects of postanesthetic sedation with romifidine or xylazine on quality of recovery from isoflurane. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013; 242: 533–539.
9. Steffey EP, Brosnan RJ, Galuppo LD, et al. Use of propofol-xylazine and the Anderson sling suspension system for recovery of horses from desflurane anesthesia. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 927–933.
10. Donaldson LL, Dunlop GS, Holland MS, et al. The recovery of horses from inhalant anesthesia: a comparison of halothane and isoflurane. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 92–101.
12. Bispo CAF, Cazarini EW. A study on the foundations of the occurrence of errors in subjective measurements. Int J Bus Hum Technol 2012; 2: 173–183.
13. Farmer E, Chase-Topping M, Lawson H, et al. Factors affecting the perception of recovery quality in horses after anaesthesia. Equine Vet J 2014; 46: 328–332.
14. Portier KG, Séna A, Senior M, et al. A study of the correlation between objective and subjective indices of recovery quality after inhalation anaesthesia in equids. Vet Anaesth Analg 2010; 37: 329–336.
15. Suthers JM, Christley RM, Clutton RE. A comparison of scoring systems for assessing recovery quality after general anaesthesia in horses, in Proceedings. 47th Br Equine Vet Assoc Congr 2008; 140–141.
16. Suthers JM, Christley RM, Clutton RE. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of three scoring systems for assessing recovery quality after general anaesthesia in horses. Vet Anaesth Analg 2011; 38: 352–362.
17. Swan BD, Grill WM, Turner DA. Investigation of deep brain stimulation mechanisms during implantable pulse generator replacement surgery. Neuromodulation 2014; 17: 419–424.
18. Valenza A, Giordano JO, Lopes, Jr. G, et al. Assessment of an accelerometer system for detection of estrus and treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone at the time of insemination in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2012; 95: 7115–7127.
19. Morrison R, Penpraze V, Beber A, et al. Associations between obesity and physical activity in dogs: a preliminary investigation. J Small Anim Pract 2013; 54: 570–574.
20. Wernham BG, Trumpatori B, Hash J, et al. Dose reduction of meloxicam in dogs with osteoarthritis-associated pain and impaired mobility. J Vet Intern Med 2011; 25: 1298–1305.
21. Pillard P, Gibert S, Viguier E. Development of a 3D accelerometric device for gait analysis in dogs. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2012; 15(suppl 1):246–249.
22. Guillot M, Moreau M, d'Anjou MA, et al. Evaluation of osteoarthritis in cats: novel information from a pilot study. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 328–335.
23. Keegan KG, Kramer J, Yonezawa Y, et al. Assessment of repeatability of a wireless, inertial sensor-based lameness evaluation system for horses. Am J Vet Res 2011; 72: 1156–1163.
24. Crevier-Denoix N, Pourcelot P, Hoden-Douilly L, et al. Discrimination of two equine racing surfaces based on forelimb dynamic and hoof kinematic variables at the canter. Vet J 2013; 198(suppl 1):e124–e129.
25. Matsuura A, Irimajiri M, Matsuzaki K, et al. Method for estimating maximum permissible load weight for Japanese native horses using accelerometer-based gait analysis. Anim Sci J 2013; 84: 75–81.
26. Marshall JF, Lund DG, Voute LC. Use of a wireless, inertial sensor-based system to objectively evaluate flexion tests in the horse. Equine Vet J Suppl 2012; 43: 8–11.
27. Fleiss JL, Nee JC, Landis JR. Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 974–977.
28. Fleiss JL, Levine B, Paik MC. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Fleiss JL, Levine B, Paik MC, eds. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003; 598–626.
29. Kendall MG. Ranks and variate values. In: Kendall MG, ed. Rank correlation methods. 2nd ed. New York: Hafner Press, 1955; 123–143.
30. Advanced Analytics LLC website. Computing inter-rater reliability with the SAS system. Available at: irrhbk.advance-danalyticsllc.com/research_papers/inter_rater_reliability_with_sas.pdf. Accessed Feb 10, 2016.
31. SAS Institute Inc. mAgree macro: sample 25006: Compute estimates and tests of agreement among multiple raters. Available at: support.sas.com/kb/25/006.html. Accessed Feb 6, 2016.
32. Wongpakaran N, Wongpakaran T, Wedding D, et al. A comparison of Cohen's kappa and Gwet's AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 61.
34. Holton LL, Scott EM, Nolan AM, et al. Comparison of three methods used for assessment of pain in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998; 212: 61–66.
35. Barletta M, Young CN, Quandt JE, et al. Agreement between veterinary students and anesthesiologists regarding postoperative pain assessment in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 2016; 43: 91–98.
36. Sonnenberg A. We only see what we already know—a modified Bayes' formula to explain inherent limitation of diagnostic tests. Med Hypotheses 2004; 63: 759–763.
37. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 1990; 13: 227–236.
38. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med 1988; 18: 1007–1019.
41. Hicks EP, Kluemper GT. Heuristic reasoning and cognitive biases: are they hindrances to judgments and decision making in orthodontics? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 297–304.
42. Caruso JF, Olson NM, Taylor ST, et al. Front squat data reproducibility collected with a triple-axis accelerometer. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26: 40–46.
43. Cliff DP, Reilly JJ, Okely AD. Methodological considerations in using accelerometers to assess habitual physical activity in children aged 0–5 years. J Sci Med Sport 2009; 12: 557–567.
44. White BJ, Coetzee JF, Renter DG, et al. Evaluation of two-dimensional accelerometers to monitor behavior of beef calves after castration. Am J Vet Res 2008; 69: 1005–1012.
45. Vitger AD, Stallknecht BM, Nielsen DH, et al. Integration of a physical training program in a weight loss plan for overweight pet dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016; 248: 174–182.
46. Clark K, Caraquel C, Leahey, et al. Evaluation of a novel accelerometer for kinetic gain analysis in dogs. Can J Vet Res 2014; 78: 226–232.
47. Lanata A, Guidi A, Baragli P, et al. A novel algorithm for movement artifact removal in ECG signals acquired from wearable systems applied to horses. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0140783.
48. DuBois C, Zakrajsek E, Haley DB, et al. Validation of triaxial accelerometers to measure the lying behavior of adult domestic horses. Animal 2015; 9: 110–114.