Use of midazolam in combination with medetomidine for premedication in healthy dogs

A blinded crossover study design to evaluate midazolam as an adjunct for equine standing sedation for routine oral examinations

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of including midazolam to a common equine standing sedation protocol for routine oral examination. Twelve horses underwent two examinations at least seven days apart. Horses were randomly assigned to receive midazolam intravenously (IV) (0.02mg/kg) or a placebo injection of saline (2-2.5mL IV). Five minutes later, detomidine (0.01mg/kg) and butorphanol (0.01mg/kg) were administered IV and horses were placed in standing stocks. A veterinarian blinded to the treatment protocol used a descriptive scoring system to assess degree of ataxia, acceptance of speculum, chewing on the speculum, headshaking, tongue movement, resistance to palpation, and eye appearance as related to the grimace score. During each examination, additional sedation of IV detomidine (0.006mg/kg) and butorphanol (0.006mg/kg) was administered at the discretion of the blinded practitioner to facilitate safe examination. At the second examination horses received the opposite treatment protocol and, following examination, a routine occlusal adjustment. Scores were compared using JMP software with a repeated measures mixed effects model, treatment as a fixed effect and horse and horse/treatment interaction as random effects. Significance was set at P<0.05. There were no significant differences in any of the single or overall sedation scores between treatment groups or within individual horses (P=0.3). Trends towards improvement of some assessed characteristics of sedation, including decreased tongue movement and less resistance to acceptance of speculum were observed. The use of midazolam may prove beneficial for routine oral examination, as well as other standing procedures, with no obvious undesired side effects.

Intranasal atomized dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with ketamine or midazolam to sedate healthy dogs

A prospective, randomized, blinded experiment was conducted to compare the effects of intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine (Dex, 10 µg/kg; n=12) alone or combined with midazolam (DexM, 0.3 mg/kg; n=12) or ketamine (DexK, 2 mg/kg; n=12) in healthy dogs. Ease of administration (EA1), total administration time (TAT), time for first (TA1) and second nostril administration (TA2), and adverse events during atomization were recorded. Two days later, EA2 was assessed by IN atomization of injectable water as an additional outcome variable. Onset of sedation was evaluated, along with behavioral scores and physiological parameters from T0 (baseline) to T120. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis, repeated measures or Friedman's ANOVA, and Wilcoxon's tests. Significance was p≤0.05. Onset of sedation was 12.9 ± 4.1, 18.2 ± 7.5, and 9.9 ± 4.3 mins (mean ± SD) for Dex, DexM, and DexK, respectively. Onset was shorter in DexK compared to DexM (p=0.002), explaining the lower behavioral scores in DexM at T15. All dogs in Dex and DexK reached adequate sedation, with peak sedation occurring at T30, while some dogs in DexM never reached adequate sedation and this group peaked at T45. Adverse events such as saliva drooling and pawing at the nose were significantly higher in DexM and DexK, explaining their differences in TA2, TAT, and EA1 comparing to Dex. EA2 was also higher in Dex compared to DexM and DexK. In conclusion, Dex was better tolerated in dogs and DexK showed faster and more profound sedative effects. Due to paradoxical excitement, unpredictable sedation, and nasal irritation, DexM is not recommended.

Evaluating the Physiologic Effects of Alfaxalone, Dexmedetomidine, and Midazolam Combinations in Common Blue-Tongued Skinks (Tiliqua scincoides)

Common blue-tongued skinks (Tiliqua scincoides) are popular pet reptiles; however, there has been limited research to investigate sedatives for this species. The purpose of this study was to measure the physiologic effects of four combinations of alfaxalone, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam for minor procedures such as intubation and blood collection. Eleven common blue-tongued skinks (Tiliqua scincoides) were used for this prospective, randomized cross-over study. The subcutaneous combinations were used as follows: 20 mg/kg alfaxalone (A); 10 mg/kg alfaxalone and 1 mg/kg midazolam (AM); 0.1 mg/kg dexmedetomidine and 1 mg/kg midazolam (DM); and 5 mg/kg alfaxalone, 0.05 mg/kg dexmedetomidine, and 0.5 mg/kg midazolam (ADM). Heart rate, respiratory rate, palpebral reflex, righting reflex, escape reflex, toe pinch withdrawal reflex, tongue flicking, and the possibility of intubation were recorded at baseline and every 5 min for 60 min. Venous blood gases were measured at baseline, full sedation, and recovery. Heart and respiratory rates decreased significantly in all groups, but the reductions were most prominent in DM and ADM. Analgesic effects, as measured by the toe pinch withdrawal reflex, were only observed in DM and ADM. Intubation was possible in all four protocols; however, it was not possible in two DM skinks. Based on these trials, ADM and AM are recommended for minor procedures in blue-tongue skinks.

Anaesthetic mortality in dogs: A worldwide analysis and risk assessment

BACKGROUND

Ensuring patient safety during small animal anaesthesia is crucial. This study aimed to assess anaesthetic-related deaths in dogs globally, identify risks and protective factors and inform clinical practice.

METHODS

This prospective cohort multicentric study involved 55,022 dogs from 405 veterinary centres across various countries. Data on anaesthesia-related deaths from premedication to 48 hours post-extubation were collected. Logistic regression was used to analyse patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, procedure type and anaesthetic drugs used.

RESULTS

Anaesthetic-related mortality was 0.69%. Most deaths occurred postoperatively (81%). Age, obesity and a higher ASA classification score were associated with increased mortality. Urgent procedures, non-urgent but unscheduled anaesthesias and short procedures also had higher mortality. Some sedatives, systemic analgesics, hypnotics and the use of locoregional anaesthesia were linked to a decrease in mortality.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of the study include the non-randomised sample, potential selection bias, lack of response rate quantification, variable data quality control, subjectivity in classifying causes of death and limited analysis of variables.

CONCLUSION

Careful patient evaluation, drug selection and monitoring can be associated with reduced mortality. These findings can be used to develop guidelines and strategies to improve patient safety and outcomes. Further research is needed to refine protocols, enhance data quality systems and explore additional risk mitigation measures.

The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence of the primary research designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, if RCTs are incompletely reported, the methodological rigor with which they were conducted cannot be reliably evaluated and it may not be possible to replicate the intervention. Missing information also may limit the reader's ability to evaluate the external validity of a trial. Reporting guidelines are available for clinical trials in human healthcare (CONSORT), livestock populations (REFLECT), and preclinical experimental research involving animals (ARRIVE 2.0). The PetSORT guidelines complement these existing guidelines, providing recommendations for reporting controlled trials in pet dogs and cats. The rationale and scientific background are explained for each of the 25 items in the PetSORT reporting recommendations checklist, with examples from well-reported trials.

Scoping review of quality of anesthetic induction and recovery scales used for dogs

OBJECTIVE

To compare, describe and assess the level of validation of all instruments measuring quality of induction and recovery from anesthesia in dogs.

DATABASES USED

A search was performed using the electronic database PubMed to find articles containing an induction quality scale, a recovery quality scale or both in dogs. Articles not directly accessible through PubMed were obtained through the Auburn University Library website and Google Scholar. The phrases 'induction scoring systems dogs', 'recovery scoring systems dogs', 'anesthetic induction score dogs', and 'anesthetic recovery score dogs' were used for searches using the 'best match search' function. The time frame searched was from 1980 to May 2020. The search was conducted from March 2020 to May 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

A thoroughly tested and validated scale for measuring the quality of induction and recovery does not exist in the current veterinary literature. A large disagreement exists between studies on the use of induction and recovery scales, and many have reported inconsistent results with current instruments. It is recommended that an induction and recovery scale intended for wide-scale use be constructed and tested extensively for psychometric validation and reliability.