Jessica M Bullock, Travis M Lanaux, Justin W Shmalberg
{"title":"436只宠物狗在安乐死前单独使用戊巴比妥-苯妥英与使用丙泊酚的比较","authors":"Jessica M Bullock, Travis M Lanaux, Justin W Shmalberg","doi":"10.1111/vec.12813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To report the incidence of adverse events during euthanasia of client-owned dogs administered either intravenous pentobarbital/phenytoin (PP) or PP after propofol delivery.</p><p><strong>Design/setting: </strong>Prospective, observational, multi-site study.</p><p><strong>Animals: </strong>Four hundred thirty-six dogs undergoing client-elected euthanasia over a 1-year period.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Interventions included placement of an IV catheter and delivery of euthanasia agents (PP for the PP group, propofol followed by PP for the propofol group). Seven pre-determined adverse events were recorded: agonal breaths, urination, defecation, vocalization, muscle activity, dysphoria, and catheter complications. Euthanasia scores for each patient were defined as the sum of all adverse events (0-7) the patient exhibited.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Two hundred thirty-six dogs were in the PP group and 200 dogs were in the propofol group. No significant differences were detected in the dose of PP administered (166.9 ± 105.6 mg/kg for PP group, 182.6 ± 109.8 mg/kg for propofol group). Propofol dogs received 4.5 ± 2.9 mg/kg propofol. The incidence of ≥ 1 adverse event was 35.2% in the PP group and 26.5% in the propofol group (P = 0.052). Mean euthanasia scores (0.47 PP group, 0.32 propofol group) were not significantly different (P = 0.08). Propofol significantly reduced the incidence of muscle activity (6% vs. 14%, odds ratio 0.39; P = 0.0079).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no difference in the likelihood of the studied adverse events during client-elected euthanasia in dogs when propofol was used prior to PP. There was a significant reduction in perimortem muscle activity if propofol was given prior to PP.</p>","PeriodicalId":74015,"journal":{"name":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)","volume":"29 2","pages":"161-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/vec.12813","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of pentobarbital-phenytoin alone vs propofol prior to pentobarbital-phenytoin for euthanasia in 436 client-owned dogs.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica M Bullock, Travis M Lanaux, Justin W Shmalberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/vec.12813\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To report the incidence of adverse events during euthanasia of client-owned dogs administered either intravenous pentobarbital/phenytoin (PP) or PP after propofol delivery.</p><p><strong>Design/setting: </strong>Prospective, observational, multi-site study.</p><p><strong>Animals: </strong>Four hundred thirty-six dogs undergoing client-elected euthanasia over a 1-year period.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Interventions included placement of an IV catheter and delivery of euthanasia agents (PP for the PP group, propofol followed by PP for the propofol group). Seven pre-determined adverse events were recorded: agonal breaths, urination, defecation, vocalization, muscle activity, dysphoria, and catheter complications. Euthanasia scores for each patient were defined as the sum of all adverse events (0-7) the patient exhibited.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Two hundred thirty-six dogs were in the PP group and 200 dogs were in the propofol group. No significant differences were detected in the dose of PP administered (166.9 ± 105.6 mg/kg for PP group, 182.6 ± 109.8 mg/kg for propofol group). Propofol dogs received 4.5 ± 2.9 mg/kg propofol. The incidence of ≥ 1 adverse event was 35.2% in the PP group and 26.5% in the propofol group (P = 0.052). Mean euthanasia scores (0.47 PP group, 0.32 propofol group) were not significantly different (P = 0.08). Propofol significantly reduced the incidence of muscle activity (6% vs. 14%, odds ratio 0.39; P = 0.0079).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no difference in the likelihood of the studied adverse events during client-elected euthanasia in dogs when propofol was used prior to PP. There was a significant reduction in perimortem muscle activity if propofol was given prior to PP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)\",\"volume\":\"29 2\",\"pages\":\"161-165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/vec.12813\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12813\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/2/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12813","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of pentobarbital-phenytoin alone vs propofol prior to pentobarbital-phenytoin for euthanasia in 436 client-owned dogs.
Objective: To report the incidence of adverse events during euthanasia of client-owned dogs administered either intravenous pentobarbital/phenytoin (PP) or PP after propofol delivery.
Animals: Four hundred thirty-six dogs undergoing client-elected euthanasia over a 1-year period.
Interventions: Interventions included placement of an IV catheter and delivery of euthanasia agents (PP for the PP group, propofol followed by PP for the propofol group). Seven pre-determined adverse events were recorded: agonal breaths, urination, defecation, vocalization, muscle activity, dysphoria, and catheter complications. Euthanasia scores for each patient were defined as the sum of all adverse events (0-7) the patient exhibited.
Measurements and main results: Two hundred thirty-six dogs were in the PP group and 200 dogs were in the propofol group. No significant differences were detected in the dose of PP administered (166.9 ± 105.6 mg/kg for PP group, 182.6 ± 109.8 mg/kg for propofol group). Propofol dogs received 4.5 ± 2.9 mg/kg propofol. The incidence of ≥ 1 adverse event was 35.2% in the PP group and 26.5% in the propofol group (P = 0.052). Mean euthanasia scores (0.47 PP group, 0.32 propofol group) were not significantly different (P = 0.08). Propofol significantly reduced the incidence of muscle activity (6% vs. 14%, odds ratio 0.39; P = 0.0079).
Conclusions: There was no difference in the likelihood of the studied adverse events during client-elected euthanasia in dogs when propofol was used prior to PP. There was a significant reduction in perimortem muscle activity if propofol was given prior to PP.