Efficacy of maropitant in preventing vomiting in dogs premedicated with hydromorphone

Anesthetic and analgesic techniques used for dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomies in general practice in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To acquire information about anesthesia and analgesia protocols used by United States (US) veterinarians in primary care practices when performing routine ovariohysterectomy in dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

POPULATION

Primary care veterinarians in the US.

METHODS

An online anonymous survey, originally created in New Zealand, was modified with permission and made available to Veterinary Information Network (VIN) members. The survey asked questions about performing ovariohysterectomy in healthy adolescent dogs in the categories of preanesthetic evaluation, premedication and induction protocols, maintenance protocols and monitoring equipment, and postoperative analgesic and sedation protocols and pain assessments.

RESULTS

A total of 1213 US veterinarians completed the survey. Respondents (n; %) reported performing preoperative laboratory tests [packed cell volume (135; 11%), complete blood cell count (889; 73%) and biochemistry panels (1057; 87%)] and preanesthetic examinations on the morning of surgery (1083; 90%). The most commonly administered drugs for premedication were acepromazine (512; 42%), hydromorphone (475; 39%) or butorphanol (463; 38%), with propofol (637; 67%) for induction of anesthesia and isoflurane (882; 73%) for maintenance of anesthesia. Most veterinarians reported placing intravenous catheters (945; 78%), administering electrolyte solutions (747; 67%) and providing heat support (1160; 96%). Perioperative and postoperative analgesia included local anesthetics (545; 45%), opioids (844; 70%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (953; 79%); NSAIDs were dispensed for home use (985; 81%). Dogs were most frequently discharged on the day of surgery (1068; 88%) and the owners were contacted (914; 75%) for follow-up within 1-2 days.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Anesthetic management for routine ovariohysterectomy in dogs varies among US veterinary VIN members. Information from this study is useful for all veterinarians for comparison with their practice management and for teachers of veterinary anesthesia to continue to emphasize options for analgesia.

Pharmacokinetics of maropitant citrate in Rhode Island Red chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) following subcutaneous administration

Maropitant citrate is a synthetic neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist and substance P inhibitor used for control of emesis in dogs in cats. Maropitant citrate is used empirically in birds, despite a lack of pharmacokinetic data in avian species. The objective of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of a single dose of maropitant citrate 1 and 2 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) in eight Rhode Island Red hens (Gallus gallus domesticus). A crossover study design was used with 1‐week washout between trials. Blood samples were collected over 36 h after drug administration. Plasma concentrations were measured using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined via non‐compartmental analysis. The mean maximum plasma concentration, time to maximum concentration, and elimination half‐life following 1 and 2 mg/kg SC were 915.6 ± 312.8 ng/ml and 1195.2 ± 320.2 ng/ml, 0.49 ± 0.21 h and 1.6 ± 2.6 h, and 8.47 ± 2.24 h and 8.58 ± 2.6 h, respectively. Pharmacokinetic data suggests doses of 1 or 2 mg/kg SC may be administered every 12–24 h to maintain above target plasma concentration similar to dogs (90 ng/ml). These data provide a basis for further investigation of maropitant citrate pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in birds.

Retrospective study on the use of lumbosacral epidural analgesia during caesarean section surgery in 182 dogs: Impact on blood pressure, analgesic use and delays

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the use of lumbosacral epidural anaesthesia (LEA) in dogs undergoing caesarean section over 10 years.

METHODS

Anaesthetic records were reviewed and divided into two treatment groups: LEA and control. Outcome variables identified a priori as potentially affected by LEA were compared between groups. Results are frequency or median (minimum-maximum).

RESULTS

Ninety-five dogs received LEA and 87 did not. LEA consisted of 0.2 (0.1-0.3) ml/kg containing bupivacaine (n = 63), ropivacaine (n = 15), or lidocaine (n = 12) at concentrations ranging between 0.06% and 2%. Morphine, fentanyl, or buprenorphine were used as part of LEA. Groups were similar for demographic variables (all p > 0.06). Intravenous opioids were used more often in control than in LEA (p < 0.0005). Incidence of hypotension (MAP < 60 mm Hg) was LEA 68% and control 56% (p = 0.12). Duration of hypotension was longer in LEA (p = 0.03). Use of crystalloids and vasoactive drugs did not differ (all p > 0.1). Time from induction to operating room was 30 (8-75) min for control and 35 (18-65) min for LEA (p = 0.003).

DISCUSSION

LEA during caesarean section in dogs was associated with lower rates of opioid administration and did not exacerbate the incidence of hypotension.

Prospective, controlled, blinded, randomized crossover trial evaluating the effect of maropitant versus ondansetron on inhibiting tranexamic acid-evoked emesis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence of tranexamic acid (TXA)-induced nausea and vomiting after the prophylactic use of 2 antiemetics, ondansetron and maropitant, compared with saline.

DESIGN

Prospective, blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover study.

SETTING

University research facility.

ANIMALS

Eight adult, purpose-bred Beagles.

INTERVENTION

Dogs received 3 treatments on 3 occasions with a 3-week washout period. Either maropitant (1 mg/kg), ondansetron (0.2 mg/kg), or saline solution was given intravenously in equal volumes, followed 10 minutes later by 50 mg/kg IV TXA. A blinded observer evaluated the dogs for signs of vomiting and nausea for 30 minutes. The severity of nausea was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS) and recorded at baseline before TXA, and at the end of 3 observational periods: 0-5, 5-15, and 15-30 minutes after TXA. A generalized linear mixed effect model was used to assess for group and period effects. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 .

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

None of the dogs vomited after maropitant. Emesis occurred in 5 out of 8 dogs (62.5%), a median (range) of 1 time (1-2) after ondansetron and 1 time (1-3) after saline. There was a significant effect on vomiting of maropitant against saline (P < 0.0001) but not for ondansetron against saline (P = 0.53). The highest nausea VASs were recorded during the first 5 minutes after TXA with a significant reduction of VAS variability in the maropitant group (P = 0.003). The effect of maropitant and ondansetron against saline on the severity of nausea was not statistically significant (P = 0.069).

CONCLUSION

The neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist maropitant at the dose used, administered IV 10 minutes before 50 mg/kg TXA, was effective in preventing vomiting compared with ondansetron and placebo. Our results support the prophylactic IV administration of maropitant in dogs that are scheduled to receive TXA.

The effect of intravenous maropitant on blood pressure in healthy awake and anesthetized dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of intravenous maropitant on arterial blood pressure in healthy dogs while awake and under general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Experimental crossover study.

ANIMALS

Eight healthy adult Beagle dogs.

PROCEDURE

All dogs received maropitant (1 mg kg-1) intravenously under the following conditions: 1) awake with non-invasive blood pressure monitoring (AwNIBP), 2) awake with invasive blood pressure monitoring (AwIBP), 3) premedication with acepromazine (0.005 mg kg-1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly followed by propofol induction and isoflurane anesthesia (GaAB), and 4) premedication with dexmedetomidine (0.005 mg kg-1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly followed by propofol induction and isoflurane anesthesia (GaDB). Heart rate (HR), systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP), and mean blood pressures (MAP) were recorded before injection of maropitant (baseline), during the first 60 seconds of injection, during the second 60 seconds of injection, at the completion of injection and every 2 minutes post injection for 18 minutes. The data were compared over time using a Generalized Linear Model with mixed effects and then with simple effect comparison with Bonferroni adjustments (p <0.05).

RESULTS

There were significant decreases from baseline in SAP in the GaAB group (p < 0.01) and in MAP and DAP in the AwIBP and GaAB (p < 0.001) groups during injection. A significant decrease in SAP (p < 0.05), DAP (p < 0.05), and MAP (p < 0.05) occurred at 16 minutes post injection in GaDB group. There was also a significant increase in HR in the AwIBP group (p < 0.01) during injection. Clinically significant hypotension occurred in the GaAB group with a mean MAP at 54 ± 6 mmHg during injection.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous maropitant administration significantly decreases arterial blood pressure during inhalant anesthesia. Patients premedicated with acepromazine prior to isoflurane anesthesia may develop clinically significant hypotension.

Pharmacokinetics of maropitant citrate in New Zealand White rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the pharmacokinetics and adverse effects of maropitant citrate after IV and SC administration to New Zealand White rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus).

ANIMALS

11 sexually intact (3 males and 8 females) adult rabbits.

PROCEDURES

Each rabbit received maropitant citrate (1 mg/kg) IV or SC. Blood samples were collected at 9 (SC) or 10 (IV) time points over 48 hours. After a 2-week washout period, rabbits received maropitant by the alternate administration route. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. Body weight, food and water consumption, injection site, mentation, and urine and fecal output were monitored.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD maximum concentration after SC administration was 14.4 ± 10.9 ng/mL and was detected at 1.25 ± 0.89 hours. Terminal half-life after IV and SC administration was 10.4 ± 1.6 hours and 13.1 ± 2.44 hours, respectively. Bioavailability after SC administration was 58.9 ± 13.3%. Plasma concentration at 24 hours was 2.87 ± 1.69 ng/mL after IV administration and 3.4 ± 1.2 ng/mL after SC administration. Four rabbits developed local dermal reactions at the injection site after SC injection. Increased fecal production was detected on the day of treatment and 1 day after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Plasma concentrations of rabbits 24 hours after SC and IV administration of maropitant citrate (1 mg/kg) were similar to those of dogs at 24 hours. Reactions at the SC injection site were the most common adverse effect detected. Increased fecal output may suggest an effect on gastrointestinal motility. Additional pharmacodynamic and multidose studies are needed.

Assessment of Dog Owner Concern Regarding Peri-operative Nausea and Vomiting and Willingness to Pay for Anti-emetic Treatment

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess dog owners' concern regarding peri-operative nausea and vomiting, and their willingness to pay for treatment.

Design: Descriptive survey.

Sample: A survey was administered to 104 dog owning clients with non-emergent surgical (52) or non-surgical (52) appointments at a University teaching hospital.

Procedure: Descriptive statistics were calculated. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect differences between clients expecting their pet to undergo elective general anesthesia and those that did not. A Spearman's Rank Co-efficient was used to correlate predictive data.

Results: Ninety-seven (93%) dog owners had at least some worry regarding their dog experiencing nausea associated with opioid analgesics and anesthesia, with 39/104 (37.5%) moderately to very worried. Forty-one owners (39%) would definitely and 59/104 (56.7%) would likely choose treatment to decrease or prevent signs of nausea. Ninety-four owners (90.4%) had at least some worry regarding vomiting, and 48/104 (46%) indicated they were moderately to very worried. Fifty-three owners (51.4%) would definitely and 49/103 (47.6%) would likely choose treatment to prevent vomiting. The median and mean amount owners were willing to pay was 50 and 76.47 USD, respectively. Ninety-five (91.3%) were likely or very likely to opt for treatment if required to arrive 1 h earlier for their appointment. There was no correlation between age, income, or owner's PONV experience with likelihood of choosing treatment but there was a significant positive correlation with the owner's level of education.

Conclusion: Canine owners are concerned with their pets experiencing nausea and vomiting in relation to opioid analgesics and anesthesia and are willing to pay and stay the required time for effective treatment.

The effect of aquapuncture at Pericardium 6 (PC-6) on dexmedetomidine-induced nausea and vomiting in cats

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of aquapuncture at acupuncture point Pericardium 6 (PC-6) on the incidence of dexmedetomidine-induced vomiting and nausea in cats.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, prospective, crossover study.

ANIMALS

A group of 22 cats, 14 females and eight males, aged 1-12 years and weighing 3.8-5.9 kg.

METHODS

Each cat was administered treatments in random order at ≥1 week intervals. For treatment (DEX-A), cats were administered PC-6 stimulation by aquapuncture (0.25 mL/250 μg vitamin B12 injection subcutaneously at PC-6). After 30 minutes, dexmedetomidine (10 μg kg^-1) was administered intramuscularly (IM). For control treatment (DEX), cats were administered only dexmedetomidine (10 μg kg^-1) IM. Incidence of vomiting, number of vomiting episodes and time to first vomiting were recorded by an observer unaware of treatment allocation. At 30 minutes after dexmedetomidine administration, atipamezole (0.1 mg kg^-1) was injected IM. Behavior was video recorded and later scored by two observers for clinical signs of nausea. A regression model (analysis of covariance) was used to detect the influence of aquapuncture on vomiting and nausea. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 21 cats, 18 (85%) and 16 cats (76%) vomited in DEX-A and DEX, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of vomiting (p = 0.55), number of vomiting episodes (p = 0.55), mean time to vomit (p = 0.88) or nausea score (p = 0.51) between DEX-A and DEX.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PC-6 aquapuncture did not reduce the incidence of dexmedetomidine-induced vomiting or severity of nausea in cats.

Spotlight on the perioperative use of maropitant citrate

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptors are present in both the central nervous system and peripheral tissues. Substance P (SP) is the major ligand and is involved in multiple processes including pain transmission, vasodilation, modulation of the inflammatory response, as well as the sensory neuronal transmission involved in stress, anxiety, and emesis. The involvement of NK-1 and SP in the vomiting reflex has led to the development of NK-1 antagonists to prevent and treat vomiting in human and veterinary medicine. Maropitant is a potent, selective neurokinin (NK-1) receptor antagonist that blocks the pharmacologic action of SP in the central nervous system. Maropitant is available in both an injectable and tablet formulation and approved for use in dogs and cats for the treatment and prevention of vomiting from a variety of clinical causes and motion sickness. When administered prior to anesthetic premedication, maropitant prevents or significantly decreases the incidence of opioid-induced vomiting and signs of nausea in dogs and cats. Maropitant has also been shown to improve postoperative return to feeding and food intake in dogs. The minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurage is decreased in both dogs and cats by maropitant, indicating a potential role as an adjunct analgesic, especially for visceral pain. This article will review the background information and literature, including clinical recommendations with respect to the perioperative use of maropitant in canine and feline veterinary patients.

Maropitant administered orally 2-2.5 h prior to morphine and dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of emesis in cats

Objectives The main goal of this study was to test the antiemetic effects of maropitant administered orally 2-2.5 h prior to morphine and dexmedetomidine in cats. Methods Eighty-three healthy female cats were randomized to receive maropitant (8 mg orally; n = 39) or no treatment (control; n = 44), 2-2.5 h prior to morphine 0.1 mg/kg and dexmedetomidine 20 µg/kg intramuscularly. The incidence of sialorrhea, lip licking, retching and vomiting were recorded after morphine/dexmedetomidine injection. Results There were no differences between groups in terms of age or weight. The treated group received a mean ± SD dose of maropitant of 2.9 ± 0.6 mg/kg. The incidence of sialorrhea and lip licking was no different between groups. The incidence of retching (control 36% vs maropitant 13%; P = 0.012) and emesis (control 32% vs maropitant 13%; P = 0.03) was significantly reduced in cats treated with maropitant. Conclusions and relevance Maropitant 8 mg (total dose) administered orally 2-2.5 h prior to morphine and dexmedetomidine significantly reduced, but did not eliminate, the incidences of retching and vomiting. Maropitant did not decrease the occurrence of sialorrhea and lip licking, signs that may be indicative of nausea. Maropitant might be useful for morning administration to prevent emesis in outpatient cats requiring sedation or anesthesia; however, dose regimens or interval of administration might require improvement.

Prevalence of and risk factors for intraoperative gastroesophageal reflux and postanesthetic vomiting and diarrhea in dogs undergoing general anesthesia

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of intraoperative gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and postanesthetic vomiting and diarrhea, and to evaluate risk factors associated with these gastrointestinal disorders (GID) in dogs undergoing general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

ANIMALS

Two hundred thirty-seven client-owned dogs undergoing general inhalant anesthesia for diagnostic or surgical purposes.

INTERVENTIONS

None MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient, surgical, and anesthetic variables, and postanesthetic treatments administered in the immediate postanesthesia period were evaluated in relation to GID using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (P < 0.05). Seventy-nine of the 237 (33.4%) dogs developed GID during the perianesthetic period. The prevalences of GER, vomiting, and diarrhea were 17.3%, 5.5%, and 10.5%, respectively. Intraabdominal surgery (P = 0.016; odds ratio [OR] 2.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-6.62), changes in body position (P = 0.003; OR 3.17, 95% CI: 1.47-6.85), and length of anesthesia (P = 0.052; OR 1.006, 95% CI: 1.000-1.013) were associated with GER. Changes in the ventilation mode during surgery (P = 0.011; OR 6.54, 95% CI: 1.8-23.8), length of anesthesia (P = 0.024; OR 1.001, 95% CI: 1.001-1.020), and rescue synthetic colloid support due to hypotension (P = 0.005; OR 6.9, 95% CI: 1.82-26.3) were positively associated with postanesthetic vomiting. On the contrary, dogs that received acepromazine as premedication were significantly less likely (P < 0.019; OR 12.3, 95% CI: 1.52-100) to vomit. Finally, length of anesthesia, changes in body position, changes in ventilation mode, or hypoxemia during the procedure tended to increase the risk (univariate model) of diarrhea during the recovery phase.

CONCLUSIONS

GID are common in dogs undergoing general anesthesia. Duration and characteristics of the procedure, anesthetic management, and changes in certain patient variables are significant risk factors for the presence of GID in the perioperative period.

Evaluation of oral maropitant as an antiemetic in cats receiving morphine and dexmedetomidine

Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate the antiemetic effects of maropitant, after oral administration, in cats receiving morphine and dexmedetomidine. Methods This prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial involved 98 healthy female domestic shorthair cats. Cats were randomly assigned to receive maropitant PO 8 mg total (group M) administered 18 h prior to sedation with intramuscular dexmedetomidine 20 µg/kg and morphine 0.1 mg/kg, or no antiemetic treatment (group C). The occurrence of signs of nausea (sialorrhea and lip-licking), retching and emesis during the 30 mins following administration of dexmedetomidine and morphine was measured for each group. Results Two cats were excluded from the investigation. Cats in group M (n = 46) received an average of 2.5 mg/kg of maropitant PO. Compared with group C (n = 50), cats in group M had lower incidences of emesis (M: 4% vs C: 40%), retching (M: 8% vs C: 40%) and lip-licking (M: 30% vs C: 52%) (all P <0.05). The incidence of sialorrhea was not different between groups (M: 21% vs C: 22%). Conclusions and relevance Maropitant 8 mg total PO was effective in reducing morphine and dexmedetomidine-induced emesis by 10-fold, when administered as early as 18 h in advance to healthy cats. Maropitant PO could be useful for administration the evening prior to a scheduled procedure requiring sedation/anesthesia to decrease the incidence of emesis.

Comparison of NK-1 Receptor Antagonist (Maropitant) to Morphine as a Pre-Anaesthetic Agent for Canine Ovariohysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the NK-1 receptor antagonist maropitant to morphine during and after surgery in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy (OHE).

METHODS

30 healthy female dogs were randomly divided to receive either a pre-anaesthetic dose of morphine (0.5 mg/kg SQ) or maropitant (1 mg/kg, SQ) prior to OHE. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Expired isoflurane concentration, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and respiratory rate were measured. Post-operative pain scores and appetite were evaluated during the recovery period. Rescue analgesia (morphine 0.1 mg/kg IV) was administered as needed post-operatively based on blinded pain score assessments.

RESULTS

Although clinically comparable; during surgical stimulation, the maropitant group had lower HR (108±18 vs 115±24 bpm; p = 0.04), lower SAP (114±23 vs 125±23 mmHg; p = 0.003) and required slightly lower percent of isoflurane anaesthetic (1.35±0.2 vs 1.51±0.4%; p = 0.005), when compared to the morphine group. In the recovery period, the maropitant group had lower pain scores at extubation (1.7±0.7 vs 3.4±2.3; p = 0.0001) and were more likely to eat within 3 hours after extubation (64.7 vs 15.3%). However, post-operative rescue analgesia requirements were similar between groups. All other measured parameters were similar between groups. The overall difference observed between groups was small and all monitored and measured parameters were within the expected range for anesthetized dogs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

No major differences in cardiorespiratory parameters or anaesthetic requirements were observed between maropitant and morphine when used as a pre-anesthetic agent for OHE. Further studies are necessary to fully elucidate the benefits of maropitant as a pre-anaesthetic agent for canine OHE.

Effects of maropitant, acepromazine, and electroacupuncture on vomiting associated with administration of morphine in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of maropitant, acepromazine, and electroacupuncture on morphine-related signs of nausea and vomiting in dogs and assess sedative effects of the treatments.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial.

ANIMALS

222 dogs.

PROCEDURES

Dogs received 1 of 6 treatments: injection of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution, maropitant citrate, or acepromazine maleate or electroacupuncture treatment at 1 acupoint, 5 acupoints, or a sham acupoint. Morphine was administered after 20 minutes of electroacupuncture treatment or 20 minutes after injectable treatment. Vomiting and retching events and signs of nausea and sedation were recorded.

RESULTS

Incidence of vomiting and retching was significantly lower in the maropitant (14/37 [37.8%]) group than in the saline solution (28/37 [75.7%]) and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture (32/37 [86.5%]) groups. The number of vomiting and retching events in the maropitant (21), acepromazine (38), 1-acupoint (35), and 5-acupoint (34) groups was significantly lower than in the saline solution (88) and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture (109) groups. Incidence of signs of nausea was significantly lower in the acepromazine group (3/37 [8.1%]) than in the sham-acupoint group (15/37 [40.5%]). Mean nausea scores for the saline solution, maropitant, and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture groups increased significantly after morphine administration, whereas those for the acepromazine, 1-acupoint electroacupuncture, and 5-acupoint electroacupuncture groups did not. Mean sedation scores after morphine administration were significantly higher in dogs that received acepromazine than in dogs that received saline solution, maropitant, and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Maropitant treatment was associated with a lower incidence of vomiting and retching, compared with control treatments, and acepromazine and electroacupuncture appeared to prevent an increase in severity of nausea following morphine administration in dogs.

Efficacy of orally administered maropitant citrate in preventing vomiting associated with hydromorphone administration in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of orally administered maropitant citrate in preventing vomiting after hydromorphone hydrochloride administration in dogs.

DESIGN

Randomized, blinded, prospective clinical study.

ANIMALS

40 dogs with American Society of Anesthesiologists status of I or II, > 6 months of age, and weighing between 24 and 58.2 kg (52.8 and 128.04 lb).

PROCEDURES

Dogs were randomly selected to receive maropitant (2.0 to 4.0 mg/kg [0.9 to 1.8 mg/lb]) or placebo (lactose monohydrate) orally 2 hours prior to receiving hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg [0.045 mg/lb], IM). A blinded observer recorded the occurrence of vomiting or signs of nausea (eg, salivation or lip-licking) during a 30-minute period after hydromorphone administration. Two-tailed Fisher exact tests were used to compare the incidences of vomiting and signs of nausea with or without vomiting between treatment groups. Results-Of the 20 dogs receiving maropitant, none vomited but 12 (60%) developed signs of nausea. Of the 20 dogs receiving placebo, 5 (25%) vomited and 11 (55%) developed signs of nausea; overall, 16 of 20 (80%) dogs in the placebo treatment group vomited or developed signs of nausea. Compared with the effects of placebo, maropitant significantly decreased the incidence of vomiting but not signs of nausea in dogs administered hydromorphone.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Among the 40 study dogs, the incidence of vomiting associated with hydromorphone administration was 25%. Oral administration of maropitant prevented vomiting but not signs of nausea associated with hydromorphone administration in dogs.

Nausea: current knowledge of mechanisms, measurement and clinical impact

Nausea is a subjective sensation, which often acts as a signal that emesis is imminent. It is a widespread problem that occurs as a clinical sign of disease or as an adverse effect of a drug therapy or surgical procedure. The mechanisms of nausea are complex and the neural pathways are currently poorly understood. This review summarises the current knowledge of nausea mechanisms, the available animal models for nausea research and the anti-nausea properties of commercially available anti-emetic drugs. The review also presents subjective assessment and scoring of nausea. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of nausea might reveal potential clinically useful biomarkers for objective measurement of nausea in species of veterinary interest.

Evaluation of the effects of methadone and tramadol on postoperative analgesia and serum interleukin-6 in dogs undergoing orthopaedic surgery

BACKGROUND

Acute postsurgical pain is of great interest due to potential risk of becoming chronic if not treated properly, worsening patient's recovery and quality of life. Twenty-eight dogs with ruptured cruciate ligaments were divided into three groups that received intramuscular injections of 4 mg/kg of tramadol (TRA), 0.5 mg/kg of methadone (MET0.5), or 0.7 mg/kg of methadone (MET0.7). Physiological parameters (heart and respiratory rates and blood pressure) were evaluated at specified times: baseline (TBL), 1 (T1), 2 (T2), 4 (T4), 6 (T6), and 24 (T24) hours after premedication. Pain scores were described by visual analogue scale (VAS), modified Glasgow Composite, and Colorado University Acute Pain scales. Blood samples for measurement of interleukin (IL)-6 were collected at TBL, T1, T6, and T24. This was a prospective, randomised investigation to evaluate the efficacy of tramadol and methadone as premedications in dogs undergoing osteotomies.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to age, weight, gender, surgery time, and time to extubation. Heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure values were maintained within acceptable ranges, and a reduction was observed at T2 in MET0.5 and MET0.7 compared with TBL. Increases in VAS scores were observed in TRA at T4 compared with TBL, T1, and T24 and between T1 and T6 (p < 0.001). In MET0.5, there was significant increase in VAS score at T4 compared with T1 (p < 0.001). TRA and MET0.5 showed significantly higher mean ± SD VAS scores (3.4 ± 2.5 and 2.5 ± 2.6, respectively) than MET0.7 (1.1 ± 1.5) at T4 (p < 0.001). TRA showed greater demand of rescue analgesia (four animals in T4 and two in T6) (p < 0.037). There were no statistically significant differences in sedation scores, Colorado Scale scores, or interleukin levels between groups and time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Methadone given as premedication in doses of 0.7 mg/kg was better at controlling pain compared with lower doses and tramadol. However, dosage increases, administered as rescue analgesia, promoted adequate pain control even in tramadol group. Influence of these analgesics on IL-6 release could not be demonstrated, but significant levels were not found.

Effects of maropitant citrate or acepromazine on the incidence of adverse events associated with hydromorphone premedication in dogs

Background

Vomiting is a common complication associated with the use of hydromorphine for pre‐emptive analgesia in dogs. The ideal anti‐emetic protocol for prevention of this complication has not been established.

Hypothesis

Maropitant administered concurrently or before hydromorphone would reduce the incidence of vomiting, signs of nausea, ptyalism, and increased panting compared to administration of acepromazine or a 0.9% saline control.

Animals

Sixty mixed‐breed female dogs scheduled for ovariohysterectomy.

Methods

Randomized, blinded, placebo‐controlled experimental study. Dogs were assigned to 4 experimental groups with 15 dogs per group. All groups received 0.2 mg/kg of hydromorphone IM. Group “Control” received 0.1 mL/kg saline SC 30–45 minutes before hydromorphone, group “Marop1” received 1 mg/kg maropitant SC 30–45 minutes before hydromorphone, group “Ace” received 0.02 mg/kg IM acepromazine 30–45 minutes before hydromorphone, and group “Marop2” received 1 mg/kg SC maropitant concurrently with hydromorphone. A trained and blinded observer documented adverse events from the time hydromorphone was administered until the time dogs were induced for surgery.

Results

Marop1 had significantly less vomiting (0%) compared to Control (87%; P < .01) and Ace (53%; P < .01). Marop2 had significantly less vomiting (27%) compared to Control (P < .01). Marop1 had significantly greater incidence of ptyalism (73%) compared to Ace (P < .01; 20%). Ace showed significantly less panting (33%) compared to Marop2 (93%; P < .01).

Conclusions and Clinical Importance

In healthy dogs, maropitant citrate administered before hydromorphone significantly decreases the incidence of vomiting in dogs but does not improve signs of nausea, ptyalism, or increased panting.

Maropitant prevented vomiting but not gastroesophageal reflux in anesthetized dogs premedicated with acepromazine-hydromorphone

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of maropitant for prevention of vomiting and gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in dogs following acepromazine-hydromorphone premedication and inhalation anesthesia.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, blinded, prospective clinical study.

ANIMALS

Twenty-six dogs admitted for elective soft tissue or orthopedic procedures that were 3.1 ±3.1 years of age and weighed 20.5 ± 11.4 kg.

METHODS

Dogs were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group M received maropitant (1.0 mg kg(-1) ) and Group S received 0.9% saline (0.1 mL kg(-1) ) intravenously 45-60 minutes before premedication with hydromorphone (0.1 mg kg(-1) ) and acepromazine (0.03 mg kg(-1) ) intramuscularly. An observer blinded to treatment documented any retching or vomiting for 20 minutes before induction with propofol (2-6 mg kg(-1) ) and inhalation anesthesia. A pH probe inserted into the distal esophagus was used to detect GER.

RESULTS

None of the dogs in Group M retched or vomited (0/13), 6/13 (46%) in Group S were observed to retch or vomit, and the difference between groups was significant (p = 0.015). There were no differences between groups in the number of dogs with GER (Group M: 4/13, Group S: 6/13 dogs) or the number of reflux events. Esophageal pH at the end of anesthesia was significantly lower in both M and S groups in dogs with GER versus dogs without GER (p = 0.004 and 0.011, respectively). Only dogs with GER in Group S had significantly lower pH at the end compared to the beginning of anesthesia (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Intravenous maropitant prevented retching and vomiting associated with acepromazine-hydromorphone premedication. Maropitant did not prevent the occurrence of GER. Fewer dogs in Group M developed GER but further study with a larger number of dogs is necessary to determine if there is a significant difference.