Comparison of the effect of three intramuscular sedation protocols on packed cell volume and total protein in cats

Identification of feline erythrocyte antigen 6 and lack of alloimmunization to feline erythrocyte antigen 4 in cats

BACKGROUND

New feline erythrocyte antigens (FEAs) have been described based on the presence of naturally occurring alloantibodies (NOAb), but their immunogenicity and clinical relevance are poorly understood.

HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES

Describe the immunogenicity of FEA 4 after sensitizing FEA 4-negative cats lacking NOAb and characterize anti-FEA 4 alloantibodies produced, including their rate of appearance, agglutination titer, and immunoglobulin class.

ANIMALS

Nineteen healthy type A cats were blood typed for FEAs 1 to 5 to identify suitable donor-recipient pairs for FEA 4 sensitization.

METHODS

Four FEA 4-negative cats were transfused with FEA 4-positive red blood cells. Using a gel column technique, posttransfusion samples were screened daily for a week, weekly for a month, and monthly thereafter for anti-FEA 4 alloantibodies.

RESULTS

Alloantibodies were not detected in the first 3 recipients despite repeated transfusions (1 and 3 additional transfusions for 2 and 1 recipients, respectively). In the 4th recipient, alloantibodies against its donor red blood cells were detected 21 days postsensitization. However, they were not directed against FEA 4, but rather against a novel FEA not yet described. The alloantibodies, named anti-FEA 6, remained detectable for >4 months after sensitization and were determined to be mostly immunoglobulin M based on sulfhydryl treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Feline erythrocyte antigen 4 does not appear to be immunogenic because repeated sensitization of 4 cats failed to produce detectable anti-FEA 4 alloantibodies. A new immunogenic antigen, named FEA 6, has been discovered, but additional studies are needed to document its clinical importance.

The Effect of a Subsequent Dose of Dexmedetomidine or Other Sedatives following an Initial Dose of Dexmedetomidine on Electrolytes, Acid-Base Balance, Creatinine, Glucose, and Cardiac Troponin I in Cats: Part II

The administered dose of dexmedetomidine may occasionally fail to produce the anticipated sedative effects. Therefore, a subsequent dose or administration of another sedative may enhance sedation; however, patient safety may be affected. The safety of seven different drugs administered at the following time point after an insufficient dose of dexmedetomidine was evaluated in a crossover, blind, experimental study that included six healthy adult cats. All cats received an initial dose of dexmedetomidine and a subsequent dose of either dexmedetomidine (Group DD), NS 0.9% (DC), tramadol (DT), butorphanol (DBT), buprenorphine (DBP), ketamine (DK), or midazolam (DM). Animal safety was assessed using repeated blood gas analysis and measurement of electrolytes, glucose, cardiac troponin I, and creatinine to evaluate cardiac, respiratory, and renal function. The median values of creatinine, cardiac troponin I, pH, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, potassium, and sodium did not change significantly throughout the study. Heart rate was significantly decreased in all groups after administration of the drug combinations, except for in the DK group. Respiratory rate decreased significantly after administration of the initial dose of dexmedetomidine and in the DBP and DM groups. The partial pressure of oxygen, although normal, decreased significantly after the administration of dexmedetomidine, whereas the median concentration of glucose increased significantly following the administration of dexmedetomidine. The results of our study suggest that the drug combinations used did not alter the blood parameters above normal limits, while cardiac and renal function were not compromised. Therefore, a safe level of sedation was achieved. However, the administration of dexmedetomidine reduced the partial pressure of oxygen; thus, oxygen supplementation during sedation may be advantageous. Additionally, the increase in glucose concentration indicates that dexmedetomidine should not be used in cats with hyperglycaemia, whereas the decrease in haematocrit suggests that dexmedetomidine is not recommended in anaemic cats.

Hematological Parameters from the Feline Blood Donor to the Blood Unit: What Changes Are to Be Expected?

Simple Summary

Feline blood donation requires sedation to allow for good blood collection, avoiding venous damage and unnecessary donor stress. In the present study, we describe the variation of hematological parameters in a population of healthy blood-donor cats that underwent the same sedation protocol, including medetomidine, alfaxalone, and butorphanol. Significant differences in hematological parameters were observed between unsedated and sedated cats; particularly, the mean red blood cell count, hemoglobin concentration, hematocrit value, mean corpuscular volume, and red blood cells distribution width were significantly lower in sedated cats than in conscious ones, thus confirming that sedation is a critical procedure in cats. No significant differences for the main hematological parameters were observed between sedated cats and feline blood units, suggesting that the dilution with the conservative–anticoagulant solution (ratio 1:7) exerts negligible effects on these parameters with respect to samples of sedated animals.

Abstract

Feline blood donation requires sedation to allow for good blood collection, avoiding venous damage and unnecessary donor stress. In the present study, we describe the variation of hematological parameters in a population of 74 healthy blood-donor cats that underwent the same sedation protocol, including medetomidine, alfaxalone, and butorphanol. Changes in hematological parameters were evaluated in blood samples collected from conscious cats (group A), sedated cats (group B), and feline whole-blood units (FBUs) (group C). Significant differences were observed between unsedated and sedated cats: the mean RBC count, HGB, HCT, and RDW were significantly lower in sedated cats than in conscious ones, with a difference of 17.95%, 18.42%, 28.21%, and 10.00%, respectively. In accordance with previously reported data, our results confirm that sedation is a critical procedure in cats that can affect most of the hematological parameters. The second finding of our study is that no significant differences for the main hematological parameters were observed between sedated cats and FBUs, thus suggesting that the dilution with the conservative–anticoagulant solution exert negligible effects on these parameters with respect to samples of sedated animals. This hematological change must be taken into consideration since such parameters are important to define the quality of FBUs.