Clinical assessment of the efficacy of supraglottic airway devices compared with endotracheal tubes in cats during volume-controlled ventilation

Placement of the feline V-gel Advanced supraglottic airway device and tracheal selectivity during controlled mechanical ventilation: a clinical and tomodensitometric evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study was to assess the placement of the V-gel Advanced (V-gel-A) and to evaluate tracheal selectivity during controlled mechanical ventilation, using CT.

METHODS

In this prospective clinical study, 20 healthy cats undergoing general anaesthesia for an elective procedure underwent four successive CT scans from the nose to the mid-abdomen: at baseline (no device); after the placement of the V-gel-A, after a controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV) period of 5 mins; and after the placement of an endotracheal tube (ETT). Using both a purpose designed position score and a gas score estimating the quantity of gas in different digestive regions, the position of the V-gel-A and presence of gas in the digestive tract at each step were evaluated. Number of attempts and times required to place the V-gel-A and ETT were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

The V-gel-A was found to be correctly placed, with position scores of 3/5 in six cats, 4/5 in 13 cats and 5/5 in one cat. Imperfect positioning was due to minor axial rotation or incomplete occlusion of the oesophagus by the tip of the device. The gas scores significantly increased after placement of the V-gel-A compared with baseline and after CMV was initiated. Correct positioning of the device was mostly achieved at the first attempt; no significant difference was found in the time required to place V-gel-A vs ETT, nor in the number of attempts (P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The V-gel-A was clinically easy to place and use in both spontaneous and controlled ventilation. The device properly fitted the larynx and was never observed to occlude the airway. However, incomplete occlusion of the oesophagus was frequently observed and may lead to a lack of complete tracheal selectivity.

Comparative study of ventilation techniques with supraglottic airway devices in cats: volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled techniques

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the effectiveness of a new supraglottic airway device (SGAD) in cats undergoing anaesthesia using two types of mechanical ventilation: volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV).

METHODS

A total of 13 healthy cats (five male, eight female; median age 2 years [range 1-3]) were randomly allocated to either VCV or PCV. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 ml/kg) and five peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 cmH2O) were randomly applied with a minute ventilation of 100 ml/kg/min. Various parameters, such as blood pressure, gas leakage, end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) and work of breathing (WOB), were measured while using VCV or PCV.

RESULTS

The occurrence of hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) was slightly less frequent with VCV (38 events, 65 ventilating sessions) than with PCV (40 events, 65 ventilating sessions), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.429). The number of leakages did not differ between the VCV group (3 events, 65 ventilating sessions) and the PCV group (3 events, 65 ventilating sessions) (P = 1.000). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (10 events, 65 ventilating sessions) less frequently than when using PCV (17 events, 65 ventilating sessions), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.194). The study found a significantly higher WOB in the PCV group compared with the VCV group (P <0.034).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The present results suggested that both VCV and PCV can be used with an SGAD during anaesthesia, with VCV preferred for prolonged mechanical ventilation due to its lower workload. Adjusting tidal volume or inspiratory pressure corrects hypercapnia.

Effects of intranasal and intramuscular dexmedetomidine in cats receiving total intravenous propofol anesthesia

Background and Aim:

The efficacy of intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine in cats as a premedication remains elusive. Thus, this study aimed to compare the perioperative and sparing effects of IN and intramuscular (IM) dexmedetomidine administration on propofol requirements for anesthetic induction in cats.

Materials and Methods:

This study randomly assigned 16 cats into two groups of IN or IM dexmedetomidine at 20 μg/kg. Sedation scores and side effects were recorded at time points of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min after the dexmedetomidine administration. Anesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) 1% propofol by titrating a bolus of 2 mg every 45 s and the total dose of the administered IV propofol to achieve endotracheal intubation was recorded.

Results:

Cats receiving IM dexmedetomidine were significantly associated with higher sedation scores. All cats were sedated at 20 min after premedication; however, the average composite sedation scores in the IN group were significantly lower than those in the IM group during premedication. Pre-operative side effects, including vomiting, were more frequently observed in the IN group (5 cats, 62.5%) than in the IM group (3 cats, 37.5%; p < 0.05). Higher body temperature (>1°F compared to baseline) was more frequently observed in the IN group (6 cats, 75.0%) than in the IM group (1 cat, 12.5%; p < 0.05). The dosage of required propofol in the IN group was significantly higher (1.1 ± 0.3 mg/kg) than that in the IM group (0.7 ± 0.2 mg/kg; p < 0.05). The duration of general anesthesia was comparable between the groups.

Conclusion:

IN dexmedetomidine produces moderate sedation and cats may have side effects, including vomiting and higher body temperature. Higher sparing effects of propofol were identified in the IM group compared with the IN group. Nonetheless, IN administration of dexmedetomidine provides a noninvasive alternative to the IM route.

Effects of pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation on the work of breathing in cats using a cuffed endotracheal tube

Background and Aim:

Mechanical ventilation is essential for supporting patients’ respiratory function when they are under general anesthesia. For cats with limited lung capacity, the different effects of volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on respiratory function remain elusive. The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of VCV and PCV in cats under general anesthesia using a cuffed endotracheal tube (ETT).

Materials and Methods:

Twelve healthy cats were randomly allocated to either a VCV or PCV group. Five tidal volumes (6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mL/kg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of VCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Peak inspiratory pressures (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 mmHg) were randomly applied to assess the efficacy of PCV, and respiratory rates were adjusted to achieve a minute ventilation of 100 mL/kg/min. Blood pressure, gas leakages, and end-tidal CO₂ were recorded from 60 trials for airway control during the use of VCV or PCV. Data were compared using Fisher’s exact test with a significance level of p<0.05.

Results:

Leakages did not differ between VCV (1/60 events) and PCV (0/60 events; p=0.500). Hypercapnia was identified when using VCV (6/60 events) less frequently than when using PCV (7/60 events; p=0.762), but did not reach statistical significance. Hypotension (mean arterial blood pressure <60 mmHg) occurred less frequently with VCV (0/60 events) than with PCV (9/60 events; p=0.003). Moreover, VCV provided a significantly lower work of breathing (151.10±65.40 cmH₂O mL) compared with PCV (187.84±89.72 cmH₂O mL; p<0.05).

Conclusion:

VCV in cats using a cuffed ETT causes less hypotension than PCV. It should be noted that VCV provides a more stable tidal volume compared with PCV, resulting in a more stable minute volume. Nonetheless, VCV should not be used in patients with an airway obstruction because higher peak airway pressure may occur and lead to lung injury.