4.2 Article

EFFECT OF SEDATION ON CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASONOGRAPHY OF THE SPLEEN IN HEALTHY DOGS

Journal

VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages 276-281

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/vru.12338

Keywords

contrast-enhanced ultrasound; dog; perfusion; sedation; spleen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the spleen enables the dynamic assessment of the perfusion of this organ, however, both subjective and quantitative evaluation can be strongly influenced by sedative agent administration. The purpose of this prospective, experimental study was to test effects of two sedative agents on splenic perfusion during contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the spleen in a sample of healthy dogs. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the spleen was repeated in six healthy Beagles following a cross-over study design comparing three protocols: awake, butorphanol 0.2 mg/Kg intramuscular (IM), and dexmedetomidine 500 mu g/m(2) IM. After intravenous injection of a phospholipid stabilized sulfur hexafluoride microbubble solution (SonoVue (R), Bracco Imaging, Milano, Italy), the enhancement intensity and perfusion pattern of the splenic parenchyma were assessed and perfusion parameters were calculated. Normal spleen was slightly heterogeneous in the early phase, but the parenchyma was homogeneous at a later phase. Sedation with butorphanol did not modify perfusion of the spleen. Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced splenic enhancement, providing diffuse parenchymal hypoechogenicity during the entire examination. Measured parameters were significantly modified, with increased arrival time (AT; (< 0.0001) and time to peak (TTP; P < 0.0001), and decreased peak intensity (PI; P = 0.0108), wash-in (P = 0.0014), and area under the curve (AUC; P = 0.0421). Findings supported the use of butorphanol and contraindicated the use of dexmedetomidine as sedatives for splenic contrast ultrasound procedures in dogs. Short-termand diffuse heterogeneity of the spleen in the early venous phase was determined to be a normal finding. (C) 2016 American College of Veterinary Radiology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available