4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluation of use of human albumin in critically ill dogs: 73 cases (2003-2006)

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.233.4.607

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives-To evaluate the use of human albumin in critically ill dogs. Design-Retrospective case series. Animals-73 client-owned hospitalized dogs. Procedures-Medical records of dogs that received human albumin were reviewed to assess effects of the use of human albumin on serum albumin concentration, colloid osmotic pressure, and total protein concentration; determine the relationships between these variables and outcome; and assess its safety. Data for signalment, diagnoses, physiologic variables, dosage, amount of crystalloid fluid administered prior to human albumin administration, complications, and outcome were reviewed. Additionally, pre- and postadministration values for serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure, and total protein were recorded. Results-Administration of human albumin resulted in significant changes in serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure, and total protein. The serum albumin, total protein, degree of improvement in serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure, and dosage of human albumin were significantly greater in survivors. Seventeen of 73 (23%) dogs had at least I complication that could be potentially associated with the administration of human albumin that occurred during or immediately following administration of human albumin. Three of 73 (4%) dogs had severe delayed complications. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Administration of human albumin significantly increased serum albumin, and total protein concentrations and colloid osmotic pressure, especially in survivors. Because of the high mortality rate of the study population and other confounding factors, it was uncertain whether complications were associated with the underlying disease or with human albumin administration. Acute and delayed complications may have been under-recognized.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据