Analgesic effects of gabapentin and buprenorphine in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy using two pain-scoring systems: a randomized clinical trial

Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery - Tập 20 Số 8 - Trang 741-748 - 2018
Paulo V. Steagall1,2, Javier Benito2, Beatriz P. Monteiro1,3, Graeme M. Doodnaught1,2, Guy Beauchamp4, Marina C. Evangelista1,2
1Animal Pharmacology Research Group of Québec, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada
2Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada
3Department of Veterinary Biomedicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada
4Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Canada

Tóm tắt

Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of gabapentin–buprenorphine in comparison with meloxicam–buprenorphine or buprenorphine alone, and the correlation between two pain-scoring systems in cats. Methods Fifty-two adult cats were included in a randomized, controlled, blinded study. Anesthetic protocol included acepromazine–buprenorphine–propofol–isoflurane. The gabapentin–buprenorphine group (GBG, n = 19) received gabapentin capsules (50 mg PO) and buprenorphine (0.02 mg/kg IM). The meloxicam–buprenorphine group (MBG, n = 15) received meloxicam (0.2 mg/kg SC), buprenorphine and placebo capsules (PO). The buprenorphine group (BG, n = 18) received buprenorphine and placebo capsules (PO). Gabapentin (GBG) and placebo (MBG and BG) capsules were administered 12 h and 1 h before surgery. Postoperative pain was evaluated up to 8 h after ovariohysterectomy using a multidimensional composite pain scale (MCPS) and the Glasgow pain scale (rCMPS-F). A dynamic interactive visual analog scale (DIVAS) was used to evaluate sedation. Rescue analgesia included buprenorphine and/or meloxicam if the MCPS ⩾6. A repeated measures linear model was used for statistical analysis ( P <0.05). Spearman’s rank correlation between the MCPS and rCMPS-F was evaluated. Results The prevalence of rescue analgesia with a MCPS was not different ( P = 0.08; GBG, n = 5 [26%]; MBG, n = 2 [13%]; BG, n = 9 [50%]), but it would have been significantly higher in the BG (n = 14 [78%]) than GBG ( P = 0.003; n = 5 [26%]) and MBG ( P = 0.005; n = 4 [27%]) if intervention was based on the rCMPS-F. DIVAS and MCPS/rCMPS-F scores were not different among treatments. A strong correlation was observed between scoring systems ( P <0.0001). Conclusions and relevance Analgesia was not significantly different among treatments using an MCPS. Despite a strong correlation between scoring systems, GBG/MBG would have been superior to the BG with the rCMPS-F demonstrating a potential type II error with an MCPS due to small sample size.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Baillie JK, 2006, Curr Opin Investig Drugs, 7, 33

10.1007/s12272-013-0057-y

10.1186/s13018-016-0412-z

10.2147/JPR.S112626

10.1213/ANE.0b013e318249d36e

10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a69b90

10.1097/AOG.0000000000000289

10.1111/j.1467-2995.2011.00638.x

10.1177/1098612X13476033

10.1177/1098612X12470828

10.2460/ajvr.71.7.817

10.2460/ajvr.71.9.1027

10.1111/jsap.12280

Steagall PV, 2017, Can Vet J, 58, 56

10.1186/1746-6148-9-143

10.1177/1098612X15610162

10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01079.x

10.1136/vr.164.12.359

10.1097/MD.0000000000006463

10.1177/1098612X15578725

10.1136/vr.104208

10.2460/javma.251.5.544

10.1016/j.cvsm.2013.04.007

10.1111/jsap.12200

10.1111/aas.12766

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery

Tập 20 Số 8

741-748

Thông tin tác giả