An update to the 2007 American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) consensus statement on the identification, evaluation, and management of systemic hypertension in dogs and cats was presented at the 2017 ACVIM Forum in National Harbor, MD. The updated consensus statement is presented here. The consensus statement aims to provide guidance on appropriate diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in dogs and cats.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jvim.15331

ACVIM consensus statement: Guidelines for the identification, evaluation, and management of systemic hypertension in dogs and cats

Safe and effective anesthesia of dogs and cats rely on preanesthetic patient assessment and preparation. Patients should be premedicated with drugs that provide sedation and analgesia prior to anesthetic induction with drugs that allow endotracheal intubation. Maintenance is typically with a volatile anesthetic such as isoflurane or sevoflurane delivered via an endotracheal tube. In addition, local anesthetic nerve blocks; epidural administration of opioids; and constant rate infusions of lidocaine, ketamine, and opioids are useful to enhance analgesia. Cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous system functions are continuously monitored so that anesthetic depth can be modified as needed. Emergency drugs and equipment, as well as an action plan for their use, should be available throughout the perianesthetic period. Additionally, intravenous access and crystalloid or colloids are administered to maintain circulating blood volume. Someone trained in the detection of recovery abnormalities should monitor patients throughout recovery. Postoperatively attention is given to body temperature, level of sedation, and appropriate analgesia.

https://www.vasinc.net/Anesthesia_Guidelines_for_Dogs_and_Cats.pdf

AAHA anesthesia guidelines for dogs and cats.

Monitoring Anesthetized Patients

/pdf/acvim-consensus-statement-guidelines-for-the-identification-47bzejeknq.pdf

Comparison of high definition oscillometric and Doppler ultrasound devices with invasive blood pressure in anaesthetized dogs

Objective – To compare blood pressure measurements obtained via ultrasonic Doppler flow monitor (DOP) and 2 oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure monitors (CAR and PAS) to invasive blood pressure (IBP) in hospitalized, conscious dogs with a range of blood pressures.

Design – Prospective clinical study.

Setting – University teaching hospital.

Animals – Eleven client-owned dogs aged between 4 months and 11.5 years (median 6 y), and weighing between 5.8 and 37.5 kg (median 30.2 kg).

Interventions – Blood pressure measurement.

Measurements and Main Results – Three consecutive measurements of systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded for each of the 3 indirect devices (only systolic for DOP), along with concurrent IBP measurements. The data were categorized into 3 groups: hypotensive (direct MAP 100 mm Hg). Each indirect method was compared with the corresponding direct arterial pressure using the Bland-Altman method. Within the hypotensive group, each indirect method overestimated the corresponding IBP. Within the normotensive group all indirect systolic measurements and the PAS diastolic measurements underestimated the corresponding IBP. The remaining indirect measurements overestimated the corresponding IBP. Within the hypertensive group, DOP and CAR systolic measurements underestimated the corresponding IBP, and the remaining indirect measurements overestimated the corresponding IBP. In hypertensive dogs oscillometric systolic measurements were more accurate than MAP. In hypotensive dogs MAP measurements were more accurate than systolic measurements. All indirect measurements were most accurate in hypertensive dogs.

Conclusions – The noninvasive blood pressure monitors in our study did not meet the validation standards set in human medicine. However, CAR diastolic and MAP measurements within the normotensive group, CAR MAP measurements within the hypertensive group, and PAS diastolic measurements in all groups were close to these standards. All indirect measurements showed greater bias during hypotension. Precision was poorer for all indirect systolic measurements than for MAP.

Ann P. Bosiack

Papers

Comparison of ultrasonic Doppler flow monitor, oscillometric, and direct arterial blood pressure measurements in ill dogs