No abstract

Pulmonary thromboembolism is a potentially life threatening condition that is uncommonly recognized in cats. Thrombolytic agents have been described as a treatment for this condition in human and canine patients, particularly in cases where hemodynamic instability is persistent despite supportive care. This report describes the clinical course, echocardiographic diagnosis, and successful thrombolysis of a cat with pulmonary thromboembolism. Despite confirmed reperfusion, the cat succumbed to thromboembolic disease highlighting the dearth of knowledge about optimal treatment of this disease process in small animals, particularly in cats.

ObjectivesTo systematically review available evidence and establish guidelines related to the use of thrombolytics for the management of small animals with suspected or confirmed thrombosis.DesignPICO (Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome) questions were formulated, and worksheets completed as part of a standardized and systematic literature evaluation. The population of interest included dogs and cats (considered separately) and arterial and venous thrombosis. The interventions assessed were the use of thrombolytics, compared to no thrombolytics, with or without anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents. Specific protocols for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator were also evaluated. Outcomes assessed included efficacy and safety. Relevant articles were categorized according to level of evidence, quality, and as to whether they supported, were neutral to, or opposed the PICO questions. Conclusions from the PICO worksheets were used to draft guidelines, which were subsequently refined via Delphi surveys undertaken by the Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics and Thrombolytics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) working group.ResultsFourteen PICO questions were developed, generating 14 guidelines. The majority of the literature addressing the PICO questions in dogs is experimental studies (level of evidence 3), thus providing insufficient evidence to determine if thrombolysis improves patient‐centered outcomes. In cats, literature was more limited and often neutral to the PICO questions, precluding strong evidence‐based recommendations for thrombolytic use. Rather, for both species, suggestions are made regarding considerations for when thrombolytic drugs may be considered, the combination of thrombolytics with anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs, and the choice of thrombolytic agent.ConclusionsSubstantial additional research is needed to address the role of thrombolytics for the treatment of arterial and venous thrombosis in dogs and cats. Clinical trials with patient‐centered outcomes will be most valuable for addressing knowledge gaps in the field.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the utility, complications, and short-term outcomes of three dogs managed with percutaneous pigtail cystostomy catheters placed in the emergency room (ER).Case summaryThree dogs were presented separately to the ER for unalleviated mechanical urethral obstruction secondary to urolithiasis and urethral neoplasia. Retrograde urinary catheterization and urohydropulsion were not successful after multiple attempts. Percutaneous pigtail cystostomy catheters were placed under sedation to achieve temporary urinary diversion, and were successful in two of the three dogs. Complications encountered include mild abdominal effusion, unsuccessful placement resulting in hemorrhagic abdominal effusion, steatitis, abdominal pain, and kinking of the catheter. The two dogs diagnosed with urolithiasis were discharged from the hospital, and the dog diagnosed with urethral neoplasia was humanely euthanized due to poor prognosis.New or unique information providedWhen successful, the placement of pigtail cystostomy catheters allowed for temporary urinary diversion until definitive treatment could be performed and were well tolerated. Short-term outcomes were good. Complications arising from this procedure were common and increased morbidity. The risk of unsuccessful catheter placement may be increased when the procedure is performed in an over conditioned patient or by an inexperienced operator. Careful case selection and risk–benefit analysis should be considered before attempting this procedure. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the ideal technique, incidence of complications, and outcomes of this procedure.