No abstract

ABSTRACT. Comparison of the QT interval and corrected QT interval values that were calculated by the methods of Bazett (QTc1) and Fridericia (QTc2) were made between dogs with or without cardiac diseases to determine the influence of the QT interval on canine heart failure. Upon comparison of the measured values on ECG between the cardiac disease and non-cardiac disease groups, it was obse rved that the heart rate(HR) was significantly higher in the cardiac disease group than in the non-cardiac disease group, although th e QT interval was similar in the two groups. The QTc1 and QTc2 were significantly longer in the cardiac disease group than in the non-cardiac disease group. With the progression of the New York Heart Association Class, the HR tended to increase. The QTc1 and QTc2 beca me significantly prolonged with the progression of heart failure. Nevertheless, because Bazett's correction formula is known to overcorrect when the HR is high, it was considered that the QTc1 was actually overcorrected by high HR with the progression of heart failure . The QTc2, on the other hand, was only slightly influenced by HR, suggesting that the prolongation was due to the progression of heart failure. These results suggest that the prolongation of QTc2 in cardiac disease reflects the substantial prolongation of the QT interval without the influence of HR. It is suggested that the QTc2 could be a useful parameter for assessing the degree of heart failure in dogs with cardiac disease. KEY WORDS: canine electrocardiogram, heart failure, QT interval.

Objective To compare preparation time, ease of application, and elimination of skin contamination of 3 skin preparation methods for asepsis. Study design Experimental study. Animals Healthy dogs (n = 6) with no clinical signs of skin disease. Methods Three sites on each dog were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 preparation protocols for asepsis: (1) 5 scrubbings with chlorhexidine gluconate and rinsing (CHXG), (2) washing with mild soap prior to 3 rubbings with hydroalcoholic solution (soap‐HAR), or (3) 3 rubbings with hydroalcoholic solution (HAR). The duration of each method of skin preparation was recorded. A Count‐Tact agar plate was placed in the center of each site before, immediately after, 1 hour after, and 3 hours after antiseptic application. Plates were cultured, and colony forming units (CFU) were counted. Results Skin preparation lasted an average of 375 seconds for CHXG, 240 seconds for soap‐HAR, and 190 seconds for HAR (P = .00049). Nine CFU (median) were cultured from the skin prior to preparation, with no difference between sites on any animal or for any method. Colony forming units were not detected at any time on any site in any dog after antiseptic application. Conclusion Rubbing with hydroalcoholic (HA) solution was as effective as CHXG and prevented bacterial growth for at least 3 hours under these experimental conditions. Rubbing with hydroalcoholic solution was also faster and easier to perform. Clinical significance Because there is currently no known resistance to HA solution, preparation of the surgical site with HAR should be considered to prevent the emergence of bacterial resistance to chlorhexidine as well as potential cross‐resistances to antibiotics. Transfer to clinical animals requires additional investigation.

BackgroundHeart disease is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cats, but there is limited evidence of the benefit of any medication.HypothesisThe angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor benazepril would delay the time to treatment failure in cats with heart disease of various etiologies.AnimalsOne hundred fifty‐one client‐owned cats.MethodsCats with heart disease, confirmed by echocardiography, with or without clinical signs of congestive heart failure, were recruited between 2002 and 2005 and randomized to benazepril or placebo in a prospective, multicenter, parallel‐group, blinded clinical trial. Benazepril (0.5‐1.0 mg/kg) or placebo was administered PO once daily for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was treatment failure. Analyses were conducted separately for all‐cause treatment failure (main analysis) and heart disease‐related treatment failure (supportive analysis).ResultsNo benefit of benazepril versus placebo was detected for time to all‐cause treatment failure (P = .42) or time to treatment failure related to heart disease (P = .21). Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) from multivariate analysis for benazepril compared with placebo were 1.00 (0.57‐1.74) for all‐cause failure, and 0.99 (0.50‐1.94) for forward selection and 0.93 (0.48‐1.81) for bidirectional selection models for heart disease‐related failure. There were no significant differences between groups over time after administration of the test articles in left atrium diameter, left ventricle wall thickness, quality of life scores, adverse events, or plasma biochemistry or hematology variables.Conclusions and Clinical RelevanceBenazepril was tolerated well in cats with heart disease, but no evidence of benefit was detected.

BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in dogs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy in prolonging survival and safety of benazepril administration to dogs with CKD.AnimalsForty‐nine client‐owned dogs with CKD.MethodsDogs were randomized to benazepril (0.25 to <0.5 mg/kg) or placebo once daily for up to 2 years in a prospective, multicenter, blinded clinical trial. The primary endpoint variable was the renal survival time, defined as the time from inclusion in the study to the treatment failure endpoint of death or euthanasia or need for administration of parenteral fluids related to renal failure.ResultsNo benefit of benazepril versus placebo was detected for renal survival time in all dogs; median (95% confidence interval (CI)) survival times were 305 (53–575) days in the benazepril group and 287 (152‐not available) in the placebo group (P = .53). Renal survival times were not significantly longer with benazepril compared to placebo for subgroups: hazard ratios (95% CI) were 0.50 (0.21–1.22) with P = .12 for initial urine protein‐to‐creatinine ratio (UPC) >0.5, and 0.38 (0.12–1.19) with P = .080 for initial UPC >0.5 plus plasma creatinine ≤440 μmol/L. Proteinuria, assessed from the UPC, was significantly (P = .0032) lower after treatment with benazepril compared to placebo. There were no significant differences between groups for clinical signs or frequencies of adverse events.Conclusions and Clinical RelevanceBenazepril significantly reduced proteinuria in dogs with CKD. Insufficient numbers of dogs were recruited to allow conclusions on survival time.