Objective -To review the human and veterinary literature regarding gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility disorders in respect to pathogenesis, patient risk factors, and treatment options in critically ill dogs and cats. Etiology -GI dysmotility is a common sequela of critical illness in people and small animals. The most common GI motility disorders in critically ill people and small animals include esophageal dysmotility, delayed gastric emptying, functional intestinal obstruction (ie, ileus), and colonic motility abnormalities. Medical conditions associated with the highest risk of GI dysmotility include mechanical ventilation, sepsis, shock, trauma, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and multiple organ failure. The incidence and pathophysiology of GI dysmotility in critically ill small animals is incompletely understood. Diagnosis -A presumptive diagnosis of GI dysmotility is often made in high-risk patient populations following detection of persistent regurgitation, vomiting, lack of tolerance of enteral nutrition, abdominal pain, and constipation. Definitive diagnosis is established via radioscintigraphy; however, this diagnostic tool is not readily available and is difficult to perform on small animals. Other diagnostic modalities that have been evaluated include abdominal ultrasonography, radiographic contrast, and tracer studies. Therapy -Therapy is centered at optimizing GI perfusion, enhancement of GI motility, and early enteral nutrition. Pharmacological interventions are instituted to promote gastric emptying and effective intestinal motility and prevention of complications. Promotility agents, including ranitidine/nizatidine, metoclopramide, erythromycin, and cisapride are the mainstays of therapy in small animals. Prognosis -The development of complications related to GI dysmotility (eg, gastroesophageal reflux and aspiration) have been associated with increased mortality risk. Institution of prophylaxic therapy is recommended in high-risk patients, however, no consensus exists regarding optimal timing of initiating prophylaxic measures, preference of treatment, or duration of therapy. The prognosis for affected small animal patients remains unknown. (J Vet Emerg

No abstract

No abstract

A survey was designed and administered at eighteen agility competitions across the Northeast and Midwest USA in 2015 to obtain information regarding competition level, training, feeding practices, owner-reported weight, body condition score (BCS) and supplement use. Average energy intake per d from reported consumption was assessed for all dogs in ideal body condition based on manufacturers’ or US Department of Agriculture database information. To assess the respective parameters across competition levels (novice, open, master/elite), non-parametric or parametric ANOVA or χ2 was used to determine significance. There were 494 respondents with usable data. Results showed that approximately 99 % of respondents used treats and 62 % utilised supplements. Of the respondents, 61 % fed primarily commercial dry food. Approximately 25 % of owners fed foods other than commercial dry (i.e. raw/home-prepared or freeze-dried). This 25 % of non-traditional diets included: 11 % home-prepared raw/cooked diets, 11 % commercial raw/cooked diets, and the remaining 3 % were fed commercial freeze-dried raw products. The remaining 14 % fed a mix of commercial dry food and raw/home-cooked blend. Average BCS was 4·7 (sd 1·1). Mean energy consumption of 238 dogs (BCS 4–5/9) was 444 (sd 138) kJ/kg body weight0·75 per d (106 (sd 33) kcal/kg body weight0·75 per d), with no significant differences observed between dogs at different levels of competition. The mean percentage of energy from treats was 15·1 (sd 12·7) % of overall energy consumption.