Valentim A M, Guedes S R, Pereira A M, Antunes L M
Laboratory Animal Science, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IBMC), University of Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre, Porto, Portugal Institute for Research and Innovation in Health (i3S), University of Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, Porto, Portugal.
Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB) and Veterinary Sciences Department, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados, Vila Real, Portugal.
Lab Anim. 2016 Aug;50(4):241-53. doi: 10.1177/0023677215618618. Epub 2015 Nov 24.
Several questions have been raised in recent years about the euthanasia of laboratory rodents. Euthanasia using inhaled agents is considered to be a suitable aesthetic method for use with a large number of animals simultaneously. Nevertheless, its aversive potential has been criticized in terms of animal welfare. The data available regarding the use of carbon dioxide (CO2), inhaled anaesthetics (such as isoflurane, sevoflurane, halothane and enflurane), as well as carbon monoxide and inert gases are discussed throughout this review. Euthanasia of fetuses and neonates is also addressed. A table listing currently available information to ease access to data regarding euthanasia techniques using gaseous agents in laboratory rodents was compiled. Regarding better animal welfare, there is currently insufficient evidence to advocate banning or replacing CO2 in the euthanasia of rodents; however, there are hints that alternative gases are more humane. The exposure to a volatile anaesthetic gas before loss of consciousness has been proposed by some scientific studies to minimize distress; however, the impact of such a measure is not clear. Areas of inconsistency within the euthanasia literature have been highlighted recently and stem from insufficient knowledge, especially regarding the advantages of the administration of isoflurane or sevoflurane over CO2, or other methods, before loss of consciousness. Alternative methods to minimize distress may include the development of techniques aimed at inducing death in the home cage of animals. Scientific outcomes have to be considered before choosing the most suitable euthanasia method to obtain the best results and accomplish the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement).
近年来，关于实验用啮齿动物的安乐死提出了几个问题。使用吸入剂进行安乐死被认为是一种适用于同时对大量动物实施的人道方法。然而，就动物福利而言，其潜在的不良影响受到了批评。本综述讨论了有关使用二氧化碳（CO₂）、吸入麻醉剂（如异氟烷、七氟烷、氟烷和恩氟烷）以及一氧化碳和惰性气体的现有数据。还讨论了胎儿和新生儿的安乐死问题。编制了一个表格，列出目前可用的信息，以便于获取有关在实验用啮齿动物中使用气态剂进行安乐死技术的数据。关于更好的动物福利，目前没有足够的证据主张在啮齿动物安乐死中禁止或替代二氧化碳；然而，有迹象表明替代气体更人道。一些科学研究提出在意识丧失前接触挥发性麻醉气体以尽量减少痛苦；然而，这种措施的影响尚不清楚。安乐死文献中不一致的领域最近受到了关注，其根源在于知识不足，特别是关于在意识丧失前使用异氟烷或七氟烷比使用二氧化碳或其他方法的优势方面。尽量减少痛苦的替代方法可能包括开发旨在在动物饲养笼中诱导死亡的技术。在选择最合适的安乐死方法以获得最佳结果并实现3R原则（替代、减少和优化）之前，必须考虑科学结果。
