Trinder R, Park J, Humm K, Cole L
Department of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, UK.
Small Animal Teaching Hospital, Institute of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
J Small Anim Pract. 2025 Apr;66(4):236-242. doi: 10.1111/jsap.13825. Epub 2025 Jan 13.
To determine if tolerance of intravenous catheterisation differs following the application of vapocoolant spray compared to lidocaine/prilocaine cream in dogs and cats.
A randomised controlled trial of client-owned dogs and cats requiring intravenous catheterisation was performed. They were randomly allocated to either have lidocaine/prilocaine cream applied to their skin 1 hour prior to intravenous catheterisation or a swab saturated with vapocoolant spray applied immediately prior to intravenous catheterisation. The procedure was video-recorded and a single blinded observer reviewed the recordings and assigned reaction scores (0 to 3) at 4 time points (initial restraint, limb handling, swab application and skin puncture).
Between October 2020 and March 2022, a total of 101 animals (83 dogs and 18 cats) were enrolled, with 56 patients randomised to receive vapocoolant spray and 45 to receive lidocaine/prilocaine cream. There was no significant difference in the age, sex status, number of cross and pure breeds, and mentation detected between the groups. There was no significant difference in reaction scores between the treatments when comparing all patients at any time point except for a significantly increased swab application reaction score in patients receiving vapocoolant spray. Vapocoolant spray was significantly less effective in reducing adverse reaction to skin puncture than lidocaine/prilocaine cream in the small number of cats evaluated.
When considering all patients together, no single method of anaesthesia appeared superior for improving tolerance of intravenous catheter placement. However, vapocoolant spray may be less effective than lidocaine/prilocaine cream in reducing adverse response to skin puncture during catheterisation in cats.
确定与利多卡因/丙胺卡因乳膏相比，在犬猫中应用汽化冷却液喷雾后静脉置管的耐受性是否存在差异。
对需要进行静脉置管的客户拥有的犬猫进行了一项随机对照试验。它们被随机分配，要么在静脉置管前1小时将利多卡因/丙胺卡因乳膏涂抹于皮肤，要么在静脉置管前立即涂抹浸有汽化冷却液喷雾的拭子。该操作过程进行了视频记录，由一名单盲观察者查看记录，并在4个时间点（初始约束、肢体处理、拭子涂抹和皮肤穿刺）分配反应评分（0至3分）。
在2020年10月至2022年3月期间，共纳入101只动物（83只犬和18只猫），56例患者随机接受汽化冷却液喷雾，45例接受利多卡因/丙胺卡因乳膏。两组之间在年龄、性别状况、杂交和纯种数量以及精神状态方面没有显著差异。在任何时间点比较所有患者时，除了接受汽化冷却液喷雾的患者拭子涂抹反应评分显著增加外，各治疗组之间的反应评分没有显著差异。在少数评估的猫中，汽化冷却液喷雾在减少对皮肤穿刺的不良反应方面明显不如利多卡因/丙胺卡因乳膏有效。
综合考虑所有患者时，没有一种单一的麻醉方法在提高静脉置管耐受性方面表现出优越性。然而，在减少猫置管期间对皮肤穿刺的不良反应方面，汽化冷却液喷雾可能不如利多卡因/丙胺卡因乳膏有效。
