Rastas Jacob P, Zhao Qianqian, Johnson Rebecca A
Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 30;20(1):e0317997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317997. eCollection 2025.
Temperature regulation in dogs is significantly impaired during general anesthesia. Glabrous skin on paws may facilitate thermoregulation from this area and is a potential target for interventions attenuating hypothermia. This pilot study aimed to compare efficacy of an innovative warming device placed on the front paws (AVAcore; AVA), with no warming methods (NONE) and conventional truncal warming methods (CONV; circulating water blanket/forced air warmer) on rectal temperature and anesthetic recovery times. Dogs were premedicated with acepromazine (ACE) or dexmedetomidine (DEX), induced with intravenous propofol and maintained on isoflurane. The change in rectal temperature was statistically separated into three segments: 15 minutes following premedication, prior to induction (T0-T15), 15 minutes following anesthetic induction into isoflurane maintenance (T15-T30), and >30 minutes of isoflurane maintenance (>T30). Overall, when warming treatments and time points were combined, the decrease in rectal temperature from baseline was significantly greater with ACE than DEX (P < 0.05). When ACE and DEX were analyzed separately, changes in rectal temperatures did not differ between warming techniques at T0-T15 and T15-T30 (P > 0.05). However, at >T30 minutes, slopes of the temperature change differed between all three warming device groups, despite whether ACE or DEX was administered; temperature decreased least in CONV whereas the NONE had the largest decreases (P < 0.05). At >T30, when warming devices were considered separately, slopes of the temperature change in AVA and NONE did not differ between ACE and DEX (P > 0.050). However, in CONV, DEX had a significantly faster increase in slope than did ACE (P < 0.05). No differences in recovery times were observed between techniques or premedications (P > 0.05). Although CONV provided the most stable thermoregulation in anesthetized dogs, the AVAcore also moderated decreases in body temperature associated with general anesthesia despite premedication, providing an additional warming technique in dogs.
犬在全身麻醉期间体温调节功能会显著受损。爪部无毛皮肤可能有助于该区域的体温调节,是减轻体温过低干预措施的潜在靶点。这项初步研究旨在比较置于前爪的一种创新保暖装置(AVAcore;AVA)与无保暖措施(NONE)以及传统躯干部位保暖方法(CONV;循环水毯/强制空气加热器)对直肠温度和麻醉恢复时间的效果。犬用乙酰丙嗪(ACE)或右美托咪定(DEX)进行术前用药,静脉注射丙泊酚诱导麻醉,并维持异氟烷麻醉。直肠温度变化在统计学上分为三个阶段:术前用药后15分钟,诱导麻醉前(T0 - T15),麻醉诱导进入异氟烷维持阶段后15分钟(T15 - T30),以及异氟烷维持超过30分钟(>T30)。总体而言,当将保暖治疗和时间点结合起来分析时,与DEX相比,ACE组直肠温度从基线的下降幅度显著更大(P < 0.05)。当分别分析ACE和DEX时,在T0 - T15和T15 - T30阶段,不同保暖技术之间直肠温度变化无差异(P > 0.05)。然而,在>T30分钟时,尽管使用了ACE或DEX,所有三个保暖装置组的温度变化斜率均不同;CONV组温度下降最少,而NONE组下降幅度最大(P < 0.05)。在>T30时,当分别考虑保暖装置时,AVA和NONE组中,ACE和DEX之间的温度变化斜率无差异(P > 0.050)。然而,在CONV组中,DEX的斜率增加明显快于ACE(P < 0.05)。不同技术或术前用药之间的恢复时间无差异(P > 0.05)。尽管CONV在麻醉犬中提供了最稳定的体温调节,但AVAcore尽管进行了术前用药,也能减轻与全身麻醉相关的体温下降,为犬提供了一种额外的保暖技术。