ArticleJournal of the South African Veterinary Association2020
Do potent immobilising-opioids induce different physiological effects in impala and blesbok?
Article in Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of two different etorphine doses combined with azaperone in blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi) immobilisation.Journal of the South African Veterinary Association · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Potent opioids are known to cause negative alterations to the physiology of immobilised antelope. How these effects differ between species has not been studied. This study aimed to compare time to recumbence and effects of opioid-based immobilisation on the physiology of impala (Aepyceros melampus) and blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi). Eight animals of each species were immobilised, with 0.09 mg/kg etorphine and 0.09 mg/kg thiafentanil respectively, in a randomised two-way cross-over study. Variables measured and analysed by means of a linear mixed model included time to recumbence, heart rate, respiratory rate, arterial blood pressure, blood gases, lactate and glucose. In blesbok, mean time to recumbence was not significantly different with either drug (2.5 minutes and 2.2 min, respectively), but in impala thiafentanil achieved a shorter time to recumbence (2.0 min) than etorphine (3.9 min). Mean heart rates of immobilised impala were within reported physiological limits, but lower in immobilised blesbok when both opioids were used (35 beats/min to 44 beats/min vs. 104 ± 1.4 beats/min resting heart rate). Impala developed severe respiratory compromise and hypoxaemia from both opioids (overall mean PaO2 values ranged from 38 mmHg to 59 mmHg over 30 min). In contrast, blesbok developed only moderate compromise. Therefore, significantly different species-specific physiological responses to potent opioid drugs exist in blesbok and impala. Given that these different responses are clinically relevant, extrapolation of immobilising drug effects from one species of African ungulate to another is not recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.