ArticleJournal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)
Intravenous Bolus Fluid Therapy Versus No Fluid Therapy Prior to Pericardiocentesis in Dogs: A Randomized Controlled Trial in 30 Dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the cardiovascular and respiratory effects of bolus IV isotonic crystalloid fluid therapy before pericardiocentesis in dogs with pericardial effusion.
designProspective, randomized, nonblinded clinical trial (January 2021 to November 2022).
settingUniversity teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Thirty dogs diagnosed with pericardial effusion.
interventionsDogs were randomized to receive a 10-mL/kg IV bolus of compound sodium lactate (IV fluid bolus [IVFB] group) or no fluid bolus (no-IVFB group) over 10 min before pericardiocentesis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsCardiovascular parameters, respiratory rate, peripheral blood lactate concentration, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) findings were assessed. Shock index (SI) was calculated as heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure. Measurements were recorded at four time points (T): baseline (T0), 15 min later (T1, after fluid bolus for the IVFB group), immediately after pericardiocentesis (T2), and 4 h after pericardiocentesis (T3). Significant decreases in SI were observed in the no-IVFB group between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3, and in the IVFB group between T1 and T3 (p = 0.034, p = 0.003, and p = 0.027, respectively). No differences in SI were found between the groups when compared at the same time point. Administration of an IVFB did not result in adverse respiratory effects, as no dogs required supplemental oxygen by T3, and there were no differences in respiratory rate. The no-IVFB group had a higher incidence of new B-lines compared with the IVFB group (60% vs. 20%), but the median B-line score was ≤1 at all POCUS sites at T0 and T3. Twenty-four dogs survived to hospital discharge with no difference in survival between groups.
conclusionsAdministering an IVFB of 10 mL/kg isotonic crystalloid before pericardiocentesis in dogs with pericardial effusion did not alter SI. This dose appears to be safe, with no adverse respiratory effects seen. However, the current study was underpowered to detect a significant difference, and further studies are needed.
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.