“
“Objective-To characterize the effects of propofol administered at AZD1152-HQPA 10 and 20 mg/kg (4.5 and 9 mg/lb) via the supravertebral venous sinus in red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta).
Design-Prospective, masked randomized crossover study.
Animals-10 adult female red-eared sliders.
Procedures-Propofol was
administered via the supravertebral sinus. Skeletal muscle tone of neck, forelimbs, hind limbs, and tail; heart rate; palpebral, corneal, and tap reflexes; response to deep pain; and spontaneous movement were recorded.
Results-Mean induction times were 1.7 +/- 2.4 minutes and 0.9 +/- 1.4 minutes at propofol doses of 10 and 20 mg/kg, respectively. Significant differences between the 2 doses were found in anesthetic duration, duration of the plateau phase, and time to recovery of skeletal muscle tone. A greater proportion DZNeP price of turtles in 20 mg/kg trials had loss of palpebral reflexes and sensation of deep pain, whereas corneal and spinal reflexes remained highly conserved at both doses. No significant differences were detected in time to maximal loss of skeletal muscle tone or in time to loss or recovery of reflexes. Total anesthetic times were 63.2 +/- 23.8 minutes and 90.5 +/- 32.3 minutes for 10 and 20 mg/kg
trials, respectively, Heart rates remained constant between 30 and 40 beats/min with both doses.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Propofol administration via the supravertebral sinus was a rapid and reliable means of achieving anesthesia in healthy red-eared sliders. CT99021 supplier Doses of 10 to 20 mg/kg should be adequate for short procedures or for induction prior to inhalation anesthesia. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009;234:390-393)”
“Objectives:
To estimate accuracy and reliability of pharmacy-based fixed-location automated blood pressure devices (ABPDs) and to test the hypothesis that an ABPD is less accurate with more variable results than a home blood pressure device (HBPD).
Methods: Randomized study comparing 99 ABPDs with an Omron Digital HBPD in Indiana pharmacies. Each site was visited by one of five study investigators. A questionnaire was used to collect information about ABPDs. To test the ABPD against the HBPD, investigators measured their own blood pressure with each device three times in random order.
Results: No significant differences were observed between HBPD and ABPD diastolic readings, whereas a statistically significant difference between HBPD and ABPD systolic readings was found. ABPD measurements are as reliable as HBPD measurements when comparing single measurements from each, but reliability differs with more than one reading.
Conclusion: Compared with a valid HBPD, the ABPD produces inaccurate systolic blood pressure values but similar reliability. Regular blood pressure measurement by health professionals remains optimal for managing hypertensive individuals.