PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Sedation effects on allergy skin tests in dogs with atopic dermatitis

By Milosevic, Milivoj A et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2013·Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Effects of butorphanol versus dexmedetomidine sedation on intradermal allergen and histamine responses in dogs with atopic dermatitis.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of ten dogs with atopic dermatitis (a skin allergy) underwent allergy testing while sedated with either butorphanol or dexmedetomidine. The results showed that butorphanol led to smaller skin reactions compared to dexmedetomidine, but both sedatives provided similar subjective results regarding the allergy test outcomes. This means that while butorphanol may cause less swelling at the injection site, it didn't change how the test results were interpreted overall. Both sedatives were effective for the allergy testing process, allowing veterinarians to assess the dogs' allergies without significant issues.

People also search for: dog skin allergy testing sedation · butorphanol vs dexmedetomidine for dogs · atopic dermatitis treatment in dogs

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sedation is commonly used during intradermal testing (IDT). Morphine and its derivatives have long been avoided because of their histamine-releasing effects. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: Butorphanol, an opioid agonist/antagonist, will not adversely affect IDT in dogs. ANIMALS: Ten client-owned dogs diagnosed with atopic dermatitis. METHODS: Dogs were randomized to be sedated with butorphanol (0.4 mg/kg) or dexmedetomidine (5 μg/kg). Routine IDT along with intradermal injections of various dilutions of histamine were performed on the lateral thorax, followed 7 days later by the alternative sedative and IDT on the opposite side. The injection sites were subjectively scored and objectively measured by one investigator, blinded to the sedatives, and compared between groups. RESULTS: When the mean wheal diameters from the objective measurements of all antigens, including saline and histamine dilutions, were compared, butorphanol was associated with significantly smaller reactions than dexmedetomidine (P = 0.0001). There was a high level of agreement between sedatives when positive reactions subjectively scored as ≥3+ were compared (κ = 0.91). When mean wheal diameters of histamine at concentrations of 1:100,000, 1:400,000, 1:1,600,000 and 1:6,400,000 were compared, there were no significant differences between sedative types. Moreover, the percentage agreement when comparing subjective interpretation of all histamine dilutions between sedations was high (κ = 0.90). However, there was only 69% agreement beyond chance when objective and subjective interpretations of all antigens were compared between sedative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although butorphanol resulted in significantly smaller wheal size in comparison to dexmedetomidine, it did not affect the overall subjective interpretation of the results of IDT.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24128194/