Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparing ropinirole eye drops and apomorphine for making dogs vomit
By Reeves, Ryan R et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2025·Arizona Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Center, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Evaluation of Ropinirole versus Apomorphine for Emesis Induction in Dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 132 dogs that may have eaten something harmful were treated with either ropinirole eye drops or apomorphine injections to make them vomit. The apomorphine was much more effective, with nearly all dogs vomiting within a few minutes, while the ropinirole had a lower success rate and took longer to work. Dogs given ropinirole also needed additional medication to help them vomit more often than those treated with apomorphine. Overall, apomorphine proved to be the better choice for quickly getting rid of harmful substances in emergency situations.
People also search for: dog vomiting treatment · how to make my dog vomit · ropinirole vs apomorphine for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of ropinirole (ROP) eye drops and IV apomorphine (APO) for inducing emesis in dogs in an emergency setting and to compare the adverse effects of these two drugs. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, clinical trial between October 2021 and March 2023. SETTING: Two private specialty referral centers. ANIMALS: One hundred thirty-two client-owned dogs with known or suspected foreign material ingestion. INTERVENTIONS: Dogs were randomly assigned to receive ROP (n = 63) or APO (n = 69) to induce emesis. If emesis did not occur within 20 min, subjects were re-dosed with the same medication and dosage. The reason for emesis, success, time to first emesis, number of emetic events, and need for rescue antiemetic were evaluated. Heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature were tracked at time 0 and at 20 and 40 min. Adverse events were categorized into major events (e.g., tachycardia, hyperthermia, tachypnea), minor events (e.g., sedation, ocular irritation), and protracted vomiting (vomiting past 30 min). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ROP's first-dose success was 81% (51/63) compared with APO's 99% success (68/69) (p < 0.001). The median time to the first emetic event was 8.6 min in the ROP group and 1.6 min in the APO group (P < 0.001). Antiemetic rescue was required in 37% (23/63) of dogs receiving ROP and 0% (0/69) of dogs receiving APO (P < 0.001). The major adverse event frequency between groups was not different (P = 0.604); however, the minor adverse event frequency was statistically significant (P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: ROP had a lower first-dose emetic success rate, a longer median time to the first emetic event, an increased occurrence of minor adverse events, and a higher frequency of protracted vomiting necessitating rescue therapy. These findings suggest APO is a clinically superior emetic agent for dogs presenting to the emergency department requiring rapid decontamination.
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/40254926/