Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Medetomidine given in nose or muscle sedates cats and may enlarge
By Kaya, Zehranur & Yanmaz, Latif Emrah·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2025·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Intranasal administration and intramuscular administration of medetomidine are effective for sedation and may increase cardiac size in cats.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A group of 14 male tabby cats, aged 1 to 3 years, were given a sedative called medetomidine either through their nose (intranasal) or by injection (intramuscular) to see which method worked better. The injection method made the cats sedated faster and they were able to lie down more quickly compared to the nasal method. Both methods were effective for sedation and generally safe, but the cats that received the injection had slightly lower oxygen levels. Overall, both ways of giving the sedative were well tolerated by the cats.
People also search for: cat sedation methods · medetomidine for cats · how to sedate a cat for vet visit
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of intranasal (IN) and IM administration of medetomidine on cardiac size and sedation variables in cats. METHODS: This study included 14 male tabby cats, aged 1 to 3 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists status of 1 to 2. The cats were randomly assigned to 2 groups (IN and IM; n = 7 cats/group) and received 0.08 mg/kg of medetomidine. Radiographic and anesthesia parameters were recorded at multiple time points. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of cardiac size, except for the ventrodorsal cardiothoracic ratio, which showed a significant increase from baseline at several time points. Heart rate, respiratory rate, rectal temperature, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure showed no significant intergroup differences. Peripheral arterial oxygen saturation was significantly lower in the IM group (90 [85 to 93]) compared to the IN group (95 [92 to 100). The onset of clinical sedation was significantly faster in the IM group (3.85 ± 1.21 minutes) than in the IN group (9.85 ± 4.98 minutes). Lateral recumbency was achieved significantly earlier in the IM group (7.28 ± 1.79 minutes) compared to the IN group (12.42 ± 4.79 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Both IN and IM administration of medetomidine in cats resulted in increased ventrodorsal cardiothoracic ratios compared to baseline, with no significant differences between groups for this parameter. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both IN and IM administration of medetomidine were well tolerated and effective for sedation in cats, with comparable safety profiles.
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/39879670/