Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Limited fluid resuscitation helps cats in severe shock after initial
By Giudice, Elisabetta et al.·Published in Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia·2018·Department of Chemical, Italy·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Limited fluid volume resuscitation (LFVR) in severe shock unresponsive to initial fluid challenge: A pilot study in 10 cats.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
Ten cats in severe shock that didn't respond to initial fluid treatment were given a new type of fluid therapy called limited fluid volume resuscitation (LFVR). They received either hypertonic saline alone or a combination of hypertonic saline and hydroxyethyl starch. In most cases, just one dose of hypertonic saline helped stabilize the cats within about 33 minutes. Out of the ten cats, six showed positive outcomes over the next 6 to 24 months, while the others unfortunately did not survive. This suggests that LFVR could be a helpful option for treating cats in shock who don't respond to standard treatments.
People also search for: cat shock treatment · hypertonic saline for cats · cat fluid therapy options
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of limited fluid volume resuscitation (LFVR) administration in cats with severe shock that was unresponsive to initial conventional resuscitation (CR) with isotonic crystalloids. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical pilot study. ANIMALS: Ten client-owned cats with non-cardiogenic shock, unresponsive to CR. METHODS: After an initial ineffective CR with isotonic crystalloids (15-20 mL kgin 15 minutes), LFVR was started. The animals were randomly assigned to one of two treatments: hypertonic saline alone (group HTS) or HTS and hydroxyethyl starch (HES) (group HTS/HES). A first bolus of HTS (2 mL kg) was administered to both groups, immediately followed by HES (2 mL kg) to group HTS/HES over 5-10 minutes and vital signs were re-evaluated. Additional boluses were administered, every 5-10 minutes, until stabilization (vital parameters, such as temperature, heart rate, respiratory frequency, quality of the pulse and sensorium within the physiological ranges). The time until stabilization (minutes), the volume of HTS and colloid administered and the effect of LFVR on vital parameters were determined. RESULTS: A mean ± standard deviation (range) volume of 3 ± 2 (2-6) mL kgof hypertonic saline in group HTS and 4 ± 2 (2-6) mL kgof both hypertonic and colloidal solutions in group HTS/HES was administered. In six cats (60%), a single bolus of HTS alone (group HTS; n = 3/4) or in combination with HES (group HTS/HES; n = 3/6) was sufficient for stabilization. In the remaining four cases (40%), a second bolus was required. Stabilization occurred in 33 ± 13 minutes (15-60 minutes). Of the 10 cats, six had a positive outcome (6-24 months follow-up) and the others died during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LFVR appears to be an efficacious treatment for feline shock and may be an alternative therapy for cats unresponsive to CR. Larger cross-sectional and prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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/30301662/