Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Neuromuscular blockers and survival in ventilated dogs study
By Ngo, Lena et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2025·Department of Critical Care, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: The association between non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade agents and survival to discharge in dogs undergoing mechanical ventilation: a multi-center retrospective study of 227 dogs (2010-2020).
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 227 dogs that needed help breathing were treated with mechanical ventilation, and some received a medication called a neuromuscular blocker (NMBA) to assist with their care. The study found that 28.6% of the dogs that received NMBAs survived to go home, compared to 32.3% of those that did not receive this medication. Although the survival rates were similar, the dogs that received NMBAs had more severe breathing issues before treatment. This suggests that while NMBAs might not have a clear impact on survival, they could still be beneficial for dogs with serious respiratory problems needing mechanical support.
People also search for: dog breathing problems mechanical ventilation · neuromuscular blocker use in dogs · dog survival rates after ventilation
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between neuromuscular blockade agent (NMBA) use and outcome in dogs undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV), including survival to discharge, and complications. METHODS: The medical records for 227 mechanically ventilated dogs were reviewed for NMBA use, parameters of respiratory status (PaO, PCO, PF ratio, SpO), MV settings, MV complications, and survival outcome. RESULTS: The NMBA and non-NMBA groups included 28 and 199 dogs, respectively. The median partial pressures of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO) in the NMBA and non-NMBA groups were 63 and 57 mmHg, respectively (= 0.24). The median partial pressures of blood carbon dioxide levels were 58 and 51 mmHg, respectively (= 0.07). The pulse oximetry percentage (SpO) prior to initiation of MV were 88 and 94%, respectively (= 0.02). The median PF ratios prior to MV were 90 and 215, respectively (= 0.02). The median durations of MV were 18 and 24 h, respectively (= 0.32). Eight (28.6%) dogs that received NMBAs survived to discharge, while 51 dogs (32.3%) that did not receive NMBAs survived to discharge (= 0.87). Both PF ratio and SpOvalues were significantly lower in dogs that received NMBAs compared to dogs that did not (= 0.02 and= 0.02, respectively). There was no significant difference in tidal volume or peak inspiratory pressure at the time of MV initiation (= 0.17 and= 0.09, respectively). There was no significant difference between the incidence of complications in dogs that received NMBAs and those that did not (= 0.08). CONCLUSION: This study revealed no statistical significance between NMBA use and survival or complications. However, dogs in the NMBA group likely had more severe hypoxemia than the non-NMBA group, as indicated by their lower PF ratios and SPOvalues prior to initiation of mechanical ventilation. The similarities in survival rate between the NMBA and non-NMBA patient populations, despite higher severity of respiratory pathology in the NMBA group, may suggest a potential therapeutic benefit to NMBA use for MV patients. Further investigation into the use of NMBAs in patients undergoing MV are warranted.
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/40110427/