Monitoring arterial blood pressure (BP), represents a more accurate evaluation of hemodynamics than heart rate alone and is essential for preventing and treating intra- and post-operative complications in wildlife chemical immobilization.
The objectives of the study were to test the correlation between standard oscillometry and Korotkoff's technique in anesthetized free-ranging brown bears in Croatia and Scandinavia and to assess the blood pressure in both locations.
Five bears were snared and darted with xylazine and ketamine in Croatia, and 20 bears were darted from a helicopter with medetomidine and tiletamine-zolazepam in Scandinavia. Blood pressure was simultaneously measured with both techniques every 5 minutes. Correlation between techniques, trends of BP variation, and the factors of the capture which likely influenced BP were assessed.
Successful measurements of BP were achieved in 93% of all attempts with the Korotkoff's technique but in only 29% of all attempts with oscillometry. The latter method mostly provided lower values of BP compared to Korotkoff's technique in yearlings. Most bears showed a decreasing trend in systolic and mean BP over time, consistent between the two techniques. All bears were hypertensive: the auscultatory technique detected moderate to severe systolic hypertension in 25% and 84% of bears in Croatia and in Scandinavia, respectively, with significantly higher BP in subadults and adults compared to yearlings. Only Korotkoff's method resulted in a reliable and effective tool for BP assessment in brown bears. The anesthetic protocols used in the present study in association with the capture methods produced hypertension in all animals.
Three medetomidine-based drug protocols were compared by evaluating time courses, reliability and physiological effects in wild boars. A total of 21 cage-trapped wild boars (Sus scrofa) were immobilized using one of the following drug combinations; MTZ: medetomidine (0.2 mg/kg) + tiletamine-zolazepam (2.0 mg/kg), MK: medetomidine (0.15 mg/kg) + ketamine (5 mg/kg), and MKB: medetomidine (0.1 mg/kg) + ketamine (5.0 mg/kg) + butorphanol (0.2 mg/kg). Induction time, recovery time, and physiological variables were recorded and arterial blood gas analysis measured twice, before and after 15 min of oxygen supplementation (0.5–1.0 L/min). For reversal, 4 mg of atipamezole per mg of medetomidine was administered intramuscularly. The boars recovered in the cage and were released once ataxia resolved. The MK group had significantly longer recovery times (mean 164 min ± 79 SD) compared to the other groups. MKB elicited longer and incomplete induction compared to the other groups (mean induction time 20 min ± 10 SD), decreasing the efficiency of the capture and increasing the risk of hyperthermia. Both ketamine-based protocols required additional ketamine intramuscularly to prolong the anesthesia after 20–40 min from induction. Agreement between the pulse oximeter and the blood gas analyzer was low, with the pulse oximeter underestimating the real values of arterial oxyhemoglobin saturation, particularly at higher readings. Mild acute respiratory acidosis (PaCO2 45–60 mmHg) and mild to moderate hypoxemia (PaO2 69–80 mmHg) occurred in most boars, regardless of the treatment group but especially in the MKB group. The acid-base status improved and hypoxemia resolved in all boars during oxygen supplementation, with the PaO2 rising above the physiological reference range (81.6–107.7 mmHg) in many individuals. MK and MKB induced safe and reliable immobilization of wild boars for at least 20 min. Supplemental oxygen delivery is recommended in order to prevent hypoxemia in wild boars immobilized with the protocols used in the present study. Long and ataxic recoveries occurred in most animals, regardless of the protocol, but especially in the MKB group.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.