Heart transplantation remains the preferred option for improving quality of life and survival for patients suffering from end-stage heart failure. Unfortunately, insufficient supply of cardiac grafts has become an obstacle. Increasing organ availability with donation after circulatory death (DCD) may be a promising option to overcome the organ shortage. Unlike conventional donation after brain death, DCD organs undergo a period of warm, global ischemia between circulatory arrest and graft procurement, which raises concerns for graft quality. Nonetheless, the potential of DCD heart transplantation is being reconsidered, after reports of more than 70 cases in Australia and the United Kingdom over the past 3 years. Ensuring optimal patient outcomes and generalized adoption of DCD in heart transplantation, however, requires further development of clinical protocols, which in turn require a better understanding of cardiac ischemia-reperfusion injury and the various possibilities to limit its adverse effects. Thus, we aim to provide an overview of the knowledge obtained with preclinical studies in animal models of DCD heart transplantation, to facilitate and promote the most effective and efficient advancement in preclinical research. A literature search of the PubMed database was performed to identify all relevant preclinical studies in DCD heart transplantation. Specific aspects relevant for DCD heart transplantation were analyzed, including animal models, graft procurement and storage conditions, cardioprotective approaches, and graft evaluation strategies. Several potential therapeutic strategies for optimizing graft quality are identified, and recommendations for further preclinical research are provided.

The objectives were: (1) to compare the antinociceptive activity of dexmedetomidine and medetomidine, and (2) to investigate its modulation by atipamezole. This prospective, randomized, blinded experimental trial was carried out on eight beagles. During the first session, dogs received either medetomidine (MED) (0.02 mg kg−1 intravenously (IV)] or dexmedetomidine (DEX) [0.01 mg kg−1 IV), followed by either atipamezole (ATI) (0.1 mg kg−1) or an equivalent volume of saline (SAL) administered intramuscularly 45 min later. The opposite treatments were administered in a second session 10–14 days later. The nociceptive withdrawal reflex (NWR) threshold was determined using a continuous tracking approach. Sedation was scored (0 to 21) every 10 min. Both drugs (MED and DEX) increased the NWR thresholds significantly up to 5.0 (3.7–5.9) and 4.4 (3.9–4.8) times the baseline (p = 0.547), at seven (3–11) and six (4–9) minutes (p = 0.938), respectively. Sedation scores were not different between MED and DEX during the first 45 min (15 (12–17), p = 0.67). Atipamezole antagonized sedation within 25 (15–25) minutes (p = 0.008) and antinociception within five (3–6) minutes (p = 0.008). Following atipamezole, additional analgesics may be needed to maintain pain relief.

CTS in the cat may be successfully treated by surgery facilitated by use of CPB leading to early and long-term substantial improvement in clinical status and cardiac function. CTS can safely be repaired under CPB in cats.

IntroductionThe use of a surgical safety checklist is recommended by the World Health Organization and is associated with advantages: improved communication and reduced complications and mortality. Adapting checklists to the environment in which they are used improves their efficiency, but their implementation can be challenging. The aim of this study was to develop and implement a perianesthetic safety checklist for a small animal hospital.Materials and methodsA panel of eight anesthesia diplomates and seven residents and doctoral students were gathered. The Delphi method was used to generate a checklist. The checklist was presented individually to each user by the primary investigator and introduced into the clinical routine over a 5-week period. An interdisciplinary meeting was then held, and the checklist was modified further. Six months after introduction, the use of the checklist was directly observed during 69 anesthetic cases and a survey was sent to the users. A second implementation was organized after formally presenting the checklist to the staff, designating the anesthesia clinical lead as the person responsible for printing and controlling use of the checklist. A second evaluation was performed 3 months later (64 anesthetic cases).ResultsUsing the Delphi process led to the creation of a checklist consisting of three parts: “sign in” (before induction of anesthesia), “time out” (before the beginning of the procedure), “sign out” (at the end of the procedure). At the first assessment, the checklist was printed and used in 32% of cases and not printed in 41% of cases. Response rate of the survey was fair (19/32 surveys): 14/19 users thought the checklist contributed to improving communication; 15/19 reported improved safety and better management of the animals; 9/19 users avoided mistakes (77% would have omitted the administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis); 10/19 thought it was time consuming. At the second assessment, the checklist was used in 45% of cases (printed but not used in 55%). The use of the sign-out section of the checklist was significantly improved.Conclusion and clinical relevanceThis study illustrates an innovative use of the Delphi method to create a safety checklist. Challenges associated with implementation are reported.