A Khan1, G D Hallowell2, C Underwood1, A W van Eps1. 1. School of Veterinary Science, the University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia. 2. School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, the University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rectal fluid administration may offer a simple, safe and inexpensive alternative to intravenous or nasogastric fluid therapy in equine clinical cases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the tolerance and effects of rectally administered fluid and compare the measurements of haemodilution and intravascular volume with those during nasogastric and intravenous fluid administration. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled experimental trial. METHODS: Six clinically normal Standardbred geldings were used in a 4-way crossover study: each received three different fluid treatments (intravenous, nasogastric and rectal) at 5 mL/kg/h for 6 h and underwent a control (no treatment) with water and feed withheld. Bodyweight was measured at baseline and 6 h. Packed cell volume (PCV), total solids (TS), albumin, electrolytes, lactate, urine specific gravity, vital parameters, gastrointestinal borborygmi and central venous pressure were measured every 2 h. RESULTS: Rectal fluid administration with plain water was well tolerated and caused clinical chemistry changes consistent with haemodilution, indicating absorption. Mean (95% confidence interval) PCV decreased from 40% [40-42] at 0 h to 35% [34-36] at 6 h during rectal fluid treatment (P<0.001), similar to decreases in PCV occurring also with i.v. and nasogastric (NGT) treatment (P<0.001). The TS also decreased with i.v. and rectal fluid (P<0.001). There was a decrease in bodyweight in the control (P<0.001) but not with any of the fluid treatments. MAIN LIMITATIONS: A small sample size of healthy, euhydrated horses and a relatively short duration of fluid administration was used. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal fluid administration requires clinical evaluation, but may offer an inexpensive, safe alternative or adjunct to i.v. fluid administration, particularly when administration via NGT is not possible or contraindicated. The Summary is available in Portuguese - see Supporting Information.
BACKGROUND: Rectal fluid administration may offer a simple, safe and inexpensive alternative to intravenous or nasogastric fluid therapy in equine clinical cases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the tolerance and effects of rectally administered fluid and compare the measurements of haemodilution and intravascular volume with those during nasogastric and intravenous fluid administration. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled experimental trial. METHODS: Six clinically normal Standardbred geldings were used in a 4-way crossover study: each received three different fluid treatments (intravenous, nasogastric and rectal) at 5 mL/kg/h for 6 h and underwent a control (no treatment) with water and feed withheld. Bodyweight was measured at baseline and 6 h. Packed cell volume (PCV), total solids (TS), albumin, electrolytes, lactate, urine specific gravity, vital parameters, gastrointestinal borborygmi and central venous pressure were measured every 2 h. RESULTS: Rectal fluid administration with plain water was well tolerated and caused clinical chemistry changes consistent with haemodilution, indicating absorption. Mean (95% confidence interval) PCV decreased from 40% [40-42] at 0 h to 35% [34-36] at 6 h during rectal fluid treatment (P<0.001), similar to decreases in PCV occurring also with i.v. and nasogastric (NGT) treatment (P<0.001). The TS also decreased with i.v. and rectal fluid (P<0.001). There was a decrease in bodyweight in the control (P<0.001) but not with any of the fluid treatments. MAIN LIMITATIONS: A small sample size of healthy, euhydrated horses and a relatively short duration of fluid administration was used. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal fluid administration requires clinical evaluation, but may offer an inexpensive, safe alternative or adjunct to i.v. fluid administration, particularly when administration via NGT is not possible or contraindicated. The Summary is available in Portuguese - see Supporting Information.
Authors: Kallie J Hobbs; SallyAnne L DeNotta; Aitor Gallastegui; George L Elane; Luis A Rivero; Pamela Adkins; Diego E Gomez Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 1.008