Attitudes of Spanish-speaking veterinarians interested in anaesthesia towards use of total intravenous anaesthesia in dogs: a survey study. (May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bustamante, Rocío; Ortiz-Díez, Gustavo; Canfrán, Susana; Gómez de Segura, Ignacio A.; Aguado, Delia
• Is Part Of: Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia. Volume 48:Number 3(2021)
• Page Start: 422
• Page End: 431
• Publication Date: 2021-05
• Subjects: dog -- survey -- TIVA -- total intravenous anaesthesia; Veterinary anesthesia -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaa.2020.10.011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1467-2987

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To describe Spanish-speaking veterinary anaesthetists' attitudes towards use of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in dogs. Study design: Prospective online voluntary survey. Population: Data from 300 answered surveys. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent via e-mail to representatives of the four largest Spanish-speaking veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia associations. It was distributed through mailing lists (Spain, Argentina, Mexico) or social media (Spain, Chile) to gather information on the use, opinions and perceived advantages of TIVA, as well as on preferred alternatives to isoflurane for providing general anaesthesia. Logistic regression was used to test for response associations. Results: A total of 275 (92%) respondents had used TIVA (24% rarely, 36% sometimes, 40% very often or always). There was an association between a higher rate of TIVA usage and a low specialization level, less clinical experience and unavailability of anaesthetic gas scavenging systems. The main reasons for not using TIVA were lack of familiarity with the technique (92%), unavailability of infusion pumps (32%), established institutional anaesthetic protocol (32%), and technical difficulty (20%). Among frequent TIVA users, a higher proportion reported the greater ease of TIVA use (52%) compared to those that did not perceive such benefit (17%) [odds ratio (OR) = 5.2; 95% confidence interval (CI95), 1.7–16.6; p = 0.004). More respondents did not consider TIVA more expensive (60%) (OR = 2.1; CI95, 1.0–4.3; p = 0.034), more difficult to perform (59%) (OR = 2.5; CI95, 1.3–4.9; p = 0.006) or to manage the equipment (53%) (OR = 3.3; CI95, 1.4–7.8; p = 0.008), than inhalational anaesthetics. During isoflurane shortages, respondents reportedly preferred using an alternative inhalational agent (59%) rather than TIVA (47%). Conclusions and clinical relevance: TIVA use is widespread among veterinarians within the surveyed associations. Frequent TIVA users reported greater perceived advantages. In situations of isoflurane shortage, an alternative inhalational anaesthetic was preferred over TIVA.