You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Volume-dependent hemodynamic effects of blood collection in canine donors - evaluation of 13% and 15% of total blood volume depletion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0001-3765201520140210 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
RUI R.F. FERREIRA, RAFAEL R. GOPEGUI, AUGUSTO J.F. DE MATOS |
| Abstract |
Background: There is no consensus regarding the blood volume that could be safely donated by dogs, ranging from 11 to 25% of its total blood volume (TBV). No previous studies evaluated sedated donors. Aim: To evaluate the hemodynamic effects of blood collection from sedated and non-sedated dogs and to understand if such effects were volume-dependent. Materials and Methods: Fifty three donations of 13% of TBV and 20 donations of 15% TBV were performed in dogs sedated with diazepam and ketamine. Additionally, a total of 30 collections of 13% TBV and 20 collections of 15% TBV were performed in non-sedated dogs. Non-invasive arterial blood pressures and pulse rates were registered before and 15 min after donation. Results: Post-donation pulse rates increased significantly in both sedated groups, with higher differences in the 15% TBV collections. Systolic arterial pressures decreased significantly in these groups, while diastolic pressures increased significantly in 13% TBV donations. Non-sedated groups revealed a slight, but significant, SBP decrease. No clinical signs related to donations were registered. Conclusion: These results suggest that the collection of 15% TBV in sedated donors induces hemodynamic variations that may compromise the harmlessness of the procedure, while it seems to be a safe procedure in non-sedated dogs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |