Assessment of dexmedetomidine and other agents for emesis induction in cats: 43 cases (2009–2014)

Abstract

Objective—To compare the use of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride, xylazine hydrochloride, and hydrogen peroxide for emesis induction in cats. Design—Retrospective case series. Animals—43 client-owned cats for which emesis induction was attempted because of known or suspected toxicant ingestion or recent ingestion of a string foreign body. Procedures—Data collected from the cats’ medical records included type, dose, and route of administration of emetic agent; outcome of attempted emesis induction; time until emesis or postemesis administration of a reversal agent (to counter sedative effects of the emetic agent); and adverse events. Results—Emesis induction was attempted by oral administration of hydrogen peroxide (n = 3) or IM or IV administration of xylazine (25 [including 1 cat that had already received hydrogen peroxide]) or dexmedetomidine (16). No cat that received hydrogen peroxide vomited. Emesis was induced in 11 of 25 xylazine-treated cats and in 13 of 16 dexmedetomidine-treated cats. Dexmedetomidine was more likely to cause vomiting than xylazine (OR, 5.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 36). The median dose of dexmedetomidine that caused emesis was 7.0 μg/kg (3.2 μg/lb; range, 0.96 to 10.0 μg/kg [0.44 to 4.55 μg/lb]). The elapsed time until emesis or postemesis reversal agent administration was recorded for 5 xylazine-treated cats (median interval, 10 minutes [range, 5 to 175 minutes]) and 10 dexmedetomidine-treated cats (median interval, 5 minutes [range, 1 to 12 minutes]). Sedation was the only adverse effect, occurring in 2 xylazine-treated cats and 1 dexmedetomidine-treated cat. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results indicated that dexmedetomidine can be used successfully to induce emesis in cats.