Assessing anaesthesia in rabbits receiving rocuronium. Response to: Effects of arterial load variations on dynamic arterial elastance: an experimental study

Editor—The study published by Monge Garcia and colleagues¹ in the British Journal of Anaesthesia was conducted on 18 rabbits anaesthetized with xylazine and ketamine and paralysed with rocuronium. The authors reported that the study involved procedures that had been approved by the Ethical Committee for Animal Experimentation of the School of Medicine of the University of Cadiz (license 07–9604), conformed to European Ethical Standards (2012/707/EU) and Spanish Law (RD 53/2013) for the care and use of laboratory animals for experimental research, and adhered to relevant aspects of the ARRIVE guidelines. Consequently, we were disappointed to discover that these regulatory bodies, along with the editorial process of the BJA, appear to be satisfied that assessing the animals' physiological responses to a nociceptive stimulus (tail clamping) represents a suitable method for determining adequacy of anaesthesia in animals receiving neuromuscular blocking agents. Putting aside concerns with the reliability of physiological (i.e. cardiovascular), responses as indicators of anaesthetic depth, we question the wisdom of this approach in an animal study primarily aimed at examining the interrelationship of many of the same variables commonly affected by accidental awareness under general anaesthesia.

from Anaesthesiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2zC4xPf
via IFTTT