1131270 JFM Journal of Feline Medicine and SurgeryVeronezi et al

Original Article

Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery

Evaluation of the effects of 2022, Vol. 24(12) e498­–e504

© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
gabapentin on the physiologic sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X221131270
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X221131270

and echocardiographic variables journals.sagepub.com/home/jfm

This paper was handled and processed

of healthy cats: a prospective, by the American Editorial Office (AAFP)

for publication in JFMS

randomized and blinded study

Tayná M Veronezi1, Daniela J Lopes1, Izadora L Zardo1,

João VB Ferronatto1, Marcelo M Trojan1, Kirian R Franck1,
André F de Azevedo1, Adriana G Spiering2, Luciana N Nunes3,
Leandro Fadel4 and Fernanda VA da Costa5

Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate, using echocardiography, the effects of oral administration of a
single dose of gabapentin on the physiologic variables (heart rate [HR], respiratory rate [RR] and systolic blood
pressure [SBP]) and systolic and diastolic cardiac function of healthy cats.
Methods This was a prospective, randomized and blinded study with 40 healthy cats aged between 6 months
and 2 years. The cats’ health status was assessed on the first appointment (T1) when they underwent a physical
examination, complete blood count, biochemical profile, assessment of physiologic variables and echocardiogram.
The echocardiogram was used to measure the left ventricle’s (LV) internal diameter during systole and diastole,
isovolumic relaxation time, transmitral flow, E-wave deceleration time and HR. The cats were randomly divided
into two groups: (1) a treatment group with 20 cats that received a single oral dose of gabapentin (100 mg/cat);
and (2) a control group with 20 cats that received a single oral dose of placebo. All variables of the physiologic
and echocardiographic variables were re-evaluated 1–3 weeks after T1 (T2), 90 mins after medication or placebo
administration.
Results There was no difference in the physiologic variables evaluated in both groups. The proportion of cats in
the treatment group that had their ventricular filling waves fused on T1 but did not have them fused on T2 was
significantly higher (45%) compared with cats in the control group (15%; P = 0.0384).
Conclusions and relevance There was no difference between the groups in regard to SBP, HR, RR and
echocardiographic variables. Gabapentin improved evaluation of diastolic function on echocardiogram because it
reduced the fusion of ventricular filling waves during the evaluation of the diastolic function of the LV. Gabapentin
did not cause adverse effects on the cardiovascular hemodynamics of young healthy cats.

Keywords: Anxiolytic; stress; cat friendly practice; echocardiography; cardiovascular hemodynamics;

left ventricle

Accepted: 19 September 2022

1Post Graduation Program in Veterinary Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
2Graduation Program in Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
3Department of Statistics, Institute of Mathematics, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
4Veterinary Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, Lutheran University of Brazil, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5Department of Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Corresponding author:
Fernanda VA da Costa DVM, MSc, PhD, Department of Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary, Federal University of Rio Grande do
Sul, Av Bento Gonçalves, 9090, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 91540-000, Brazil
Email: fernanda.amorim@ufrgs.br
Veronezi et al
Introduction
Oral gabapentin is a well-tolerated anxiolytic used in cats.
It is administered before veterinary appointments and
has many benefits.1,2 The main purpose of its use is to
reduce anxiety in cats when going to a veterinary clinic
or hospital as this can be considered a stressful event. In
addition, during the medical consultation, some actions
such as restraint, quick and sudden movements and
loud sounds can be intimidating, causing hostile reac-
tions in cats.3 Stress increases sympathetic discharge,
which releases epinephrine (adrenaline), norepineph-
rine (noradrenaline) and cortisol.4,5 Consequently, nor-
epinephrine is released via nerve endings, which elevates
the heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), systolic blood
pressure (SBP) and rectal temperature.5
Occasionally, it is necessary to administer drugs that
reduce a patient’s anxiety, facilitate handling and reduce
its level of stress.3,6,7 The anxiolytic of choice should be
one that is safe, well tolerated and one that does not sig-
nificantly affect cardiovascular and hemodynamic func-
tion in order to obtain reliable results in complementary
tests and, consequently, avoid an incorrect diagnosis.8
Gabapentin is a structural analog of gamma-
aminobutyric acid. It binds to the alpha2delta (α2δ) acces-
sory subunit of the voltage-dependent calcium channel
complexes, mainly in the spinal dorsal horn and the pros-
encephalon,9 and provides an inhibiting effect that allevi-
ates anxiety.10 Recent studies with gabapentin in feline
species have shown that it is a safe and effective short-
term anxiolytic.1,2 However, its effect on cardiovascular
function needs to be further investigated, as only one
study to date has evaluated the effect of gabapentin on
the physiologic and echocardiographic variables in cats.8
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the
effects of oral gabapentin on the physiologic and echo-
cardiographic variables of healthy cats. The physiologic
variables included HR, RR and SBP. The echocardio-
graphic variables were obtained to evaluate systolic and
diastolic function. Our hypotheses were: (1) gabapentin
does not significantly affect any hemodynamic or echo-
cardiographic variables; and (2) gabapentin facilitates
the interpretation of diastolic function in healthy cats by
helping to separate the ventricular filling waves of the left
ventricle (LV) in stressed or anxious cats.
Materials and methods
Animals
Healthy cats aged between 6 months and 2 years of both
sexes and different breeds were selected to participate in
the present study between June and December 2021. The
cats that participated in the research were later referred to
the Feline Medicine Service of the Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital for
elective sterilization. The present study was approved by
e499
the animal ethics committee (CEUA/UFRGS, approval
40478). The owners signed an informed consent form to
participate in this study.
Inclusion criteria included healthy cats aged between
6 months and 2 years, of any sex and any breed. The cats
were considered healthy through physical examination,
including cardiopulmonary auscultation, measurement of
physiologic variables such as HR, RR, rectal temperature
and non-invasive SBP by the vascular Doppler method,
echocardiogram, complete blood count and serum bio-
chemical profile. Cats were excluded if they showed any
alterations in screening tests and/or any structural or
functional abnormalities on echocardiographic examina-
tion and/or if they were receiving any medications other
than periodic antiparasitic drugs.
Study design
This study was prospective, randomized and blinded. On
the day of the first (T1) and second (T2) appointments,
the cats were examined in the presence of their owners
at the Feline Medicine Service at Universidade Federal
do Rio Grande do Sul’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital.
During both appointments, the cats were acclimated for
15 mins before assessment of the physiologic and echocar-
diographic variables. The cat carrier was always left open
to allow the cat to leave it voluntarily. Cats that did not
leave the carrier were gently removed and wrapped in a
towel. The same researcher assessed all the physiologic
and echocardiographic variables.
A simple randomization table was created in Microsoft
Excel in order to divide the cats into two groups and assign
them to the corresponding treatment. Each group had the
same number of male and female cats. A researcher – who
did not participate in the clinical and echocardiographic
evaluation of the cats – handed to the cat owners, by the
end of the screening appointment (T1), a capsule, with
the type of capsule given based on the randomization
table. The capsule contained either placebo (composed of
magnesium stearate, sodium lauryl sulfate, talc and corn
starch) or 100 mg of gabapentin fractioned in a veterinary
compounding pharmacy from a drug commercially avail-
able for humans (Gabaneurin; EMS Sigma Pharma). The
pharmacy follows rigorous quality-control procedures
and the standard operating procedures of the Brazilian
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply and
the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency.
The owners were asked to administer the capsule to
their cats at home around 90 mins prior to T2, which was
scheduled between 1 and 3 weeks after T1. At T2, the
owners completed a questionnaire, stating the exact time
at which they had administered the capsule to their cats,
as well as the degree of difficulty in doing so, and then
returned it to the research team. All owners who partici-
pated in the study and the researchers who collected the
data were blind to the treatment.
e500
Assessment of the degree of relaxation/sedation,
and respiratory and heart rates
During the initial physical examination, the degree of
relaxation/sedation was assessed to confirm an adequate
effect of gabapentin. Subjective assessment of patient
behavior after gabapentin ingestion, such as adherence
to restraint and degree of spontaneous mobility, was com-
pared with baseline parameters at T1. Afterward, the RR
was measured by inspecting and counting the respiratory
movements at a distance, without restraining the cat. HR
was then determined through cardiac auscultation with
a stethoscope. Restraint was kept to a minimum and the
cat received a massage on the head, around the ears and
under the chin. At this time, a pulmonary auscultation
was also performed. For each variable, three consistent
measurements were performed, after excluding the first
outliers, thus obtaining an average value.
Non-invasive assessment of SBP
SBP was measured by Doppler ultrasonography follow-
ing a previously reported protocol.11 Two people per-
formed this procedure; however, the same experienced
veterinarian measured the SBP in every cat. The cuff was
measured according to 30–40% of the circumference of
the cat’s forelimb on the left thoracic limb. The cat was
gently restrained using a towel in a way that did not
excessively restrict its movements, following a previ-
ously reported protocol.12 Headphones were used to
prevent the sound of the device from frightening the
cat. The first assessment of SBP was discarded. Then,
five additional assessments were performed that had
consistent values, indicating that the variability between
each was <20%. The mean value was then calculated and
recorded.11
Echocardiography
The echocardiographic examination was performed after
the assessment of the physiologic variables and the SBP.
Both were performed at the Feline Medicine Service at the
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul’s Veterinary
Teaching Hospital. The same evaluator performed the
examination using the same ultrasound device in all cases
(Siemens ACUSON P500 Ultrasound System; Siemens
Healthineers). A sector transducer at a frequency of
4–8 MHz was used. The cat’s thorax had been previ-
ously shaved, to improve visualization of the echocar-
diographic images. The cat was first positioned in right
lateral recumbency and then in left lateral recumbency
on a table that was specifically designed for the echocar-
diographic examination. The table had an opening in the
center to allow the correct positioning of the transducer
on the cat’s thorax.
The LV variables were analyzed. In the right paraster-
nal window, along the transverse axis, the systolic and
diastolic diameters of the LV were measured to obtain
indicators of systolic function, such as the shortening
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 24(12)
fraction (SSF) and the ejection fraction (SEF) of the LV.
From the apical four-chamber view, in the left parasternal
window, along the longitudinal axis, the sample volume
of the pulsed Doppler was positioned between the tips
of the mitral valve leaflets to measure the transmitral
flow in diastole and to evaluate the diastolic function.
The early transmitral flow peak (E-wave), late transmitral
flow peak (A-wave) and E-wave deceleration time (EDT)
were measured. The ratio between the E-wave value and
the A-wave value (E:A) was recorded. In cats whose E-
and A-waves fused, the maximum velocity of the fused
wave and its pressure gradient were obtained. From the
five-chamber view, with the sample volume inside the LV,
between the septal leaflet of the mitral valve and the LV
outflow, the transmitral and aortic flows were registered
to obtain the isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT).
After obtaining the ventricular filling waves through
transmitral flow, the echocardiographic device calculated
the distance between one E-wave and the next to estimate
the HR (HR-ECHO). The HR values measured by the
echocardiogram were also recorded and analyzed.
All the aforementioned variables were measured three
times in order to calculate the mean values. The images
were stored digitally and analyzed remotely.
Statistical analysis
A descriptive analysis was performed by calculating: (1)
the mean ± SD of the quantitative variables; and (2) the
proportions of the qualitative variables. To compare both
groups, the difference (delta) between the quantitative
variables in T1 and T2 was calculated and then a t-test was
used to compare the means of the independent samples.
The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the normality
of the distributions. The assumption of homoscedasticity
of the data was also verified. A binary qualitative variable
was created to label the ventricular filling waves as either
‘fused’ or ‘unfused’ in T1 and T2. Based on the new quali-
tative variables, a test to compare the proportions was
performed. The z-test for two independent proportions,
which is equivalent to the χ2 independence test, was car-
ried out. As a decision criterion, the significance level was
5%. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS
Statistics 18 (IBM).
Results
Forty-two cats were initially selected to participate in the
study; however, two went on to be excluded. The reasons
for the exclusion were the presence of the phenotype of
hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and clinical suspicion of
pyometra. This resulted in a total of 40 cats that met the
inclusion criteria. Of these 40 cats, 20 were female and
20 were male. The cats’ mean age was 10 months (range
6–24). The cats did not belong to any specific breed. Mean
weight was 3.22 kg (range 2.065–5.32). Patients received
the capsule at home approximately 90 mins before the vet-
erinary appointment (Table 1). Mean dose of gabapentin
Veronezi et al
Table 1 Time elapsed between the ingestion of the
capsule and the beginning of the veterinary appointment
in the treatment group (gabapentin) and in the control
group (placebo)
Variable Treatment group Control group
(n = 20) (n = 20)
Time (mins) 101 ± 0.007 101 ± 0.010
Data are presented as mean ± SD
was 31.35 mg/kg (range 18.79–47.61). No adverse effects
were observed in the cats given gabapentin.
The data were analyzed and both groups were compared
on T2. No statistically significant differences were found
between groups regarding RR, HR and SBP (Figure 1). No
statistically significant differences were found between
the groups regarding echocardiographic variables (ie,
EDT, IVRT, SSF and SEF; Table 2). There was no statisti-
cal difference between HR measured with a stethoscope
and HR measured on echocardiogram (Table 3).
The proportion of cats in the treatment group that had
ventricular filling waves fused at T1 but did not have them
fused at T2 was statistically significantly higher (45%)
compared with cats in the control group (15%; P = 0.0384).
Figure 1 Mean respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), HR measured by the echocardiogram (HR-ECO) and systolic blood
pressure (SBP) in the treatment group (gabapentin, 20 cats) and the control group (placebo, 20 cats) at T1 (before treatment)
and T2 (after treatment)
e501
Discussion
This study did not find significant differences in physi-
ologic and echocardiographic variables after the oral
administration of gabapentin in healthy cats. The cat
owners administered gabapentin to their cats at home
around 90 mins before the appointment at the veterinary
clinic. The chosen dose of gabapentin was based on pre-
vious studies that elected a dose of 100 mg of gabapentin
per cat, with a dose range of 13–29.4 mg/kg1 and 9.2–
47.6 mg/kg,2 and they had positive results in tranquiliza-
tion. A single measurement was obtained post-treatment,
at a time that may or may not correspond to the peak
effect, but this interval was chosen based on previous
studies that reported that the time at which gabapentin
reaches its mean peak serum concentration is 60–100 mins
after its administration.9,13
No significant difference was found in RR, HR,
HR-ECHO or general SBP considering T1 and T2. This
suggests that cats did not experience significant hemo-
dynamic consequences on the echocardiographic exami-
nation after receiving oral gabapentin. A recent study
reported a mean decrease of 15.2 beats/min (bpm) in HR
after a dose of 100 mg of gabapentin.1 Overall, RR and
SBP decreased in cats in the treatment and control groups
at T2. This might be related to a decrease in sympathetic
e502 Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 24(12)

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the echocardiographic sedation,17 which would be ineffective in overly nervous
variables in the treatment (gabapentin) and control and scared cats. A recent study evaluated the effects of
(placebo) groups at time 1 (T1; before treatment) and time oral trazodone before the assessment of physiologic and
2 (T2; after treatment)
echocardiographic variables,18 and did not reveal altera-
Variable Treatment group Control group (n=20)
tions in echocardiographic rates, although SBP decreased
(n = 20) significantly. The present study demonstrated the ben-
efits of administering gabapentin as an anxiolytic before
T1 the assessment of physiologic and echocardiographic
EDT (ms) 62.6 ± 25.9 (25–138) 59.9 ± 16.0 (33–83) variables.
IVRT (ms) 34 ± 9.4 (21–53) 34.6 ± 9.8 (21–58) Since most cats become stressed under echocardio-
LV_SSF (%) 59.5 ± 9.9 (43.3–76.9) 58.7 ± 7.0 (42.9–69.3) graphic examination, tachycardia is a common occur-
LV_SEF (%) 90.1 ± 6.6 (77.3–97.5) 90.2 ± 4.9 (77.6–97.1) rence, which leads to a partial or complete fusion of early
and late ventricular filling waves and an HR >170 bpm.
T2
In this study, an HR >180 bpm, measured by the echocar-
EDT (ms) 61.4 ± 19.9 (34–113) 65.5 ± 23.4 (28–125) diogram, resulted in partial or complete fusion of the
IVRT (ms) 39.2 ± 14.4 (17–71) 37.6 ± 7.1 (29–56) ventricular filling waves in most cats. The sum of the
LV_SSF (%) 58.0 ± 10.9 (36.3–75.8) 55.3 ± 8.9 (40.3–71.3) flow waves leads to interpretation errors and thus must
LV_SEF (%) 88.9 ± 7.6 (70.7–98.3) 87.6 ± 6.5 (73.6–97.0) be avoided in the assessment.19 Therefore, an anxiolytic
would be beneficial for cats that are agitated or scared,
Data are presented as mean ± SD (range)
EDT = E-wave deceleration time; IVRT = isovolumic relaxation time; because the calmer the cat, the lower the probability of
LV_SSF = left ventricular fractional shortening; LV_SEF = left ventricular fusing of ventricular filling waves (E and A).14,20
ejection fraction In this study, the proportion of cats in the treatment
group that had their ventricular filling waves fused in T1
but not in T2 was significantly higher (45%) compared
Table 3 Descriptive statistics of heart rate (HR) measured with cats in the control group (15%). Using gentle han-
with the stethoscope and the echocardiogram in treatment dling and minimal restraint on cats can help to allevi-
(gabapentin) and control (placebo) groups at time 1 ate stress and prevent E- and A-waves from fusing. The
(T1; before treatment) and time 2 (T2; after treatment)
anxiolytic effect can also be beneficial for agitated cats.19
Variables Treatment group Control group Both factors were considered in this study, which might
(n = 20) (n = 20) have contributed to the statistical difference between
both groups. In contrast, the decrease in HR was evi-
T1 T2 T1 T2 dent in both groups in T2, with no difference between
HR (bpm) 192 ± 16 185 ± 19 196 ± 22 188 ± 21 them, as attested by both the stethoscope examination
HR-ECHO (bpm) 199 ± 18 178 ± 21 199 ± 25 189 ± 29 and the echocardiogram. Nevertheless, the treatment
group showed a higher tendency of not fusing the ven-
Data are presented as mean ± SD tricular filling waves. A possible cause for this is that the
HR = heart rate;
HR obtained in the echocardiographic examination was
HR-ECHO = heart rate measured on echocardiography;
bpm = beats/min 10.3 bpm lower than the HR obtained with the stetho-
scope. The difference was not statistically significant,
but the decrease in HR must be considered because it
tone,8 since cats were already familiar with the clinic’s can influence the fusion of the ventricular filling waves.
environment and may have been less anxious at T2. According to Schober and Chetboul,19 the complete or
According to previous studies, other sedatives cause partial fusion of the ventricular filling waves can occur
considerable hemodynamic alterations that hinder correct with an HR >170 bpm. In the present study, the fusion
interpretation of the physiologic and echocardiographic of the ventricular filling waves was observed with an HR
variables.14–18 One study suggested that a combination >180 bpm in most cats in the treatment group. A recent
of butorphanol and ketamine resulted in a significant study demonstrated a slight decrease in HR after a 100 mg
increase in HR. Moreover, a combination of butorpha- dose of gabapentin.1 A decrease in HR, even if clinically
nol and acepromazine leads to a significant decrease irrelevant, might prevent the ventricular filling waves
in SBP.14 Acepromazine – a phenothiazine derivative – from fusing, which was evident in cats in the treatment
can cause paradoxical excitement and hypotension.15 group at T2.
Butorphanol could be used before the echocardiogram Gabapentin did not affect systolic function. A recent
since its agonist–antagonist effects cause sedation, anal- study demonstrated a decline in the systolic function of
gesia and low cardiorespiratory depression.16 However, if healthy cats that received sedative doses of gabapentin.
butorphanol is administered alone, it only provides light However, all the variables that were measured remained
Veronezi et al
within the existing reference intervals.8 Similarly, the pre-
sent study found a slight decline in the systolic function
of the LV in the treatment group. In this study, there was
no difference between the two groups in relation to the
EDT. Some researchers have argued that an increase in
HR does not affect EDT in cats or humans.21,22 However,
other researchers have reported an increase in HR fol-
lowed by a decrease in EDT in cats and humans.23,24 In the
present study, it was not possible to prove the increase in
EDT with the reduction in HR. The results of this study
are inconclusive regarding whether EDT really increases
under the effect of gabapentin. A study with a larger sam-
ple of animals is necessary to validate the hypothesis.
A previous study reported that the higher the HR, the
lower the IVRT.19 This is because the sympathetic stimu-
lus – which results in tachycardia – might decrease the
diastolic filling time and thus increase the velocity of the
early diastolic elastic recoil of the LV.21 Based on this study
alone, it is not possible to confirm whether the increase
in IVRT in T2 was caused by gabapentin, though it might
be related to a decrease in HR, which was seen in cats in
both groups. One study has claimed that HR does not
influence IVRT, but their study only had a small sample,
diminishing its statistical power.24 IVRT varies with age:
it is lower in young cats and higher in older cats.19 In this
study, it was unlikely that age affected the results since
all cats were <2 years of age.
This study has some limitations. First, a single measure-
ment of variables was performed after treatment, which
may not have corresponded to the peak of action of gabap-
entin. Another point is that we analyzed a small number of
healthy cats, and thus it cannot be assumed that gabapentin
will not have an effect on the physiologic and echocardio-
graphic variables of older cats or cats with heart disease.
In addition, owing to the small sample of the study, the
statistical power was reduced. Another limitation is that
the results of this study are based on a specific range of
gabapentin doses (18.79–47.61 mg/kg), so results can vary
with different or repeated doses. Additional studies are
needed to evaluate whether gabapentin has a hemody-
namic influence in cats that receive this medication daily.
The results of this study suggest that a single oral
dose of gabapentin improves the evaluation of diastolic
function of the LV because it prevents ventricular fill-
ing waves from fusing in the Doppler echocardiogram
if it is administered 90 mins before the examination.
Furthermore, the results suggest that the use of gabapen-
tin under the conditions described in this article does not
significantly change physiologic and echocardiographic
variables and is well tolerated by cats. However, addi-
tional studies with a larger number of cats are needed in
order to confirm our findings.
Conclusions
Gabapentin did not change the physiologic and echocar-
diographic variables analyzed in this study. Therefore, it
can be concluded that gabapentin did not significantly
e503
affect the cardiovascular hemodynamics of healthy
young cats. Gabapentin improved the evaluation of the
diastolic function on echocardiogram because it reduced
the fusion of the ventricular filling waves during the eval-
uation of the diastolic function of the LV. For this reason,
gabapentin can be considered as an anxiolytic for healthy
young cats before a veterinary visit and echocardiogram.
Conflict of interest The authors declared no potential
conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding This study was supported by grants from the
National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq; grant number: 131701/2018-5).
Ethical approval The work described in this manuscript
involved the use of non-experimental (owned or unowned)
animals. Established internationally recognized high standards
(‘best practice’) of veterinary clinical care for the individual
patient were always followed and/or this work involved the
use of cadavers. Ethical approval from a committee was there-
fore not specifically required for publication in JFMS. Although
not required, where ethical approval was still obtained, it is
stated in the manuscript.
Informed consent Informed consent (verbal or written)
was obtained from the owner or legal custodian of all animal(s)
described in this work (experimental or non-experimental
animals, including cadavers) for all procedure(s) undertaken
(prospective or retrospective studies). No animals or people are
identifiable within this publication, and therefore additional
informed consent for publication was not required.
ORCID iD Leandro Fadel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7506-9307
Fernanda VA da Costa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1031-7728
References
1 Van Haaften KA, Forsythe LRE, Stelow EA, et al. Effects of
a single preappointment dose of gabapentin on signs of
stress in cats during transportation and veterinary exami-
nation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2017; 251: 1175–1181.
2 Pankratz KE, Ferris KK, Griffith EH, et al. Use of single-dose
oral gabapentin to attenuate fear responses in cage-trap
confined community cats: a double-blind, placebo-con-
trolled field trial. J Feline Med Surg 2018; 20: 535–543.
3 Rodan I, Sundahl E, Carney H, et al. AAFP and ISFM feline
friendly handling guidelines. J Feline Med Surg 2011; 13:
364–375.
4 Abbott JA. Heart rate and heart rate variability of healthy
cats in home and hospital environments. J Feline Med Surg
2005; 7: 195–202.
5 Hall JE. O sistema nervoso autônomo e a medula adrenal.
In: Hall JE (eds). Tratado de fisiologia médica. 12th ed. Rio
de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2011, pp 771–783.
6 Moffat K. Addressing canine and feline aggression in the
veterinary clinic. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2008;
38: 983–1003.
7 Youngblood BL, Ueyama Y, Muir WW, et al. A new method
for determining levels of sedation in dogs: a pilot study
e504
with propofol and a novel neuroactive steroid anesthetic.
J Neurosci Methods 2018; 305: 82–88.
8 Allen ME, Leblanc NL and Scollan KF. Hemodynamic,
echocardiographic, and sedative effects of oral gaba-
pentin in healthy cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2021; 57:
278–284.
9 Siao KT, Pypendop BH and Ilkiw JE. Pharmacokinetics of
gabapentin in cats. Am J Vet Res 2010; 71: 817–821.
10 Cheng JK and Chiou LC. Mechanisms of the antinocicep-
tive action of gabapentin. J Pharmacol Sci 2006; 100: 471–486.
11 Taylor SS, Sparkes AH, Briscoe K, et al. ISFM consensus
guidelines on the diagnosis and management of hyper-
tension in cats. J Feline Med Surg 2017; 19: 288–303.
12 Rodan I. Understanding the cat and feline-friendly han-
dling. In: Little S (ed). The cat: clinical medicine manage-
ment. St Louis, MO: Elsevier, 2012, pp 2–18.
13 Adrian D, Papich MG, Baynes R, et al. The pharmaco-
kinetics of gabapentin in cats. J Vet Intern Med 2018; 32:
1996–2002.
14 Ward JL, Schober KE, Fuentes VL, et al. Effects of sedation on
echocardiographic variables of left atrial and left ventricular
function in healthy cats. J Feline Med Surg 2012; 14: 678–685.
15 Robertson SA, Gogolski SM, Pascoe P, et al. AAFP feline
anesthesia guidelines. J Feline Med Surg 2018; 20: 602–634.
16 Fantoni DT and Mastrocinque S. Fisiopatologia e controle
da dor. Anestesia em Cães e Gatos. 2nd ed. São Paulo:
Rocca, 2010, pp 521–528.
17 Ansah OB, Vainio O, Hellsten C, et al. Postoperative pain
control in cats: clinical trials with medetomidine and
butorphanol. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 99–103.
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 24(12)
18 Fries RC, Kadotani S, Vitt JP, et al. Effects of oral trazo-
done on echocardiographic and hemodynamic variables
in healthy cats. J Feline Med Surg 2018; 21: 1080–1085.
19 Schober KE and Chetboul V. Echocardiographic evalua-
tion of left ventricular diastolic function in cats: hemody-
namic determinants and pattern recognition. J Vet Cardiol
2015; 17 Suppl 1: S102–133.
20 Chetboul V, Carlos Sampedrano C, Tissier R, et al. Quan-
titative assessment of velocities of the annulus of the left
atrioventricular valve and left ventricular free wall in
healthy cats by use of two-dimensional color tissue Dop-
pler imaging. Am J Vet Res 2006; 67: 250–258.
21 Nishimura RA, Abel MD, Hatle LK, et al. Assessment of
diastolic function of the heart: background and current
applications of Doppler echocardiography. Part II: clini-
cal studies. Mayo Clin Proc 1989; 64: 181–204. DOI: 10.1016/
s0025-6196(12)65673-0.
22 Santilli RA and Bussadori C. Doppler echocardiographic
study of left ventricular diastole in nonanaesthetized
healthy cats. Vet J 1998; 156: 203–215.
23 Yamamoto K, Masuyama T, Tanouchi J, et al. Effects of
heart rate on left ventricular filling dynamics: assessment
from simultaneous recordings of pulsed Doppler trans-
mitral flow velocity pattern and haemodynamic vari-
ables. Cardiov Res 1993; 27: 935–941.
24 Schober KE, Luis Fuentes V and Bonagura JD. Comparison
between invasive hemodynamic measurements and non-
invasive assessment of left ventricular diastolic function
by use of Doppler echocardiography in healthy anesthe-
tized cats. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64: 93–103.