| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Electronic Letters to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Inappropriate Euthanasia Protocol
Author Response: Inappropriate Euthanasia Protocol
|
|
|||
|
Christopher J Murphy, Veterinary ophthalmologist UW-Madison, Lesley Smith, Christopher Reilly, Ellison Bentley, Paul Miller and Richard R. Dubielzig
Send letter to journal:
murphyc{at}svm.vetmed.wisc.edu Christopher J Murphy, et al.
|
We are writing in response to the recently published manuscript by Sweeney et al. entitled "A comparison of biological coatings for the promotion of corneal epithelialization of synthetic surfaces in vivo."1 In this article they report the use of intramuscular pentobarbitone sodium as their means of euthanasia for a large series of experimental cats. The American Veterinary Medical Association report of the panel on euthanasia2 is generally referenced as the authoritative guide for preferred methods of euthanasia in animals.3-6 When reviewing the ARVO policy on the care and use of animals in eye research, the AVMA report is traceable as the most appropriate source of information. The AVMA report states that "[i]ntramuscular, subcutaneous, intrathoracic, intrapulmonary, intrahepatic, intrarenal, intrasplenic, intrathecal, and other nonvascular injections are not acceptable methods of administering injectable euthanasia agents." This is because intramuscular injection is not only one of the slowest methods for bringing about death but also potentially one of the most uncomfortable for the animal in cases where the agent itself is irritating (true of many barbiturates: pentobarbitone has a pH of 10.5 and contains 40% ethylene glycol). We recognize that researchers and IACUC's across the US and internationally (Sweeney et al. conducted their research in Australia) have differing levels of experience and expertise as it relates to preparation and review of animal care and use protocols. One of the common means used to justify methods in protocol development is to provide recent peer-reviewed manuscripts demonstrating the use of a given method. Because of the possibility that this publication could be presented to other IACUCs in order to justify this means of euthanasia, we felt obligated to illuminate the inappropriateness of intramuscular barbiturates as a means of euthanasia in mammals. Lesley Smith School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison References 1. Sweeney DF, Xie RZ, Evans MDM, et al. A comparison of biological coatings for the promotion of corneal epithelialization of synthetic surfaces in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3301-3309. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Deborah F. Sweeney
Send letter to journal:
d.sweeney{at}visioncrc.org Deborah F. Sweeney
|
Thank you for drawing the issue of euthanasia to our attention. It is very unfortunate that the error in the methodology section of our paper1 was not discovered by either ourselves or the reviewers. The correct description of the procedures used in our research in regard to euthanasia of the animals should have read "intracardiac injection" rather than "intramuscular injection" of sodium pentobarbitone. Our routine method for euthanatizing cats is as follows: The animals are firstly euthanatized using an intramuscular injection of ketamine 15 mg/kg and xylazine 1.0 mg/kg. This is done to enable high quality final photographs and video recording of eyes. Immediately following these procedures, the animals are euthanatized by an intracardiac overdose of sodium pentobarbitone. Once death is confirmed, both corneas of the animal are then removed and examined histologically. We also agree that barbiturates for euthanasia should be administered by intravenous injection when the animals are conscious. However, we find that intracardiac injection of barbiturates is more practical when the animals are unconscious during general anesthesia. Under anesthesia, the heart of the animal is easily located, and we have no problem achieving accurate intracardiac injections under these conditions. The procedure is carried out by an experienced Senior Animal Technician with 19 years of experience with anesthesia and euthanasia of animals in our facility. We should also note that this paper investigated growth of the corneal epithelium over synthetic surfaces. As topical application of post-operative analgesics could interfere with epithelialization of the synthetic surfaces, the use of these drugs was not part of the approved protocol. As stated in our paper (p. 8),1 antibiotics were administered if irritation occurred. The therapeutic strategy we used was 0.5% framycetin and 0.5% dexamethasone sodium eye drops 3 times a day and 0.5% chloromycetin eye ointment at night for the first week, and then both drops and ointment were reduced to once daily for a further 2 weeks. During the ongoing assessment, none of the animals showed any behavioral signs to indicate that they were experiencing any undue stress or pain. The animals experiencing ocular irritation at the end of the 21-day observation were euthanatized as histological examinations were conducted. Our protocol indicated that if any animals continuing did not respond to antibiotics and showed behavioral signs of irritation or distress, a veterinary surgeon would be consulted and was to administer systemic analgesia as necessary. The analgesia to be used in these cases was pethidine hydrochloride 50 mg/ml or morphine sulphate 0.1 mg/kg SC. There were no cases in this study that required systemic analgesia. The welfare of our animals is always of paramount importance in our studies, and as such our protocols include close monitoring of both the ocular response (redness, discharge, partial eye closure, eye rubbing, etc.) and animals' behavior (appearance, bodyweight, unprovoked behavior, clinical signs and behavioral responses to stimuli) to ensure the animals do not experience undue stress, discomfort or pain. It has been our experience that the animals in our studies react well to the surgical, follow-up and examination procedures as well as to the care we provide them with. We are acutely aware of our responsibilities regarding animal research and take our commitment to comply with national and international policies and standards very seriously. All procedures in our animal facility are approved by the University of New South Wales Animal Care and Ethics Committee. We sincerely apologize for our error and the concerns it has raised. Deborah F. Sweeney, CRCERT, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Reference Sweeney DF, Xie RZ, Evans MDM, et al. A comparison of biological coatings for the promotion of corneal epithelialization of synthetic surface in vivo. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3301-3309. |
|||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
eLetters: