TY - JOUR

T1 - Implantation of telemetric blood pressure transmitters in Göttingen Minipigs

T2 - Validation of 24-h systemic blood pressure and heart rate monitoring and influence of anaesthesia

AU - Carlsen, Michelle Fischer

AU - Christoffersen, Berit Østergaard

AU - Lindgaard, Rikke

AU - Pedersen, Henrik Duelund

AU - Olsen, Lisbeth Høier

N1 - Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - INTRODUCTION: Porcine animal models are used in biomedical research due to anatomical and physiological similarities with human patients. The study aimed to validate telemetric systemic blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) monitoring in Göttingen Minipigs, and in addition to study the effects of three different anaesthesia protocols on telemetric BP and HR measurements.METHODS: Eight female Göttingen Minipigs had telemetry transmitters implanted in the right carotid artery. Over ten weeks, systemic 24-h BP and HR monitoring were repeated four times, each ending with an angiotensin II stimulation test. In addition, systemic BP and HR evaluated by telemetry, intra-arterial catheter (IAC) and oscillometric tail-cuff were compared before and after the 10-weeks period. Furthermore, changes in telemetric systemic BP and HR were monitored during anaesthesia in a cross-over design using three different protocols of general anaesthesia: Midazolam/ketamine (MK), propofol, and a combination of tiletamine, zolazepam, xylazine, ketamine and butorphanol (Zoletil-mix).RESULTS: One minipig was excluded and some data were missing due to central-venous catheter issues. The coefficient of variation was below 10% for the 24-h BP and HR measurements, but higher during angiotensin II stimulation. There was a disagreement between the tail-cuff measurement and telemetry/IAC, however the differences were independent of the BP and HR level. All anaesthesia protocols numerically influenced BP and HR, but only propofol statistically significantly decreased the BP.CONCLUSION: The study showed acceptable reproducibility of telemetric measurement of BP and HR over ten weeks in freely moving Göttingen Minipigs. There was a disagreement between direct and indirect BP measurement, and BP and HR were influenced by all anaesthesia protocols.

AB - INTRODUCTION: Porcine animal models are used in biomedical research due to anatomical and physiological similarities with human patients. The study aimed to validate telemetric systemic blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) monitoring in Göttingen Minipigs, and in addition to study the effects of three different anaesthesia protocols on telemetric BP and HR measurements.METHODS: Eight female Göttingen Minipigs had telemetry transmitters implanted in the right carotid artery. Over ten weeks, systemic 24-h BP and HR monitoring were repeated four times, each ending with an angiotensin II stimulation test. In addition, systemic BP and HR evaluated by telemetry, intra-arterial catheter (IAC) and oscillometric tail-cuff were compared before and after the 10-weeks period. Furthermore, changes in telemetric systemic BP and HR were monitored during anaesthesia in a cross-over design using three different protocols of general anaesthesia: Midazolam/ketamine (MK), propofol, and a combination of tiletamine, zolazepam, xylazine, ketamine and butorphanol (Zoletil-mix).RESULTS: One minipig was excluded and some data were missing due to central-venous catheter issues. The coefficient of variation was below 10% for the 24-h BP and HR measurements, but higher during angiotensin II stimulation. There was a disagreement between the tail-cuff measurement and telemetry/IAC, however the differences were independent of the BP and HR level. All anaesthesia protocols numerically influenced BP and HR, but only propofol statistically significantly decreased the BP.CONCLUSION: The study showed acceptable reproducibility of telemetric measurement of BP and HR over ten weeks in freely moving Göttingen Minipigs. There was a disagreement between direct and indirect BP measurement, and BP and HR were influenced by all anaesthesia protocols.

U2 - 10.1016/j.vascn.2022.107168

DO - 10.1016/j.vascn.2022.107168

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 35315338

VL - 115

JO - Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods

JF - Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods

SN - 1056-8719

M1 - 107168

ER -