Physiological and thermographic response to heat stress in zebu cattle

AbstractThe objective of this study was to evaluate the heat tolerance of five zebu breeds using physical, physiological and hematological traits as well as thermographic responses. Forty cows of the Gir, Girolando, Nelore, Sindhi and Indubrasil breeds (eight cows each), approximately three years of age, were evaluated. Body weight, withers and hump heights as well as thoracic circumference were recorded. The density and length of the hair was obtained by collecting one square centimeter in the rump region and skin color using the CIELAB system. Rectal temperature, heart and respiratory rates were evaluated during the morning at 4:30h, and in the afternoon, at 14:30h, with six repetitions. Blood samples were collected for hematological evaluation. The surface temperature was obtained using an infrared camera FLIR® T400. Two images were taken from each animal, one laterally of the whole body and the other of the head region. Air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity were obtained from a mobile weather station. The statistics analysis included an analyzes of variance, principal factors, as well as cluster, discriminant and canonical analyzes, logistic regression and calculation of odds ratio. There were significant differences in the rectal temperature, heart and respiratory rates between breeds. Gir and Indubrasil breeds had the highest rectal temperatures. Breed was significant for surface temperatures and showed that physical and physiological factors affected breeds in different ways. Eye and brain surface temperatures were the most affected by environmental parameters. Also, environmental parameters affected packed cell volume and red cell number. Odds ratio test showed that the Gir breed was three times more likely to have higher rectal temperature compared with Sindhi as confirmed by the logistic regression. When the black globe temperature approached 35°C, the probability of the Gir animals having rectal temperatures above normal was approximately 70%. Gir was the breed least adapted to climate conditions of the experiment while the Sindhi and Girolando breeds showed the best physiological response to thermal stress

Comparison of midterm results of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured and elective abdominal aortic aneurysms

Objective: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) became an increasingly preferred modality for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair both in elective AAA repair (el-EVAR) and EVAR of a ruptured AAA (r-EVAR) setting. Ruptured AAAs usually have more hostile anatomies and less time for planning. Consequently, more complications may arise after r-EVAR. The purpose of this study was to compare mi-term outcomes between r-EVAR and el-EVAR. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing EVAR from 2000 to 2015 at a tertiary institution was performed. Patients with previous aortic surgery, nonatherosclerotic AAA and isolated iliac aneurysms were excluded. In-hospital casualties or patients who were intraoperatively converted to open repair were also excluded. For the midterm outcome analysis, only patients with at least two postoperative examinations (a 30-day computed tomography scan and a second postoperative examination performed 6 months or later) were considered. The primary end point was freedom from aneurysm-related complications (a composite of type I or III endoleak, aneurysm sac growth, migration of more than 5 mm, device integrity failure, AAA-related death, late postimplant rupture, or AAA-related secondary intervention). Freedom from secondary interventions, neck-related events (defined as a composite of type IA endoleak, migration of more than 5 mm, or preemptive neck-related secondary intervention) and late survival were secondary end points. The impact of device instructions for use (IFU) compliance on neck events was also assessed. Results: The study included 565 patients (65 r-EVAR and 500 el-EVAR). Eighty-two patients were treated outside proximal neck IFU, 13 in the r-EVAR group (21.3%) and 69 (14.5%) in the el-EVAR (P =.16). During the index hospitalization, there were more complications (12.3% vs 3.2%; P =.001) and reinterventions (12.3% vs 2.8%; P <.001) in the r-EVAR group. After discharge, median clinical follow-up time was 4.3 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.0 years) without differences between both groups. Five-year freedom from AAA-related complications was 53.9% in the r-EVAR group and 65.4% in the el-EVAR (P =.21). In multivariable analysis the r-EVAR group was not at increased risk for late complications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.61; P =.81). Five-year freedom from neck-related events was 74% in r-EVAR and 82% in the el-EVAR group (P =.345). Patients treated outside neck IFU were at greater risk for neck-related events both in r-EVAR (HR, 6.5; 95% CI, 1.8-22.9; P =.004) and el-EVAR group (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P <.001). Freedom from secondary interventions at 5 years was 63.0% for r-EVAR and 76.9% for el-EVAR (P =.16). Survival at 5 years was 68.8% in the r-EVAR group and 73.3% in the el-EVAR group (P =.30). Conclusions: Durable and sustainable midterm outcomes were found for both r-EVAR and el-EVAR patients who survived the postoperative period. Patients treated out