Does preappointment gabapentin affect neurological examination findings? A prospective, randomized and blinded study in healthy cats.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of a preappointment oral dose of gabapentin on the neurological examination of cats. METHODS: A prospective, randomized and blinded clinical trial was conducted in 35 client-owned healthy cats. Cats were scheduled for two appointments and randomly assigned to receive either a placebo or a 100 mg gabapentin capsule prior to the second veterinary visit. A neurological examination was performed during each visit, and the results were compared between groups. Normal/abnormal response rates for each test were based on the number of cats that allowed the test to be performed. RESULTS: Gabapentin was administered to 17 cats. Gait and postural reactions were significantly affected in the gabapentin group. Comparing the gabapentin with the placebo groups, proprioceptive ataxia was identified in 4/17 (23.5%) vs 0/18 cats (P = 0.0288); paw placement deficits were seen in 10/11 (90.9%) vs 1/4 (25%) cats; table tactile placement deficits were identified in 13/17 (76.5%) vs 0/18 cats (P <0.0001); hopping deficits were seen in 5/17 (29.4%) vs 0/16 cats (P = 0.0185); and abnormalities on wheelbarrowing and extensor postural thrust were reported in 5/17 (29.4%) vs 0/18 cats (P = 0.0129). These results had no correlation with age or dose/kg received. No significant difference was noted in the assessment of level and content of consciousness, posture, cranial nerves and spinal nerves. No significant differences were noted in test compliance or examination duration. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Gabapentin significantly altered gait analyses and postural reactions in this group of healthy cats. The administration of gabapentin could lead to false-positive results and, possibly, an incorrect identification of neurological lesions. In contrast, gabapentin did not impair the assessment of cranial nerves and spinal reflexes, which can be assessed in patients receiving the drug.

Evaluation of the effects of gabapentin on the physiologic and echocardiographic variables of healthy cats: a prospective, randomized and blinded study.

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.