Study: Horses On Lasix At Increased Risk of ‘Sudden Death’

A new study published this week in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and funded by the Grayson Jockey Club Foundation, has found that horses racing on Lasix were 62% more likely to die within three days of racing than were horses running without the diuretic.

Fatalities due to catastrophic musculoskeletal injury were not included in the study.

The use of Lasix was one of 15 risk factors identified in the report.

The study, relying on information from the Equine Injury Database, examined starts made by 284,387 Thoroughbreds at 144 racetracks in the U.S. and Canada from 2009 to 2021. A total of 4,198,073 starts were included in the study, which was conducted by Dr. Euan Bennet and Dr. Tim Parkin. The number of starts equals 92.2% of all races in North America run during the period of the study.

Among the starters, there were 536 instances where a horse died within the three-day window after racing, a rate of  0.13 per 1,000 starts.

Horses falling into the “sudden death” category had to have died within three days of racing and have had one or more of five fatal injury descriptions:  (1) sudden death (recorded as “SUD” in the EID); (2) pulmonary hemorrhage; (3) exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH); (4) postexertional distress/heatstroke (PED); and (5) cardiac arrhythmia.

The study included 233,276 starts made by horses without Lasix. Eighteen or 0.08 per 1,000 starters died within three days. There were 3,964,797 starters who ran with Lasix and the result was 518 sudden deaths or 0.13 per 1000 starters. Ninety-four percent of all horses in the study raced with Lasix.

“…it could be hypothesized that furosemide administration in horses may increase the risk of sudden death through fatal arrhythmogenesis,” the study reads. “However, as the exact cause of sudden death (cardiac vs non-cardiac) was not determined for the horses of this study, we can only speculate at possible mechanisms. Further investigation is required to understand which, if any, pathophysiologic mechanisms could underlie the association between furosemide use and sudden death, as this finding raises further concerns about the ethics of race-day administration.”

The researchers also concluded: “…identifying any potential causal link between furosemide administration and sudden death should be a priority.”

The study looked at 49 risk factors and concluded that 15 of those factors could have led to a horse dying following a race. The list includes:

(*) Horses racing in the winter were at a 28% reduced risk of dying when compared to horses racing in the summer;

(*) There were fewer fatalities in longer races. In races contested at a mile or longer horses were 32% less likely to die than horses competing in races at six furlongs or shorter;

(*) Older horses were more likely to die than younger ones. Horses five or over were 44% more likely to die than horses who were three or younger;

(*) Horses that had been racing frequently were less likely to die than horses who had their races spaced out. For each additional race start made in the previous 0 to 30 days, individual horses were at reduced risk of sudden death. Horses that had made two or more race starts in the period 90 to 180 days before the current race were at 19% decreased risk of fatality compared to horses that had made 0 or 1 start in the same time period;

(*) Horses racing for the first time in a claiming race were at an increased risk. They were at 38% increased odds of sudden death compared to horses that were not making their debut in the claiming ranks;

(*) Horses that had previously been on a vet list, were 31% more likely to die compared to horses than had never been on a vet list;

(*) Horses whose last starts were made on a synthetic track were at 33% reduced odds of sudden death compared to starts made on dirt tracks;

The researchers hoped their information could lead to fewer sudden deaths.

The study reads: “Further work is required to determine which, if any, clinical signs are potential indicators and, indeed, whether such a rare outcome could be reliably predicted. The thoughtful application of big data predictive modeling would be helpful here; routine biometric monitoring of racehorses throughout their training and racing careers could provide valuable insights into horses' physical well-being.”

The post Study: Horses On Lasix At Increased Risk of ‘Sudden Death’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

View From The Eighth Pole: Lasix-Free Triple Crown A Step In Right Direction

With so much attention focused on the drug test that could lead to the disqualification of Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit, there's been barely a peep about how American racing managed to get through a Triple Crown season with all of its participants competing free of race-day furosemide, the anti-bleeding medication better known as Lasix.

It wasn't just the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes that were run Lasix-free. Official qualifying points races for the Derby also were run with a Lasix ban (or, in some cases, if owners and trainers chose to have the diuretic given to their horses, those horses would not qualify for points).

Grindstone was the last horse to win the Kentucky Derby without being administered Lasix four hours prior to the race. That was in 1996, when five of the 19 Derby starters raced Lasix-free. Since then, an increasing number of Derbies has been run with 100% of the starters competing on Lasix, the only recent exceptions being foreign-based runners.

The move toward Lasix-free racing of 2-year-olds in 2020 and stakes races in 2021 came about two years ago when a coalition of racetracks and industry organizations issued a statement saying they were committed to more closely aligning U.S. medication policies with international standards.  Lasix is not permitted on race day in Europe, Asia, or Australia/New Zealand and is being phased out in some Latin American countries.

There was opposition to the change, led by the Kentucky Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, which sued the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, Churchill Downs and Keeneland. The horsemen's organization claimed its members would suffer “irreparable injury” if their horses were required to race without Lasix. A judge ruled against the HBPA.

Horses will experience exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage, whether they are treated on race-day with Lasix or not. A scientific study from South Africa published in 2009 showed that race-day administration of the drug reduced the incidence and severity of EIPH. But 57% of the horses in that study still experienced EIPH after being treated with Lasix (compared to 79% given a saline solution as a placebo).

There were warnings from some Lasix advocates that it would be inhumane to not treat a horse with the drug, that we would start seeing more horses bleeding from the nose when they come back to be unsaddled after a race.

For the most part, the protests against the change have been much ado about nothing. Horses have bled, just as before, the majority of incidents detected through a post-race endoscopic examination. Visible bleeding from the nose has not occurred with the frequency many predicted would happen. Trainers have adjusted and racing goes on. Some have said their horses bounce back more quickly after a race without Lasix because they haven't sustained the loss of fluids that result from administration of the diuretic.

This isn't a game changer. Prohibiting Lasix will not get rid of horse racing's drug problems. But it's a step in the right direction and a further sign that the liberal medication policies of the past involving anti-inflammatories, anabolic steroids, bronchodilators and other so-called therapeutic drugs were misguided and a disservice to the sport.

That's my view from the eighth pole.

The post View From The Eighth Pole: Lasix-Free Triple Crown A Step In Right Direction appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Letter To The Editor: More Transparency Of Racehorses’ Medical Records Is Needed

Jerry Brown, in an op/ed recently published in the Thoroughbred Daily News, stated his belief that horses running in stakes races were not running true to form possibly because of not running on Lasix in those races. Brown pointed out that these horses may have been scoped post-race, but very often the fans, handicappers, and the public have no idea what the results of these scopes are.

This issue is not related to just scoping a horse looking for bleeding, but in all facets of a horse's medical care, including when it comes to the death of a horse that occurs on the grounds of a racetrack or training center. Racing woefully fails this transparency test, a fact known for years.

I know that there are legal hurdles to making this information easily accessible. Medical records kept by a veterinarian can only be released to another party with the consent of the owner of the animal in question. This type of language is present in basically every Veterinary Practice Act in every single state in the country. I also know that there is an easy fix to the issue as well. All that is needed is to add a simple line or two on every state racehorse owner license application that reads something akin to, “I hereby give consent for the medical records of any horse that I have a full or part ownership in to be released or transferred to a party requesting them.”

It should just be a required part of being able to obtain an owners license. All it takes to make it happen is the desire for change.

I know one of the arguments against providing full transparency of medical records and fatal injury data has always been that the public will not understand it, and the animal rights crowd will try to twist it to fit their narrative on things. Well, that argument is correct on both counts. You know what else is correct though? It is taking the time to make the information easy for the public to understand and fighting back against the misinformation.

The industry can no longer rely on the old refrain of “You just don't understand the industry” when presented with any question or argument against racing. Take the time to explain what we all “don't understand,” especially to followers of the sport who have the greatest chance of becoming fans.

It is something I have come to call the “10-80-10” rule that I have learned from working in the non-profit realm. 10% of people are always going to think racing is wrong, inhumane, and should be forever banned. They are never going to see a different point of view or accept explanations of data that are not fitting their narrative. On the other end of the spectrum there are 10% of people who think nothing needs to change in the racing industry and there really is not a problem at all. They will not agree to changing anything even if the data points to a need for it. Neither extremes are where racing needs to focus (even though both often shout the loudest and we all know what wheel get the grease).

What racing needs to focus on is the 80% in the middle that are asking to be heard but are also willing to sit down and discuss things in a productive way that benefits the sport and its fan base. Providing not only transparency but an explanation about that transparency in a manner that people can understand builds the trust needed to bring new blood into the game.

–Dr. Bryan Langlois, past president of the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association, board of directors of Animal Care PA and Thorofan

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please write to info at paulickreport.com and include contact information where you may be reached if editorial staff have any questions.

The post Letter To The Editor: More Transparency Of Racehorses’ Medical Records Is Needed appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Vella: Don’t Let Public Perception Guide Lasix Policy

I would like the people who are against the use of Lasix to understand what is really going on in the horse racing industry in North America and throughout the world.

Let's start with the fact that horses in high performance sports suffer from EIPH – exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. That includes all performance sports, in all parts of the world – make no mistake about it.

The question is how do you deal with the problem and what is best for the horses and what is best for the sport in question?

Before I go any further, I want to make a statement that I can't get past. It helps me personally clarify the situation: Lasix is a veterinarian-prescribed medication to treat EIPH in horses. It works well and has minimal side effects.

There is no proof that Lasix makes a horse run faster. Horses on Lasix perform more consistently than those not on Lasix. That is true because they are not bleeding internally.

Think of it this way: People suffer from high blood pressure and live longer when they take their doctor-prescribed medication.  It is the same for horses who require medication to remain healthy and stop bleeding.

I'm going to do a little rant here.

As a Thoroughbred trainer in North America I'm getting tired of hearing people tell me that they race in other parts of the world without Lasix, why can't you? Well, here is the question you should be asking: If horses everywhere bleed, how is the rest of the world treating these horses? Are they giving them medication the day before? Are they depriving them of food and water for days in advance?

I personally do not know, as I do not race there, but, believe me, they are doing something to solve the problem and it is not prescribed by a veterinarian.  So why are people looking down on trainers who are doing what the doctor has prescribed.

The real truth here is that people want to stop the use of Lasix because it would look good for the industry, but not because it is the best thing for the horse.  Just ask our veterinarians!

Let me clarify a few things.

I am against the use of other medications on race horses and I believe that everyone in the industry has to be held more responsible for the health and welfare of these animals that we love and respect.  Working in this industry is not a job; it is a way of life. Animal care is seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.

I am against stopping the use of a prescribed medication that solves a serious health problem in horses, just because it looks better for public perception.

Daniel Vella is a two-time Sovereign Award-winning trainer based in Ontario, Canada.

The post Vella: Don’t Let Public Perception Guide Lasix Policy appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights