Dr. Anderson is funded by the University of Exeter Medical School. Prof. Taylor is partly funded by the . National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust; and is currently the cochief investigator of a research program with the overarching aims of developing and evaluating a home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention for people with heart failure and their careers (PGfAR RP-PG-0611-12004). Dr. Rees is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. Dr. Zwisler is principal investigator of an included (DAHREHAB) and ongoing cardiac rehabilitation trials (CopenHeart trials). Prof. Taylor, Drs. Rees and Oldridge, and Prof. Thompson were authors of the original Cochrane review; and Prof. Taylor and Drs. Rees and Zwisler are authors on a number of other Cochrane cardiac rehabilitation reviews. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health in England. Ms. Martin has reported that she has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
What Dr. Gordon ignores is that, for some breeds, especially the cavalier, a VHS value of may mean that the heart is not enlarged at all. While she describes using the species-wide VHS value for prescribing pimobendan as “prudent” and to “guard against overtreatment of possible stage B1 dogs”, we disagree. We regard it as arbitrary, risky, and unsupported by any research. In fact, the published research contradicts her selection. In at least one study , a VHS value of was found normal for one of the CKCSs. So, why does she insist upon using a “one size fits all” set of parameters, which means that the cavalier is put at greater risk? At the very least, she should pay attention to the advice given in the article she cites in her footnote 15 , which expressly states:
In 2006 , another rare insightful research article on this topic focused on what motivates cat owners to feed their cats vegetarian diets. The conclusion reached was, "Vegetarian diets are fed to cats primarily for ethical considerations." In other words, cat owners do not feed their cats meat because those owners (or more likely, their veterinarians) have an emotional aversion to either killing livestock or to eating meat themselves. Perhaps this sort of personal psychological analysis would explain the absurdly irrational advice of veterinary nutritionists that corn, grains, and by-product kibble diets are better for our carnivorous dogs than real meat. *