LAUSR

OBJECTIVE To describe a novel method of inducing emesis in the dog using gingival administration of apomorphine, compare the efficacy of inducing emesis with gingival apomorphine to conjunctival apomorphine, and describe adverse effects associated with the gingival route. DESIGN Retrospective study from January 2017 to September 2018. SETTING Independent all-hours primary and secondary emergency and critical care referral center. ANIMALS Five hundred fifty-eight client-owned dogs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The medical records of dogs presenting for induction of emesis were searched. Dogs receiving either gingival or conjunctival apomorphine were included in the study. A short online survey was sent to clients whose dogs received gingival apomorphine. Apomorphine was administered conjunctivally in 430 (77.1%) dogs and gingivally in 128 (22.9%) dogs. There was no difference between route of administration and success of emesis (p = 0.29). A total of 14 clients responded to the survey, and diarrhea, lethargy, hyperactivity, and sedation were reported as adverse effects of gingival apomorphine administration. No clients sought veterinary attention for any of the adverse effects reported. CONCLUSIONS Gingival administration of apomorphine is easy, appears to be safe, and is an effective method of inducing emesis in the dog. Gingival administration of apomorphine may be considered in cases where parenteral administration is not feasible and could replace conjunctival administration in compliant dogs.