Analysis of coronary arteries in 12 mammalian species reveals significant variability, suggesting improvements for anatomical nomenclature.
The article presents the results of systematization of the coronary artery of the heart in 12 species of mammals (domestic, agricultural, commercial and fur-bearing animals). The aim of the work is to systematize data on the mammalian coronary bed, create anatomical nomenclature for their branches, and standardize the types of blood supply to the heart in the studied animal species. To conduct the study, we studied the branching of the coronary heart of agricultural (domestic bull, domestic goat, domestic sheep, domestic pig, domestic horse), commercial animals (brown bear, wild pig), furbearing animals (common fox, black Pushkin sable, Eurasian lynx) and domestic carnivores (domestic cat, domestic dog). The material was taken from private veterinary clinics in St. Petersburg and the Leningrad region, fur and fur farms, hunting grounds and private homesteads in the Leningrad region. The methods for the study were vasorentgenography, fine anatomical dissection, and the manufacture of corrosive preparations. Based on the analysis of anatomical preparations and vasorentgenography, the shortcomings of the existing International Anatomical Nomenclature have been identified, which does not take into account the functional significance and variability of heart vessels. A new classification is proposed, including the clarification of terms, the introduction of names for previously undescribed vessels, and the standardization of blood supply types, taking into account specific features. It was found that in wild boar, horse, and domestic pig, the right-handed and uniform types of vascularization predominate, while in ruminants, cats, dogs, and fur-bearing animals, the left-handed type dominates. The results make it possible to unify terminology, simplify the diagnosis of cardiovascular pathologies, and integrate the data into the curricula of veterinary universities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Хватов et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: