Minimum infusion rate of alfaxalone for total intravenous anaesthesia after sedation with acepromazine or medetomidine in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy

ObjectiveTo determine the induction doses, then minimum infusion rates of alfaxalone for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), and subsequent, cardiopulmonary effects, recovery characteristics and alfaxalone plasma concentrations in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy after premedication with butorphanol-acepromazine or butorphanol-medetomidine.Study designProspective randomized blinded clinical study.AnimalsTwenty-eight healthy cats.MethodsCats undergoing ovariohysterectomy were assigned into two groups: together with butorphanol [0.2 mg kg^?1 intramuscularly (IM)], group AA (n = 14) received acepromazine (0.1 mg kg^?1 IM) and group MA (n = 14) medetomidine (20 μg kg^?1 IM). Anaesthesia was induced with alfaxalone to effect [0.2 mg kg^?1 intravenously (IV) every 20 seconds], initially maintained with 8 mg kg^?1 hour^?1 alfaxalone IV and infusion adjusted (±0.5 mg kg^?1 hour^?1) every five minutes according to alterations in heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), Doppler blood pressure (DBP) and presence of palpebral reflex. Additional alfaxalone boli were administered IV if cats moved/swallowed (0.5 mg kg^?1) or if f_R >40 breaths minute^?1 (0.25 mg kg^?1). Venous blood samples were obtained to determine plasma alfaxalone concentrations. Meloxicam (0.2 mg kg^?1 IV) was administered postoperatively. Data were analysed using linear mixed models, Chi-squared, Fishers exact and t-tests.ResultsAlfaxalone anaesthesia induction dose (mean ± SD), was lower in group MA (1.87 ± 0.5; group AA: 2.57 ± 0.41 mg kg^?1). No cats became apnoeic. Intraoperative bolus requirements and TIVA rates (group AA: 11.62 ± 1.37, group MA: 10.76 ± 0.96 mg kg^?1 hour^?1) did not differ significantly between groups. Plasma concentrations ranged between 0.69 and 10.76 μg mL^?1. In group MA, f_R, end-tidal carbon dioxide, temperature and DBP were significantly higher and HR lower.Conclusion and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone TIVA in cats after medetomidine or acepromazine sedation provided suitable anaesthesia with no need for ventilatory support. After these premedications, the authors recommend initial alfaxalone TIVA rates of 10 mg kg^?1 hour^?1.     

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the injectable anaesthetic alfaxalone in the horse

ObjectiveTo determine the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the neurosteroidal anaesthetic, alfaxalone, in horses after a single intravenous (IV) injection of alfaxalone, following premedication with acepromazine, xylazine and guaiphenesin.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsTen (five male and five female), adult, healthy, Standardbred horses.MethodsHorses were premedicated with acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1 IV). Twenty minutes later they received xylazine (1 mg kg^?1 IV), then after 5 minutes, guaiphenesin (35 mg kg^?1 IV) followed immediately by IV induction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone (1 mg kg^?1). Cardiorespiratory variables (pulse rate, respiratory rate, pulse oximetry) and clinical signs of anaesthetic depth were evaluated throughout anaesthesia. Venous blood samples were collected at strategic time points and plasma concentrations of alfaxalone were assayed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS) and analysed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis. The quality of anaesthetic induction and recovery was scored on a scale of 1–5 (1 very poor, 5 excellent).ResultsThe median (range) induction and recovery scores were 4 (3–5) (good: horse slowly and moderately gently attained recumbency with minimal or no rigidity or paddling) and 4 (1–5) (good: horse stood on first attempt with some knuckling and ataxia) respectively. The monitored cardiopulmonary variables were within the range expected for clinical equine anaesthesia. The mean ± SD durations of anaesthesia from induction to sternal recumbency and from induction to standing were 42.7 ± 8.4 and 47 ± 9.6 minutes, respectively. The mean ± SD plasma elimination half life (t_1/2), plasma clearance (Clp) and volume of distribution (V_d) for alfaxalone were 33.4 minutes, 37.1 ± 11.1 mL minute^?1 kg^?1 and 1.6 ± 0.4 L kg^?1, respectively.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone, in a 2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin formulation, provides anaesthesia with a short duration of recumbency that is characterised by a smooth induction and satisfactory recovery in the horse. As in other species, alfaxalone is rapidly cleared from the plasma in the horse.     

Alfaxalone for total intravenous anaesthesia in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy: a comparison of premedication with acepromazine or dexmedetomidine

ObjectiveTo describe alfaxalone total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) following premedication with buprenorphine and either acepromazine (ACP) or dexmedetomidine (DEX) in bitches undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designProspective, randomised, clinical study.AnimalsThirty-eight healthy female dogs.MethodsFollowing intramuscular buprenorphine (20 μg kg^?1) and acepromazine (0.05 mg kg^?1) or dexmedetomidine (approximately 10 μg kg^?1, adjusted for body surface area), anaesthesia was induced and maintained with intravenous alfaxalone. Oxygen was administered via a suitable anaesthetic circuit. Alfaxalone infusion rate (initially 0.07 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) was adjusted to maintain adequate anaesthetic depth based on clinical assessment. Alfaxalone boluses were given if required. Ventilation was assisted if necessary. Alfaxalone dose and physiologic parameters were recorded every 5 minutes. Depth of sedation after premedication, induction quality and recovery duration and quality were scored. A Student's t-test, Mann–Whitney U and Chi-squared tests determined the significance of differences between groups. Data are presented as mean ± SD or median (range). Significance was defined as p < 0.05.ResultsThere were no differences between groups in demographics; induction quality; induction (1.5 ± 0.57 mg kg^?1) and total bolus doses [1.2 (0 – 6.3) mg kg^?1] of alfaxalone; anaesthesia duration (131 ± 18 minutes); or time to extubation [16.6 (3–50) minutes]. DEX dogs were more sedated than ACP dogs. Alfaxalone infusion rate was significantly lower in DEX [0.08 (0.06–0.19) mg kg^?1 minute^?1] than ACP dogs [0.11 (0.07–0.33) mg kg^?1 minute^?1]. Cardiovascular variables increased significantly during ovarian and cervical ligation and wound closure compared to baseline values in both groups. Apnoea and hypoventilation were common and not significantly different between groups. Arterial haemoglobin oxygen saturation remained above 95% in all animals. Recovery quality scores were significantly poorer for DEX than for ACP dogs.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone TIVA is an effective anaesthetic for surgical procedures but, in the protocol of this study, causes respiratory depression at infusion rates required for surgery.     

The cardiopulmonary effects of anesthetic induction with isoflurane,ketamine‐diazepam or propofol‐diazepam in the hypovolemic dog

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the cardiopulmonary effects of induction of anesthesia with isoflurane (Iso), ketamine–diazepam (KD), or propofol–diazepam (PD) in hypovolemic dogs.Study designProspective randomized cross–over trial.AnimalsSix healthy intact, mixed breed, female dogs weighing 20.7 ± 4.2 kg and aged 22 ± 2 months.MethodsDogs had 30 mL kg^?1 of blood removed at a rate of 1.5 mL kg^?1 minute^?1 under isoflurane anesthesia. Following a 30–minute recovery period, anesthesia was reinduced. Dogs were assigned to one of three treatments: isoflurane via facemask using 0.5% incremental increases in the delivered concentration every 30 seconds, 1.25 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.0625 mg kg^?1 diazepam intravenously (IV) with doses repeated every 30 seconds as required, and 2 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam IV followed by 1 mg kg^?1 propofol increments IV every 30 seconds as required. Following endotracheal intubation all dogs received 1.7% end–tidal isoflurane in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded at baseline (before induction) and at 5 or 10 minute intervals following endotracheal intubation.ResultsInduction time was longer in Iso (4.98 ± 0.47 minutes) compared to KD (3.10 ± 0.47 minutes) or PD (3.22 ± 0.45 minutes). To produce anesthesia, KD received 4.9 ± 2.3 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.24 ± 0.1 mg kg^?1 diazepam, while PD received 2.2 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam. End–tidal isoflurane concentration immediately following intubation was 1.7 ± 0.4% in Iso. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were significantly higher in KD and PD compared to Iso and in KD compared to PD. Arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure was significantly higher in PD compared to KD and Iso immediately after induction.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn hypovolemic dogs, KD or PD, as used in this study to induce anesthesia, resulted in less hemodynamic depression compared to isoflurane.     

Sedative and analgesic effects of buprenorphine,combined with either acepromazine or dexmedetomidine,for premedication prior to elective surgery in cats and dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the sedative and analgesic effects of intramuscular buprenorphine with either dexmedetomidine or acepromazine, administered as premedication to cats and dogs undergoing elective surgery.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsForty dogs and 48 cats.MethodsAnimals were assigned to one of four groups, according to anaesthetic premedication and induction agent: buprenorphine 20 μg kg^?1 with either dexmedetomidine (dex) 250 μg m^?2 or acepromazine (acp) 0.03 mg kg^?1, followed by alfaxalone (ALF) or propofol (PRO). Meloxicam was administered preoperatively to all animals and anaesthesia was always maintained using isoflurane. Physiological measures and assessments of pain, sedation and mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) were made before and after premedication, intraoperatively, and for up to 24 hours after premedication. Data were analyzed with one-way, two-way and mixed between-within subjects anova, Kruskall–Wallis analyses and Chi squared tests. Results were deemed significant if p ≤ 0.05, except where multiple comparisons were performed (p ≤ 0.005).ResultsCats premedicated with dex were more sedated than cats premedicated with acp (p < 0.001) and ALF doses were lower in dex cats (1.2 ± 1.0 mg kg^?1) than acp cats (2.5 ± 1.9 mg kg^?1) (p = 0.041). There were no differences in sedation in dogs however PRO doses were lower in dex dogs (1.5 ± 0.8 mg kg^?1) compared to acp dogs (3.3 ± 1.1 mg kg^?1) (p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups with respect to pain scores or MNT for cats or dogs.ConclusionChoice of dex or acp, when given with buprenorphine, caused minor, clinically detectable, differences in various characteristics of anaesthesia, but not in the level of analgesia.Clinical relevanceA combination of buprenorphine with either acp or dex, followed by either PRO or ALF, and then isoflurane, accompanied by an NSAID, was suitable for anaesthesia in dogs and cats undergoing elective surgery. Choice of sedative agent may influence dose of anaesthetic induction agent.     

Clinical efficacy and cardiorespiratory effects of alfaxalone, or diazepam/fentanyl for induction of anaesthesia in dogs that are a poor anaesthetic risk

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and cardiorespiratory effects of alfaxalone as an anaesthetic induction agent in dogs with moderate to severe systemic disease.Study designRandomized prospective clinical study.AnimalsForty dogs of physical status ASA III-V referred for various surgical procedures.MethodsDogs were pre-medicated with intramuscular methadone (0.2 mg kg^?1) and allocated randomly to one of two treatment groups for induction of anaesthesia: alfaxalone (ALF) 1–2 mg kg^?1 administered intravenously (IV) over 60 seconds or fentanyl 5 μg kg^?1 with diazepam 0.2 mg kg^?1± propofol 1–2 mg kg^?1 (FDP) IV to allow endotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen and fentanyl infusion following both treatments. All dogs were mechanically ventilated to maintain normocapnia. Systolic blood pressure (SAP) was measured by Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after anaesthetic induction, but before isoflurane administration. Parameters recorded every 5 minutes throughout subsequent anaesthesia were heart and respiratory rates, end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide and isoflurane, oxygen saturation of haemoglobin and invasive systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure. Quality of anaesthetic induction and recovery were recorded. Continuous variables were assessed for normality and analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test. Repeated measures were log transformed and analyzed with repeated measures anova (p < 0.05).ResultsTreatment groups were similar for continuous and categorical data. Anaesthetic induction quality was good following both treatments. Pre-induction and post-induction systolic blood pressure did not differ between treatments and there was no significant change after induction. The parameters measured throughout the subsequent anaesthetic procedures did not differ between treatments. Quality of recovery was very, quite or moderately smooth.Conclusions and clinical relevanceInduction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone resulted in similar cardiorespiratory effects when compared to the fentanyl-diazepam-propofol combination and is a clinically acceptable induction agent in sick dogs.     

A dose titration study into the effects of diazepam or midazolam on the propofol dose requirements for induction of general anaesthesia in client owned dogs,premedicated with methadone and acepromazine

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of a benzodiazepine co–induction on propofol dose requirement for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs, to describe any differences between midazolam and diazepam and to determine an optimal benzodiazepine dose for co–induction.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded placebo controlled clinical trial.AnimalsNinety client owned dogs (ASA I–III, median body mass 21.5kg (IQR 10–33)) presented for anaesthesia for a variety of procedures.MethodsDogs were randomised to receive saline 0.1 mL kg^?1, midazolam or diazepam at 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 or 0.5 mg kg^?1. All dogs received 0.01 mg kg^?1 acepromazine and 0.2 mg kg^?1 methadone intravenously (IV). Fifteen minutes later, sedation was assessed and scored prior to anaesthetic induction. Propofol, 1 mg kg^?1, was administered IV, followed by the treatment drug. Further propofol was administered until endotracheal intubation was possible. Recorded data included patient signalment, sedation score, propofol dosage and any adverse reactions.ResultsMidazolam (all groups combined) significantly reduced propofol dose requirement compared to saline (p < 0.001) and diazepam (p = 0.008). Midazolam (0.4 mg kg^?1) significantly reduced propofol dose requirement (p = 0.014) compared to saline, however other doses failed to reach statistical significance. Diazepam did not significantly reduce propofol dose requirement compared to saline (p = 0.089). Dogs weighing <5 kg, regardless of treatment group, required a greater propofol dose than those weighing 5–40 kg (p = 0.002) and those >40 kg (p = 0.008). Dogs which were profoundly sedated required less propofol than those which were mildly sedated (p < 0.001) and adequately sedated (p = 0.003).Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam (0.4 mg kg^?1) given IV after 1 mg kg^?1 of propofol significantly reduced the further propofol dose required for intubation compared to saline. At the investigated doses, diazepam did not have significant propofol dose sparing effects.     

Comparison of the effects of methadone and butorphanol combined with acepromazine for canine gastroduodenoscopy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of gastroduodenoscopy in dogs premedicated with acepromazine in combination with butorphanol or methadone.Study designProspective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.AnimalsA group of 40 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were randomly allocated to one of two groups and give intramuscular acepromazine 0.02 mg kg^–1 combined with either butorphanol 0.3 mg kg^–1 (group ACEBUT) or methadone 0.2 mg kg^–1 (group ACEMET). General anaesthesia was induced with propofol and ketamine and maintained with sevoflurane (2.3%) in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded at 5 minute intervals during anaesthesia. Feasibility of the entire gastroduodenoscopy was evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) (primary outcome of the study). Lower oesophageal sphincter dilatation and duodenal intubation were scored. Pylorus diameter was measured with standard endoscopic inflatable balloons. Overall cardiovascular stability was assessed during anaesthesia, using a VAS (0-100), as was the presence of fluid in the oesophagus, regurgitation, need for mechanical ventilation, and intraoperative and postoperative rescue analgesia (secondary outcomes of the study). Differences between treatments were analysed with Mann–Whitney U, Student t test, Fisher exact test or mixed model analysis of variance as appropriate. Subsequently, feasibility VAS of the gastroduodenoscopy was assessed for noninferiority between groups. The noninferiority margin was set as –10.ResultsAll gastroduodenoscopies were successfully completed in both groups using an endoscope tip diameter of 12.8 mm in all but one dog. Feasibility of gastroduodenoscopy was evaluated as 2.9 ± 5.6 in group ACEBUT and 5.1 ± 5.8 in group ACEMET. No significant differences between groups were detected in any measured or assessed variables, and noninferiority was confirmed.Conclusion and clinical relevanceIn our study population, the effects of methadone and butorphanol when combined with acepromazine were comparable.     

Effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine on anaesthetic induction with alfaxalone – a clinical trial

ObjectiveTo document the effects of two doses of dexmedetomidine on the induction characteristics and dose requirements of alfaxalone.Study designRandomized controlled clinical trial.AnimalsSixty one client owned dogs, status ASA I-II.MethodsDogs were allocated randomly into three groups, receiving as pre-anaesthetic medication, no dexmedetomidine (D₀), 1 μg kg^?1 dexmedetomidine (D₁) intramuscularly (IM) or 3 μg kg^?1 dexmedetomidine IM (D₃). All dogs also received 0.2 mg kg^?1 methadone IM. Level of sedation was assessed prior to induction of anaesthesia. Induction of general anaesthesia was performed with alfaxalone administered intravenously to effect at a rate of 1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1; the required dose to achieve tracheal intubation was recorded. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary parameters were recorded throughout the anaesthetic period. Quality of intubation, induction and recovery of anaesthesia were recorded. Quantitative data were compared with one-way anova or Kruskal-Wallis test. Repeated measures were log-transformed and analysed with repeated measures anova (p < 0.05).ResultsTreatment groups were similar for categorical data, with exception of sedation level (p < 0.001). The doses (mean ± SD) of alfaxalone required for intubation were D₀ 1.68 ± 0.24, D₁ 1.60 ± 0.36 and D₃ 1.41 ± 0.43, the difference between D₀ and D₃ being statistically significant (p = 0.036). Heart and respiratory rates during the anaesthetic period were significantly different over time and between groups (p < 0.001); systolic arterial blood pressure was significantly different over time (p < 0.001) but not between groups (p = 0.833). Induction quality and recovery scores were similar between groups (p = 1.000 and p = 0.414, respectively).Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe administration of alfaxalone resulted in a good quality anaesthetic induction which was not affected by the dose of dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine at 3 μg kg^?1 IM combined with methadone provides good sedation and enables a reduction of alfaxalone requirements.     

A comparison of cardiopulmonary and anesthetic effects of an induction dose of alfaxalone or propofol in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the physiological parameters, arterial blood gas values, induction quality, and recovery quality after IV injection of alfaxalone or propofol in dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded crossover.AnimalsEight random-source adult female mixed-breed dogs weighing 18.7 ± 4.5 kg.MethodsDogs were assigned to receive up to 8 mg kg^?1 propofol or 4 mg kg^?1 alfaxalone, administered to effect, at 10% of the calculated dose every 10 seconds. They then received the alternate drug after a 6-day washout. Temperature, pulse rate, respiratory rate, direct blood pressure, and arterial blood gases were measured before induction, immediately post-induction, and at 5-minute intervals until extubation. Quality of induction, recovery, and ataxia were scored by a single blinded investigator. Duration of anesthesia and recovery, and adverse events were recorded.ResultsThe mean doses required for induction were 2.6 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1 alfaxalone and 5.2 ± 0.8 mg kg^?1 propofol. After alfaxalone, temperature, respiration, and pH were significantly lower, and PaCO₂ significantly higher post-induction compared to baseline (p < 0.03). After propofol, pH, PaO₂, and SaO₂ were significantly lower, and PaCO₂, HCO₃, and PA-aO₂ gradient significantly higher post-induction compared to baseline (p < 0.03). Post-induction and 5-minute physiologic and blood gas values were not significantly different between alfaxalone and propofol. Alfaxalone resulted in significantly longer times to achieve sternal recumbency (p = 0.0003) and standing (p = 0.0004) compared to propofol. Subjective scores for induction, recovery, and ataxia were not significantly different between treatments; however, dogs undergoing alfaxalone anesthesia were more likely to have ≥1 adverse event (p = 0.041). There were no serious adverse events in either treatment.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThere were no clinically significant differences in cardiopulmonary effects between propofol and alfaxalone. A single bolus of propofol resulted in shorter recovery times and fewer adverse events than a single bolus of alfaxalone.     

Comparison of the effects of propofol or alfaxalone for anaesthesia induction and maintenance on respiration in cats

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of propofol and alfaxalone on respiration in cats.Study designRandomized, ‘blinded’, prospective clinical trial.AnimalsTwenty cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy.MethodsAfter premedication with medetomidine 0.01 mg kg⁻¹ intramuscularly and meloxicam 0.3 mg kg⁻¹ subcutaneously, the cats were assigned randomly into two groups: group A (n = 10) were administered alfaxalone 5 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ followed by 10 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ intravenously (IV) and group P (n = 10) were administered propofol 6 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ followed by 12 mg kg⁻¹hour⁻¹ IV for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, respectively. After endotracheal intubation, the tube was connected to a non-rebreathing system delivering 100% oxygen. The anaesthetic maintenance drug rate was adjusted (± 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹) every 5 minutes according to a scoring sheet based on physiologic variables and clinical signs. If apnoea > 30 seconds, end-tidal carbon dioxide (Pe′CO₂) > 7.3 kPa (55 mmHg) or arterial haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) < 90% occurred, manual ventilation was provided. Methadone was administered postoperatively. Data were analyzed using independent-samples t-tests, Fisher's exact test, linear mixed-effects models and binomial test.ResultsManual ventilation was required in two and eight of the cats in group A and P, respectively (p = 0.02). Two cats in both groups showed apnoea. Pe′CO₂ > 7.3 kPa was recorded in zero versus four and SpO₂ < 90% in zero versus six cats in groups A and P respectively. Induction and maintenance dose rates (mean ± SD) were 11.6 ± 0.3 mg kg⁻¹ and 10.7 ± 0.8 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ for alfaxalone and 11.7 ± 2.7 mg kg⁻¹ and 12.4 ± 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ for propofol.Conclusion and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone had less adverse influence on respiration than propofol in cats premedicated with medetomidine. Alfaxalone might be better than propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia when artificial ventilation cannot be provided.     

Propofol and fentanyl infusions in dogs of various breeds undergoing surgery

ObjectiveTo report the cardiovascular variables, anaesthetic effects and recovery quality of an anaesthesia technique using variable rate infusion propofol combined with constant rate infusion fentanyl in dogs undergoing elective surgery.Study designProspective clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 27 dogs, aged 2.7 ± 2.65 years and weighing 24 ± 11 kg.MethodsFollowing intramuscular acepromazine (0.03 or 0.05 mg kg^?1) and subcutaneous carprofen (4 mg kg^?1) pre-medication, anaesthesia was induced with propofol (4.0 ± 0.5 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV). All dogs were ventilated with 100% oxygen to maintain normocapnia. Propofol was infused at 0.4 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 for 20 minutes and then at 0.3 mg kg^?1minute^?1. If mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) decreased below 70 mmHg, propofol infusion was reduced by 0.1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1. Five minutes after induction of anaesthesia, fentanyl was administered (2 μg kg^?1) IV followed by the infusion at 0.5 μg kg^?1 minute^?1 and atropine (40 μg kg^?1) IV. Heart rate, MAP, respiratory rate, tidal volume, end-tidal carbon dioxide, presence of reflexes, movements and recovery times and quality were recorded.ResultsMean anaesthetic duration was 131 ± 38.5 minutes. Mean heart rate peaked 10 minutes after atropine injection and gradually declined, reaching pre-anaesthetic values at 55 minutes. MAP easily was maintained above 70 mmHg. Mean times to return of spontaneous ventilation, extubation, head lift and sternal recumbency were 21 ± 10.1, 33 ± 14.6, 43 ± 19.7 and 65 ± 23.4 minutes, respectively. Recovery was smooth and quiet. The time to sternal recumbency was significantly correlated with the duration of anaesthesia and total dose of propofol; time to extubation was correlated to total dose of propofol.Conclusion and clinical relevancePropofol and fentanyl infusions provided stable cardiovascular function and satisfactory conditions for surgery. Some modifications of infusion rates are required to improve the long-recovery times.     

The effect of body condition on propofol requirement in dogs

ObjectiveTo determine if body condition score (BCS) influences the sedative effect of intramuscular (IM) premedication or the dose of intravenous (IV) propofol required to achieve endotracheal intubation in dogs.Study designProspective clinical study.AnimalsForty–six client–owned dogs undergoing general anaesthesia.MethodsDogs were allocated to groups according to their BCS (BCS, 1 [emaciated] to 9 [obese]): Normal–weight Group (NG, n = 25) if BCS 4–5 or Over–weight Group (OG, n = 21) if BCS over 6. Dogs were scored for sedation prior to IM injection of medetomidine (5 μg kg^?1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^?1) and twenty minutes later anaesthesia was induced by a slow infusion of propofol at 1.5 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 until endotracheal intubation could be achieved. The total dose of propofol administered was recorded. Data were tested for normality then analyzed using Student t–tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, chi–square tests or linear regression as appropriate.ResultsMean ( ± SD) propofol requirement in NG was 2.24 ± 0.53 mg kg^?1 and in OG was 1.83 ± 0.36 mg kg^?1. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (p = 0.005). The degree of sedation was not different between the groups (p = 0.7). Post–induction apnoea occurred in 11 of 25 animals in the NG and three of 21 in OG (p = 0.052).ConclusionsOverweight dogs required a lower IV propofol dose per kg of total body mass to allow tracheal intubation than did normal body condition score animals suggesting that IV anaesthetic doses should be calculated according to lean body mass. The lower dose per kg of total body mass may have resulted in less post–induction apnoea in overweight/obese dogs. The effect of IM premedication was not significantly affected by the BCS.Clinical relevanceInduction of general anaesthesia with propofol in overweight dogs may be expected at lower doses than normal–weight animals.     

Comparison of postoperative effects between lidocaine infusion,meloxicam, and their combination in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy

ObjectiveTo compare the postoperative analgesic effects of intravenous (IV) lidocaine, meloxicam, and their combination in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designProspective, randomized, double‐blind, controlled clinical trial.AnimalsTwenty‐seven dogs aged (mean ± SD) 16.1 ± 7.5 months and weighing 22.4 ± 17.9 kg scheduled for ovariohysterectomy.MethodsAnaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Dogs (n = 9 in each group) were allocated to receive just prior to and during surgery one of the following regimens: M group, 0.2 mg kg^?1 IV meloxicam then a continuous rate infusion (CRI) of lactated Ringer's at 10 mL kg^?1 hour^?1; L group, a bolus of lidocaine (1 mg kg^?1 IV) then a CRI of lidocaine at 0.025 mg kg^?1 minute^?1; and M + L group, both the above meloxicam and lidocaine treatments. Pain and sedation were scored, and venous samples taken for serum cortisol and glucose measurement before and at intervals for 12 hours after anaesthesia. Pain scores were assessed using a multi‐parameter subjective scoring scale (cumulative scale 0–21) by three observers. The protocol stated that dogs with a total score exceeding 9 or a sub‐score above 3 in any one category would receive rescue analgesia. Sedation was scored on a scale of 0–4.ResultsThere were no significant differences in subjective pain scores, serum cortisol, and glucose concentrations between the three groups. The highest pain score at any time was 5, and no dog required rescue analgesia. None of the three regimens caused any observable side effects during or after anaesthesia. At 1 and 2 hours after extubation dogs in group L were significantly more sedated than in the other two groups.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceThis study suggests that, with the scoring system used, IV lidocaine and meloxicam provide similar and adequate post‐operative analgesia in healthy dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.     

A comparison of cardiopulmonary effects and anaesthetic requirements of two dexmedetomidine continuous rate infusions in alfaxalone-anaesthetized Greyhounds

Objective

To determine the effects of two dexmedetomidine continuous rate infusions on the minimum infusion rate of alfaxalone for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), and subsequent haemodynamic and recovery effects in Greyhounds undergoing laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy.

Comparison of alfaxalone and propofol on haematological and serum biochemical variables in cats undergoing radiotherapy with sevoflurane maintenance

ObjectiveTo evaluate effects of repeated alfaxalone or propofol administration on haematological and serum biochemical variables in cats undergoing radiotherapy.Study designProspective, block-randomized, clinical trial.AnimalsA group of 39 client-owned cats.MethodsAfter butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^–1) and midazolam (0.1 mg kg^–1) sedation, cats were randomly assigned to receive either alfaxalone or propofol for induction of anaesthesia and sevoflurane maintenance. Cats were anaesthetized daily with the same induction agent for 10–12 days. Complete blood counts, reticulocytes, Heinz body score and serum biochemistry were performed before the first treatment (T1), at T6, T10 and 3 weeks after the final treatment (T21). Cumulative induction agent dose for each cat at each time point was evaluated for an effect on Heinz body score. Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation; p < 0.05.ResultsAt baseline there were no significant differences in signalment or blood variables between groups. A significant decrease in haematocrit of 2.3% ± 0.77 (p = 0.02) between T1-T6 and T1-T10 [mean 4.1% (± 0.78, p < 0.0001)] was detected, with a significant increase in haematocrit of 2.1% ± 0.80 (p = 0.046) between T6-T21 and 4.0% ± 0.8 (p < 0.001) between T10-T21. Heinz body score significantly increased by 1.86 ± 0.616 (p = 0.013) between T1-T10. In the propofol group, reticulocytes increased significantly between T1-T6 [mean 23,090 μL^–1 ± 7670 (p = 0.02)] and T1-T10 [mean 27,440 μL^–1 ± 7990 (p = 0.007)]. Mean cumulative dose at T10 was 19.65 mg kg^–1 ± 5.3 and 43.4 mg kg^–1 ± 14.4 for alfaxalone and propofol, respectively, with no significant effect on Heinz body formation at any time point.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceHaematocrit decreased in both groups with recovery after 3 weeks. Repeated alfaxalone and propofol administration was not associated with marked haematological or serum biochemistry changes.     

Plasma pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alfaxalone in neonatal foals after an intravenous bolus of alfaxalone following premedication with butorphanol tartrate

ObjectiveTo determine the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the neurosteroid anaesthetic, alfaxalone, in neonatal foals after a single intravenous (IV) injection of alfaxalone following premedication with butorphanol tartrate.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsFive clinically healthy Australian Stock Horse foals of mean ± SD age of 12 ± 3 days and weighing 67.3 ± 12.4 kg.MethodsFoals were premedicated with butorphanol (0.05 mg kg^?1 IV) and anaesthesia was induced 10 minutes later by IV injection with alfaxalone 3 mg kg^?1. Cardiorespiratory variables (pulse rate, respiratory rate, direct arterial blood pressure, arterial blood gases) and clinical signs of anaesthetic depth were evaluated throughout anaesthesia. Venous blood samples were collected at strategic time points and alfaxalone plasma concentrations were assayed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS) and analysed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis.ResultsThe harmonic, mean ± SD plasma elimination half life (t½) for alfaxalone was 22.8 ± 5.2 minutes. The observed mean plasma clearance (Cl_p) and volume of distribution (Vd) were 19.9 ± 5.9 mL minute kg^?1 and 0.6 ± 0.2 L kg^?1, respectively. Overall, the quality of the anaesthetic inductions and recoveries was good and most monitored physiological variables were clinically acceptable in all foals, although some foals became hypoxaemic for a short period following recumbency. The mean durations of anaesthesia from induction to first movement and from induction to standing were 18.7 ± 7 and 37.2 ± 4.7 minutes, respectively.ConclusionsThe anaesthetic protocol used provided a predictable and consistent plane of anaesthesia in the five foals studied, with minimal cardiovascular depression. In foals, as in the adult horse, alfaxalone has a short elimination half life.Clinical relevanceAlfaxalone appears to be an adequate anaesthetic induction agent in foals and the pharmacokinetics suggest that, with continuous infusion, it might be suitable to provide more prolonged anaesthesia. Oxygen supplementation is recommended.