Chemical restraint by medetomidine and medetomidine–midazolam and its reversal by atipamezole in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata)

Objective To evaluate the sedative effects of medetomidine, and a medetomidine–midazolam combination, in Japanese macaques and the antagonism of medetomidine–midazolam with atipamezole. Study design Prospective randomized study. Animals Thirteen healthy Japanese macaques between 3 and 21 years old and weighing between 4.3 and 15.1 kg. Methods Medetomidine (120 µg kg^?1) alone or a medetomidine (30 µg kg^?1) plus midazolam (0.3 mg kg^?1) mixture were injected intramuscularly in the hind limb of 12 animals (n = 6 for each group) and their effects, particularly behavioural changes, response to external stimuli, sedative onset time, time to lateral recumbency and time in lateral recumbency, were monitored for 120 minutes. Another group (n = 7) were given medetomidine–midazolam and injected 30 minutes later with atipamezole (120 µg kg^?1). Behavioural changes and responses to external stimuli were assessed as before. Results Animals given medetomidine became sedated but could be aroused by external stimuli. Despite the lower (25%) dose of medetomidine involved, the effects of medetomidine–midazolam were more marked. Macaques given this combination became sedated in 4 ± 2 minutes (mean ± SD) and remained unresponsive to external stimuli for at least 60 minutes. Five out of six macaques became laterally recumbent for 74 ± 37 minutes. Intramuscular atipamezole effectively reversed sedation, shortening the arousal and total recovery time. The recovery from sedation was rapid and smooth, being completed 19 ± 11 minutes after antagonism. Conclusions The medetomidine–midazolam combination described provided useful chemical restraint and may prove useful in macaques undergoing some experimental, diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. The use of atipamezole as an antagonist increases the value of this technique in macaques.     

A comparison of two combinations of xylazine-ketamine administered intramuscularly to alpacas and of reversal with tolazoline

ObjectiveTo evaluate the anesthetic and cardiorespiratory effects of two doses of intramuscular (IM) xylazine/ketamine in alpacas, and to determine if tolazoline would reduce the anesthetic recovery time.Study designProspective randomized crossover study.AnimalsSix castrated male alpacas.MethodsEach alpaca received a low dose (LD) (0.8 mg kg⁻¹ xylazine and 8 mg kg⁻¹ ketamine IM) and high dose (HD) (1.2 mg kg⁻¹ xylazine and 12 mg kg⁻¹ ketamine IM) with a minimum of one week between trials. Time to sedation, duration of lateral recumbency and analgesia, pulse rate, respiratory rate, hemoglobin oxygen saturation, arterial blood pressure, blood-gases, and the electrocardiogram were monitored and recorded during anesthesia. With each treatment three alpacas were randomly selected to receive tolazoline (2 mg kg⁻¹ IM) after 30 minutes of lateral recumbency.ResultsOnset of sedation, lateral recumbency and analgesia was rapid with both treatments. The HD was able to provide ≥30 minutes of anesthesia in five of six alpacas. The LD provided ≥30 minutes of anesthesia in three of six alpacas. Respiratory depression and hypoxemia occurred with the HD treatment during the first 10 minutes of lateral recumbency: two animals were severely hypoxemic and received nasal oxygen for 5 minutes. Heart rate decreased, but there were no significant changes in arterial blood pressure. Tolazoline significantly shortened the duration of recumbency with the HD.ConclusionsThe HD provided more consistent clinical effects in alpacas than the LD. Intramuscular tolazoline shortened the duration of lateral recumbency in alpacas anesthetized with the HD combination.Clinical relevanceBoth doses of the combination were effective in providing restraint in alpacas and the duration of restraint was dose dependent. Supplemental oxygen should be available if using the HD and IM administration of tolazoline will shorten the recovery time.     

Epidural ketamine in the dromedary camel

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical and physiological effects of epidural injection of ketamine in camels.Study designRandomized prospective study.AnimalsTen healthy immature male dromedary camels.MethodsKetamine was administered epidurally at doses of 1 and 2 mg kg^?1 (five animals in each treatment). The drug was injected into the first intercoccygeal epidural space. Anti-nociception, sedation, ataxia, and effect on cardiopulmonary, rectal temperature and some selected haematological parameters were recorded at different intervals before (baseline) and after the drug administration. Data were analyzed by anova or U Mann–Whitney tests, as relevant and significance was taken as p < 0.05.ResultsEpidural ketamine at the 2 mg kg^?1 dose produced complete anti-nociception in the tail, anus and perineum, whilst the 1 mg kg^?1 dose produced complete anti-nociception only in the tail. Epidural ketamine resulted in mild to moderate sedation at the 1 mg kg^?1 dose and deep sedation at the 2 mg kg^?1 dose. Ataxia was observed in all test subjects and was severe, resulting in recumbency, in the 2 mg kg^?1 group. Respiratory rate and rectal temperature did not change significantly after injection of either treatment. Following epidural injection of 2 mg kg^?1 of ketamine, heart rate increased significantly from the pre-injection baseline of 55 ± 2 to 76 ± 4 (mean ± SD) beats minute^?1, but after the lower dose changes were not significant. The only significant changes in measured haematologic parameters were decreases in total erythrocyte count at 45 minutes and total leukocyte count from 45–75 minutes, in the 2 mg kg^?1 group.ConclusionEpidural ketamine injection was associated with caudal anti-nociception, sedation and ataxia in the dromedary camels; the intensity and duration of which was dose dependant.Clinical relevanceNeither of the doses of epidural ketamine injection in our study was applicable for standing surgical procedures in dromedary camels.     

Midazolam,as a co‐induction agent,has propofol sparing effects but also decreases systolic blood pressure in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of the co-administration of midazolam on the dose requirement for propofol anesthesia induction, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and the incidence of excitement.Study designProspective, randomized, controlled and blinded clinical study, with owner consent.AnimalsSeventeen healthy, client owned dogs weighing 28 ± 18 kg and aged 4.9 ± 3.9 years old.MethodsDogs were sedated with acepromazine 0.025 mg kg^?1 and morphine 0.25 mg kg^?1 intramuscularly (IM), 30 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to receive midazolam (MP; 0.2 mg kg^?1) or sterile normal saline (CP; 0.04 mL kg^?1) intravenously (IV) over 15 seconds. Propofol was administered IV immediately following test drug and delivered at 3 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 until intubation was possible. Scoring of pre-induction sedation, ease of intubation, quality of induction, and presence or absence of excitement following co-induction agent, was recorded. HR, SAP and respiratory rate (f_R) were obtained immediately prior to, immediately following, and 5 minutes following induction of anesthesia.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with regard to weight, age, gender, or sedation. Excitement occurred in 5/9 dogs following midazolam administration, with none noted in the control group. The dose of propofol administered to the midazolam group was significantly less than in the control group. Differences in HR were not significant between groups. SAP was significantly lower in the midazolam group compared with baseline values 5 minutes after its administration. However, values remained clinically acceptable.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe co-administration of midazolam with propofol decreased the total dose of propofol needed for induction of anesthesia in sedated healthy dogs, caused some excitement and a clinically unimportant decrease in SAP.     

Dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in critically ill dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥III dogs requiring emergency abdominal surgery.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 19 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were sedated with fentanyl (2 μg kg^–1) intravenously (IV) for instrumentation for measurement of heart rate, arterial blood pressure, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate and rectal temperature. After additional IV fentanyl (3 μg kg^–1), the quality of sedation was scored and cardiopulmonary variables recorded. Induction of anesthesia was with IV propofol (1 mg kg^–1) and saline (0.06 mL kg^–1; group PS; nine dogs) or midazolam (0.3 mg kg^–1; group PM; 10 dogs), with additional propofol (0.25 mg kg^–1) IV every 6 seconds until endotracheal intubation. Induction/intubation quality was scored, and anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane. Variables were recorded for 5 minutes with the dog in lateral recumbency, breathing spontaneously, and then in dorsal recumbency with mechanical ventilation for the next 15 minutes. A general linear mixed model was used with post hoc analysis for multiple comparisons between groups (p < 0.05).ResultsThere were no differences in group demographics, temperature and cardiopulmonary variables between groups or within groups before or after induction. The propofol doses for induction of anesthesia were significantly different between groups, 1.9 ± 0.5 and 1.1 ± 0.5 mg kg^–1 for groups PS and PM, respectively, and the induction/intubation score was significantly better for group PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam co-induction reduced the propofol induction dose and improved the quality of induction in critically ill dogs without an improvement in cardiopulmonary variables, when compared with a higher dose of propofol alone.     

Midazolam enhances the analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine in the rat

ObjectiveTo investigate the analgesic properties of different dose combinations of midazolam and dexmedetomidine administered intraperitoneally (IP) in the rat.Study designProspective experimental trial.AnimalsSeventy adult male Sprague Dawley rats weighing 250-300 g.MethodsDexmedetomidine (D) 0.03, 0.06, 0.09, 0.12, 0.15, 0.18, 0.21 mg kg^?1 and midazolam (M) 5, 10, 25, 50 mg kg^?1 were administered IP, alone then in combinations ranging from 0.03 D:5 M to 0.18 D:30 M mg kg^?1. Analgesia was evaluated using the tail-flick test at time 0 (before injection), 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 minutes.ResultsMidazolam at all doses administered (5-50 mg kg^?1) did not significantly change tail-flick latencies from baseline values whereas D showed clear dose-dependent increases in tail-flick latency for doses administered in the range of 0.03-0.18 mg kg^?1. Tail-flick latencies in rats administered D + M combinations were significantly greater than D alone (p<0.05).ConclusionsA dose-related analgesic effect was demonstrated for D in the rat, which was enhanced by co-administration of M.Clinical relevanceThe combination of D + M administered IP to rats at doses of 0.12:20 and 0.09:15 mg kg^?1 was shown to be a good combination to provide sedation/analgesia with a duration of action greater than 60 minutes. The onset of sedation was rapid (1-3 minutes), and onset of profound analgesia was reached within 5-10 minutes.     

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.     

Clinical evaluation of intranasal benzodiazepines, alpha-agonists and their antagonists in canaries

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of intranasal benzodiazepines (midazolam and diazepam), alpha(2)-agonists (xylazine and detomidine) and their antagonists (flumazenil and yohimbine) in canaries. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized study. ANIMALS: Twenty-six healthy adult domesticated canaries of both sexes, weighing 18.3 +/- 1.0 g. METHODS: In Study 1 an attempt was made to determine the dose of each drug that allowed treated canaries to be laid in dorsal recumbency for at least 5 minutes, i.e. its effective dose. This involved the evaluation of various doses, during which equal volumes of the tested drug were administered slowly into each nostril. In study 2 the onset of action, duration and quality of sedation induced by each drug at its effective dose were evaluated. The efficacy of flumazenil and yohimbine in antagonizing the effects of the sedative drugs was also studied. RESULTS: In study 1 administration of 25 microL per nostril diazepam (5 mg mL(-1) solution) or midazolam (5 mg mL(-1) solution) to each bird caused adequate sedation within 1-2 minutes; birds did not move when placed in dorsal recumbency. After administration of 12 microL per nostril of either xylazine (20 mg mL(-1)) or detomidine (10 mg mL(-1)), birds seemed heavily sedated and assumed sternal recumbency but could not be placed in dorsal recumbency. Higher doses of xylazine (0.5 mg per nostril) or detomidine (0.25 mg per nostril) prolonged sedation but did not produce dorsal recumbency. In study 2 in all treatment groups, onset of action was rapid. Duration of dorsal recumbency was significantly longer (p < 0.05) with diazepam (38.4 +/- 10.5 minutes) than midazolam (17.1 +/- 2.2 minutes). Intranasal flumazenil (2.5 microg per nostril) significantly reduced recumbency time. Duration of sedation was longer with alpha(2)-agonists compared with benzodiazepines. Detomidine had the longest duration of effect (257.5 +/- 1.5 minutes) and midazolam the shortest (36.9 +/- 2.4 minutes). Nasally administered flumazenil significantly reduced the duration of sedation with diazepam and midazolam while yohimbine (120 microg per nostril) effectively antagonized the effects of xylazine and detomidine. CONCLUSION: Intranasal benzodiazepines produce rapid and effective sedation in canaries. Intranasal alpha(2) agonists produce sedation but not sustained recumbency. Specific antagonists are also effective when used by this route. Clinical relevance Intranasal sedative drug administration is an acceptable alternative method of drug delivery in canaries.     

Induction dose and recovery quality of propofol and alfaxalone with or without midazolam coinduction followed by total intravenous anesthesia in dogs

Objectives

To compare propofol and alfaxalone, with or without midazolam, for induction of anesthesia in fentanyl-sedated dogs, and to assess recovery from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA).

The effects of diazepam or midazolam on the dose of propofol required to induce anaesthesia in cats

ObjectivesAssess effects of benzodiazepine administration on the propofol dose required to induce anaesthesia in healthy cats, investigate differences between midazolam and diazepam, and determine an optimal benzodiazepine dose for co-induction.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.AnimalsNinety client-owned cats (ASA I and II) with a median (interquartile range) body mass of 4.0 (3.4–4.9) kg.MethodsAll cats received 0.01 mg kg⁻¹ acepromazine and 0.2 mg kg⁻¹ methadone intravenously (IV). Fifteen minutes later, sedation was scored on a scale of 1–5, with 5 indicating greatest sedation. Propofol, 2 mg kg⁻¹, administered IV, was followed by either midazolam or diazepam at 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 or 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ or saline 0.1 mL kg⁻¹. Further propofol was administered until endotracheal intubation was possible. Patient signalment, sedation score, propofol dosage and adverse reactions were recorded.ResultsMidazolam and diazepam (all doses) significantly reduced the propofol dose required compared with saline (p < 0.001). There was no difference between midazolam and diazepam in propofol dose reduction (p = 0.488). All individual doses of midazolam reduced propofol requirement compared with saline (0.2 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.028; 0.3 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.006; 0.4 mg kg⁻¹, p < 0.001; 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.009). Diazepam 0.2 mg kg⁻¹ did not reduce the propofol dose compared with saline (p = 0.087), but the remaining doses did (0.3 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.001; 0.4 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.032; 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.041). Cats with sedation scores of 3 required less propofol than cats with scores of 2 (p = 0.008). There was no difference between groups in adverse events.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam (0.2–0.5 mg kg⁻¹) and diazepam (0.3–0.5 mg kg⁻¹) administered IV after 2 mg kg⁻¹ propofol significantly reduced the propofol dose required for tracheal intubation.     

Effects of altering the sequence of midazolam and propofol during co‐induction of anaesthesia

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of varying the sequence of midazolam and propofol administration on the quality of induction, cardiorespiratory parameters and propofol requirements in dogs.Study designRandomized, controlled, clinical study.AnimalsThirty‐three client owned dogs (ASA I‐III, 0.5–10 years, 5–30 kg).MethodsDogs were premedicated with acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.4 mg kg^?1) intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, group midazolam‐propofol (MP) received midazolam (0.25 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV) before propofol (1 mg kg^?1) IV, group propofol‐midazolam (PM) received propofol before midazolam IV at the same doses, and control group (CP) received saline IV, instead of midazolam, before propofol. Supplementary boluses of propofol (0.5 mg kg^?1) were administered to effect to all groups until orotracheal intubation was completed. Behaviour after midazolam administration, quality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were scored. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, and systolic arterial blood pressure were recorded before premedication, post‐premedication, after midazolam or saline administration, and at 0, 2, 5, and 10 minutes post‐intubation. End‐tidal CO₂ and arterial oxygen haemoglobin saturation were recorded at 2, 5 and 10 minutes post‐intubation.ResultsQuality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were similar in all groups. Incidence of excitement was higher in the MP compared to CP (p = 0.014) and PM (p = 0.026) groups. Propofol requirements were decreased in MP and PM groups with respect to CP (p < 0.001), and in PM compared to MP (p = 0.022). The HR decreased after premedication in all groups, and increased after midazolam and subsequent times in MP (p = 0.019) and PM (p = 0.001) groups. Incidence of apnoea and paddling was higher in CP (p = 0.005) and MP (p = 0.031) groups than in PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAdministration of midazolam before propofol reduced propofol requirements although caused mild excitement in some dogs. Administration of propofol before midazolam resulted in less excitatory phenomena and greater reduction of propofol requirements.     

Chemical immobilization of Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) by ketamine/midazolam combination

ObjectiveTo provide reliable, effective immobilization for Weddell seals under extreme field conditions using an injectable ketamine/midazolam combination.Study designObservational study.AnimalsThirty adult Weddell seals (12 male, 18 female) in Erebus Bay, Antarctica, body mass (mean ± SD) 412 ± 47 kg, aged 9–27 years.MethodsSeals were immobilized with a target dose of 2 mg kg^?1 ketamine hydrochloride and 0.1 mg kg^?1 midazolam hydrochloride (IM), based on visually estimated body mass. When required, maintenance doses were administered at a target of 0.5 mg kg^?1 ketamine hydrochloride and 0.025 mg kg^?1 midazolam hydrochloride (IV).ResultsComplete immobilization was achieved in 33 of 40 injections (14 of which were repeat events on the same individual). Time to immobilization averaged 12 ± 4 minutes, with a duration of initial immobility of 38 ± 19 minutes. Total immobilization time varied by handling protocol, including condition assessment and muscle biopsy (Protocol 1, 60 ± 13 minutes), condition assessment and instrument attachment (Protocol 2, 154 ± 13 minutes), and condition assessment, muscle biopsy and instrument retrieval (Protocol 3, 48 ± 8 minutes). Overall, a total immobilization time of 114 ± 60 minutes was accomplished with 4 ± 4 maintenance doses, and an average recovery time of 36 ± 17 minutes. Most effects of the anesthetic combination were unrelated to mass, age, sex or total body fat. However, leaner seals had longer duration of initial immobility (% and kg total body fat) and recovery times (kg fat). Apnea events were uncommon and treated effectively with doxapram. No animals died.Conclusions and clinical relevanceReliable and effective field immobilization of Weddell seals was accomplished with a low dose of ketamine hydrochloride and midazolam hydrochloride, utilizing IM injection initially and IV maintenance methods.     

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.     

Sublingual administration of detomidine to calves prior to disbudding: a comparison with the intravenous route

ObjectiveTo study the effects of oromucosal detomidine gel administered sublingually to calves prior to disbudding, and to compare its efficacy with intravenously (IV) administered detomidine.Study designRandomised, prospective clinical study.AnimalsTwenty dairy calves aged 12.4 ± 4.4days (mean ± SD), weight 50.5 ± 9.0 kg.MethodsDetomidine at 80 μg kg^?1 was administered to ten calves sublingually (GEL) and at 30 μg kg^?1 to ten control calves IV (V. jugularis). Meloxicam (0.5 mg kg^?1) and local anaesthetic (lidocaine 3 mg kg^?1) were administered before heat cauterization of horn buds. Heart rate (HR), body temperature and clinical sedation were monitored over 240 minutes. Blood was collected from the V. cephalica during the same period for drug concentration analysis. Pharmacokinetic variables were calculated from the plasma detomidine concentration-time data using non-compartmental methods. Statistical analyses compared routes of administration by Student’s t-test and linear mixed models as relevant.ResultsThe maximum plasma detomidine concentration after GEL was 2.1 ± 1.2 ng mL^?1 (mean ±SD) and the time of maximum concentration was 66.0 ± 36.9 minutes. The bioavailability of detomidine was approximately 34% with GEL. Similar sedation scores were reached in both groups after administration of detomidine, but maximal sedation was reached earlier in the IV group (10 minutes) than in the GEL group (40 minutes). HR was lower after IV than GEL from 5 to 10 minutes after administration. All animals were adequately sedated, and we were able to administer local anaesthetic without resistance to all of the calves before disbudding.Conclusions and clinical relevanceOromucosally administered detomidine is an effective sedative agent for calves prior to disbudding.     

Sedative, cardiovascular, haematologic and biochemical effects of four different drug combinations administered intramuscularly in cats

ObjectiveTo compare effects of four drug combinations on sedation, echocardiographic, haematologic and biochemical variables and recovery in cats.Study designExperimental randomized ‘blinded’ cross-over study.AnimalsSix healthy cats.Materials and MethodsTreatments were administered intramuscularly: midazolam 0.4 mg kg^?1 and butorphanol 0.4 mg kg^?1 (MB); midazolam 0.4 mg kg^?1, butorphanol 0.4 mg kg^?1 and ketamine 3 mg kg^?1 (MBK); midazolam 0.4 mg kg^?1, butorphanol 0.4 mg kg^?1 and dexmedetomidine 5 μg kg^?1 (MBD); ketamine 3 mg kg^?1 and dexmedetomidine 5 μg kg^?1(KD). Sedation was evaluated at time-points over 10 minutes post injection. Echocardiography, systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) measurement and blood sampling were performed at baseline and from 10 minutes after treatment. Quality of recovery was scored. Data were analysed by anova for repeated measures. p < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThe lowest sedation score was obtained by MB, (median 10.5 [7; 20]), highest by KD (36.5 [32; 38]). Quality of recovery was best with KD (0.5 [0; 2]), and worst with MB (7.5 [4; 11]). Relative to baseline measurements, treatments decreased SAP by 17%, 25%, 13%, 5% in MB, MBK, MBD and KD, respectively. Heart rate decreased (p < 0.05) after MBD (44%) and KD (34%). All treatments decreased stroke volume by 24%, 21%, 24%, 36%, and cardiac output by 23%, 34%, 54%, 53% in MB, MBK, MBD and KD, respectively. Packed cell volume was decreased (p < 0.05) by 20%, 31%, 29% in MBK, MBD and KD, respectively. Plasma glucose was increased after MBD (31%) and KD (52%) and lactate concentration was decreased (p < 0.05) after MBK (58%), MBD (72%) and KD (65%).Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe MB combination did not produce sedation in healthy cats. Treatment MBK led to acceptable sedation and minimal cardiovascular changes. Both treatments with dexmedetomidine produced excellent sedation and recovery but induced more cardiovascular depression and haematologic changes.     

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.     

Effects of different doses of L-659'066 on the bispectral index and clinical sedation in dogs treated with dexmedetomidine

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of three doses of L-659’066 (MK-467) on the bispectral index (BIS) and clinical sedation in dexmedetomidine-sedated Beagles.Study designRandomized, experimental cross over study.AnimalsEight purpose-bred healthy laboratory Beagles.MethodsDexmedetomidine (10 μg kg^?1 IV [DEX]) was administered alone or in combination with three doses of L-659’066 (250 μg kg^?1 [DL250]; 500 μg kg^?1 [DL500] and 750 μg kg^?1 [DL750] IV) in the same syringe in a randomized crossover manner. The bispectral index (BIS), electromyography (EMG) and sedation score were recorded at baseline and 5, 10, 20, 30, 45 and 60 minutes after treatment.ResultsWhen compared to DEX, BIS and EMG were significantly higher and the sedation score significantly lower with DL500 and DL750. With DEX, BIS was significantly decreased at times 20, 30 and 60 minutes whereas the sedation scores were significantly increased at all time points after drug administration in all groups. Bioequivalence for clinical sedation was detected between DEX and all doses of L-659’066, reaching European Medicines Agency (EMA) standards.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlthough L-659’066 interfered with dexmedetomidine induced sedation, the degree of the reduction was not clinically relevant. Despite performing better when dexmedetomidine was used alone, BIS did not reflect the clinical sedative status when the antagonist was added.