Pharmacokinetics and effects on clinical and physiological parameters following a single bolus dose of propofol in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus)

The objectives of this study were (a) to establish a population pharmacokinetic model and (b) to investigate the clinical and physiological effects of a single bolus dose of propofol in common marmosets. In Study 1, pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in six marmosets under sevoflurane anaesthesia. 8 mg/kg of propofol was administrated at a rate of 4 mg kg^?1 min^?1. Blood samples were collected 2, 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120 or 180 min after starting propofol administration. Plasma concentration was measured, and population pharmacokinetic modelling was performed. A two‐compartment model was selected as the final model. The population pharmacokinetic parameters were as follows: V₁ = 1.14 L, V₂ = 77.6 L, CL₁ = 0.00182 L/min, CL₂ = 0.0461 L/min. In Study 2, clinical and physiological parameters were assessed and recorded every 2 min after 12 mg/kg of propofol was administrated at a rate of 4 mg kg^?1 min^?1. Immobilization was sustained for 5 min following propofol administration without apparent bradycardia. While combination of propofol and sevoflurane caused apnoea in Study 1, apnoea was not observed following single administration of propofol in Study 2. These data provide bases for further investigation on intravenous anaesthesia using propofol in common marmosets.     

Effect of anesthetic induction with propofol,alfaxalone or ketamine on intraocular pressure in cats: a randomized masked clinical investigation

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of propofol, alfaxalone and ketamine on intraocular pressure (IOP) in cats.Study designProspective, masked, randomized clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 43 ophthalmologically normal cats scheduled to undergo general anesthesia for various procedures.MethodsFollowing baseline IOP measurements using applanation tonometry, anesthesia was induced with propofol (n = 15), alfaxalone (n = 14) or ketamine (n = 14) administered intravenously to effect. Then, midazolam (0.3 mg kg^?1) was administered intravenously and endotracheal intubation was performed without application of topical anesthesia. The IOP was measured following each intervention. Data was analyzed using one-way anova and repeated-measures mixed design with post hoc analysis. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.ResultsMean ± standard error IOP at baseline was not different among groups (propofol, 18 ± 0.6; alfaxalone, 18 ± 0.7; ketamine, 17 ± 0.5 mmHg). Following induction of anesthesia, IOP increased significantly compared with baseline in the propofol (20 ± 0.7 mmHg), but not in the alfaxalone (19 ± 0.8 mmHg) or ketamine (16 ± 0.7 mmHg) groups. Midazolam administration resulted in significant decrease from the previous measurement in the alfaxalone group (16 ± 0.7 mmHg), but not in the propofol group (19 ± 0.7 mmHg) or the ketamine (16 ± 0.8 mmHg) group. A further decrease was measured after intubation in the alfaxalone group (15 ± 0.9 mmHg).Conclusions and clinical relevancePropofol should be used with caution in cats predisposed to perforation or glaucoma, as any increase in IOP should be avoided.     

Evaluation of different doses of propofol in xylazine pre-medicated horses

Objective To characterize responses to different doses of propofol in horses pre‐medicated with xylazine. Animals Six adult horses (five females and one male). Methods Each horse was anaesthetized four times with either ketamine or propofol in random order at 1‐week intervals. Horses were pre‐medicated with xylazine (1.1 mg kg^?1 IV over a minute), and 5 minutes later anaesthesia was induced with either ketamine (2.2 mg kg^?1 IV) or propofol (1, 2 and 4 mg kg^?1 IV; low, medium and high doses, respectively). Data were collected continuously (electrocardiogram) or after xylazine administration and at 5, 10 and 15 minutes after anaesthetic induction (arterial pressure, respiratory rate, pH, PaO₂, PaCO₂ and O₂ saturation). Anaesthetic induction and recovery were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Results Differences in the quality of anaesthesia were observed; the low dose of propofol resulted in a poorer anaesthetic induction that was insufficient to allow intubation, whereas the high dose produced an excellent quality of induction, free of excitement. Recorded anaesthesia times were similar between propofol at 2 mg kg^?1 and ketamine with prolonged and shorter recovery times after the high and low dose of propofol, respectively (p < 0.05; ketamine, 38 ± 7 minutes; propofol 1 mg kg^?1, 29 ± 4 minutes; propofol 2 mg kg^?1, 37 ± 5 minutes; propofol 4 mg kg^?1, 50 ± 7 minutes). Times to regain sternal and standing position were longest with the highest dose of propofol (32 ± 5 and 39 ± 7 minutes, respectively). Both ketamine and propofol reversed bradycardia, sinoatrial, and atrioventricular blocks produced by xylazine. There were no significant alterations in blood pressure but respiratory rate, and PaO₂ and O₂ saturation were significantly decreased in all groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion The anaesthetic quality produced by the three propofol doses varied; the most desirable effects, which were comparable to those of ketamine, were produced by 2 mg kg^?1 propofol.     

Propofol attenuates LPS-induced tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6 and nitric oxide expression in canine peripheral blood mononuclear cells possibly through down-regulation of nuclear factor (NF)-κB activation

Sepsis is a major cause of mortality in intensive care medicine. Propofol, an intravenous general anesthetic, has been suggested to have anti-inflammatory properties and able to prevent sepsis induced by Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria by down-regulating the gene expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines. However, propofol’s anti-inflammatory effects upon canine peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) have not yet been clarified. Here, we isolate canine PBMCs and investigate the effects of propofol on the gene expressions of both lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and upon the production of nitric oxide (NO). Through real-time quantitative PCR and the Griess reagent system, we found that non-cytotoxic levels of propofol significantly inhibited the release of NO and IL-6 and TNF-α gene expression in LPS-induced canine PBMCs. Western blotting revealed that LPS does significantly increase the expression of inducible NO synthase (iNOS) protein in canine PBMCs, while pretreatment with propofol significantly decreases the LPS-induced iNOS protein expression. Propofol, at concentration of 25 µM and 50 µM, also significantly inhibited the LPS-induced nuclear translocation of nuclear factor (NF)-κB p65 protein in canine PBMCs. This diminished TNF-α, IL-6 and iNOS expression, and NO production was in parallel to the respective decreased NF-κB p65 protein nuclear translocation in the LPS-activated canine PBMCs pretreated with 25 µM and 50 µM propofol. This suggests that non-cytotoxic levels of propofol pretreatment can down-regulate LPS-induced inflammatory responses in canine PBMCs, possibly by inhibiting the nuclear translocation of the NF-κB p65 protein.     

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.     

Laryngeal mask airway insertion requires less propofol than endotracheal intubation in dogs

OBJECTIVE: To compare the doses of propofol required for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with those for endotracheal intubation in sedated dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized prospective clinical study. Animals Sixty healthy dogs aged 0.33-8.5 (3.0 +/- 2.3, mean +/- SD) years, weighing 2.2-59.0 (23.4 +/- 13.6, mean +/- SD) kg, presented for elective surgery requiring inhalation anaesthesia. METHODS: Animals were randomly assigned to receive either a LMA or an endotracheal tube. Pre-anaesthetic medication was intravenous (IV) glycopyrrolate (0.01 mg kg(-1)) medetomidine (10 microg kg(-1)) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg(-1)). Repeated IV propofol injections (1 mg kg(-1) in 30 seconds) were given until LMA insertion or endotracheal intubation was achieved, when the presence or absence of laryngospasm, the respiratory rate (fr) and the total dose of propofol used were recorded. RESULTS: The total propofol dose (mean +/- SD) required for LMA insertion (0.53 +/- 0.51 mg kg(-1)) was significantly lower than for endotracheal intubation (1.43 +/- 0.57 mg kg(-1)). The LMA could be inserted without propofol in 47% of dogs; the remainder needed a single 1 mg kg(-1) bolus (n = 30). Endotracheal intubation was possible without propofol in 3.3% of the dogs, 47% needed one bolus and 50% required two injections (n = 30). The f(r) (mean +/- SD) was 18 +/- 6 and 15 +/- 7 minute(-1) after LMA insertion and intubation, respectively. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Laryngeal mask airway insertion requires less propofol than endotracheal intubation in sedated dogs therefore propofol-induced cardiorespiratory depression is likely to be less severe. The LMA is well tolerated and offers a less invasive means of securing the upper airway.     

Minimum infusion rate and hemodynamic effects of propofol, propofol-lidocaine and propofol-lidocaine-ketamine in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of a constant rate infusion (CRI) of lidocaine alone or in combination with ketamine on the minimum infusion rate (MIR) of propofol in dogs and to compare the hemodynamic effects produced by propofol, propofol-lidocaine or propofol-lidocaine-ketamine anesthesia.Study designProspective, randomized cross-over experimental design.AnimalsFourteen adult mixed-breed dogs weighing 15.8 ± 3.5 kg.MethodsEight dogs were anesthetized on different occasions to determine the MIR of propofol alone and propofol in combination with lidocaine (loading dose [LD] 1.5 mg kg^?1, CRI 0.25 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) or lidocaine (LD 1.5 mg kg^?1, CRI 0.25 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) and ketamine (LD 1 mg kg^?1, CRI 0.1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1). In six other dogs, the hemodynamic effects and bispectral index (BIS) were investigated. Each animal received each treatment (propofol, propofol-lidocaine or propofol-lidocaine-ketamine) on the basis of the MIR of propofol determined in the first set of experiments.ResultsMean ± SD MIR of propofol was 0.51 ± 0.08 mg kg^?1 minute^?1. Lidocaine-ketamine significantly decreased the MIR of propofol to 0.31 ± 0.07 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (37 ± 18% reduction), although lidocaine alone did not (0.42 ± 0.08 mg kg^?1 minute^?1, 18 ± 7% reduction). Hemodynamic effects were similar in all treatments. Compared with the conscious state, in all treatments, heart rate, cardiac index, mean arterial blood pressure, stroke index and oxygen delivery index decreased significantly, whereas systemic vascular resistance index increased. Stroke index was lower in dogs treated with propofol-lidocaine-ketamine at 30 minutes compared with propofol alone. The BIS was lower during anesthesia with propofol-lidocaine-ketamine compared to propofol alone.Conclusions and clinical relevanceLidocaine-ketamine, but not lidocaine alone, reduced the MIR of propofol in dogs. Neither lidocaine nor lidocaine in combination with ketamine attenuated cardiovascular depression produced by a continuous rate infusion of propofol.     

Comparison of alfaxalone and propofol administered as total intravenous anaesthesia for ovariohysterectomy in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the anaesthetic and cardiopulmonary effects of alfaxalone with propofol when used for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) during ovariohysterectomy in dogs.Study designA prospective non-blinded randomized clinical study.AnimalsFourteen healthy female crossbred bitches, aged 0.5–5 years and weight 16–42 kg.MethodsDogs were premedicated with acepromazine 0.01 mg kg^?1 and morphine 0.4 mg kg^?1. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained with either propofol or alfaxalone to effect for tracheal intubation followed by an infusion of the same agent. Dogs breathed spontaneously via a ‘circle’ circuit, with oxygen supplementation. Cardiopulmonary parameters (respiratory and heart rates, end-tidal carbon dioxide, tidal volume, and invasive blood pressures) were measured continuously and recorded at intervals related to the surgical procedure. Arterial blood samples were analysed for blood gas values. Quality of induction and recovery, and recovery times were determined. Non-parametric data were tested for significant differences between groups using the Mann–Whitney U-test and repeatedly measured data (normally distributed) for significant differences between and within groups by anova.ResultsBoth propofol and alphaxalone injection and subsequent infusions resulted in smooth, rapid induction and satisfactory maintenance of anaesthesia. Doses for induction (mean ± SD) were 5.8 ± 0.30 and 1.9 ± 0.07 mg kg^?1 and for the CRIs, 0.37 ± 0.09 and 0.11 ± 0.01 mg kg^?1 per minute for propofol and alfaxalone respectively. Median (IQR) recovery times were to sternal 45 (33–69) and 60 (46–61) and to standing 74 (69–76) and 90 (85–107) for propofol and alphaxalone respectively. Recovery quality was good. Cardiopulmonary effects did not differ between groups. Hypoventilation occurred in both groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceFollowing premedication with acepromazine and morphine, both propofol and alphaxalone produce good quality anaesthesia adequate for ovariohysterectomy. Hypoventilation occurs suggesting a need for ventilatory support during prolonged infusion periods with either anaesthetic agent.     

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.