Comparison of sevoflurane and isoflurane anesthetic index in unpremedicated dogs

Anesthetic respiratory effects of sevoflurane (SEVO) were compared with isoflurane (ISO) in unpremedicated dogs. Minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), apneic concentration (AC), and anesthetic index (AI) of SEVO and ISO were determined in eight 1‐year‐old healthy dogs, weighing 19 ± 3 kg (mean ± SEM) in a randomized complete block multiple cross‐over design. Dogs were mask‐induced with either SEVO or ISO in 100% oxygen. Following endotracheal intubation, dogs were instrumented, mechanically ventilated, and MAC was determined using a tail‐clamp method. Next, spontaneous ventilation was re‐established, and anesthetic concentration was increased to determine the AC. Throughout the anesthetic event, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SAP), mean blood pressure (MAP), diastolic blood pressure (DAP), respiratory rate (RR), end‐tidal carbon dioxide (Pe ′CO₂), and oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO₂) were recorded at 3‐minute intervals. Following AC determination, AI was calculated as AC/MAC, and dogs were allowed to recover. Each dog was anesthetized four times (twice with ISO and SEVO each) at 1‐week intervals. All data were analyzed using the two‐way anova . Multiple comparisons were performed between ISO and SEVO treatments. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Significant differences were noted between agents for MAC (SEVO, 2.13 ± 0.10%; ISO, 1.38 ± 0.14%; p < 0.0001), AC (SEVO, 7.34 ± 0.13%; ISO, 3.60 ± 0.13%; p < 0.0001), and AI (SEVO, 3.46 ± 0.22; ISO, 2.63 ± 0.14; p = 0.0002). Physiologic parameters were compared between SEVO and ISO at 1MAC, 2MAC, 3MAC, and AC. No differences were noted between SEVO and ISO treatments for cardiovascular parameters (HR, SAP, MAP, DAP). Significant differences were noted, favoring SEVO, for all respiratory parameters (RR, Pe ′CO₂, SpO₂) at increasing MAC multiples. Additionally, regression analysis was conducted for physiologic variable data points. Analysis of Pe ′CO₂ data points demonstrated a significant slope difference of ?6.47 ± 1.02 (B_SEVO ? B_ISO; p < 0.0001; r² = 0.6042) favoring SEVO. While expected dose‐related ventilatory depression was noted for both agents, all the respiratory parameters for SEVO demonstrated less respiratory depression than ISO at equipotent doses. These results indicated that SEVO caused less dose‐dependent ventilatory depression than ISO, having a significantly higher AI and causing less detrimental change in pulmonary parameters at increasing levels of MAC.