Alfaxalone induction dose following administration of medetomidine and butorphanol in the dog

ObjectiveTo determine in dogs the effects of medetomidine and butorphanol, alone and in combination, on the induction dose of alfaxalone and to describe the induction and intubation conditions.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical trial.AnimalsEighty-five client-owned dogs (ASA 1 or 2).MethodsSubjects were block randomized to treatment group according to temperament. The treatment groups were: medetomidine 4 μg kg^?1 (M), butorphanol 0.1 mg kg^?1 (B), or a combination of both (MB), all administered intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, a sedation score was assigned, and alfaxalone 0.5 mg kg^?1 was administered intravenously over 60 seconds by an observer who was unaware of treatment group. Tracheal intubation conditions were assessed and, if tracheal intubation was not possible after 20 seconds, further boluses of 0.2 mg kg^?1 were given every 20 seconds until intubation was achieved. Induction dose and adverse events (sneezing, twitching, paddling, excitement, apnoea and cyanosis) were recorded; induction quality and intubation conditions were scored and recorded.ResultsThe mean dose of alfaxalone required for induction was similar for groups M and B: 1.2 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1. The mean dose requirement for group MB (0.8 ± 0.3 mg kg^?1) was lower than groups M and B (p < 0.0001). Induction dose was not influenced by temperament or level of sedation. Induction and intubation scores did not differ between treatment groups. Adverse events were noted in 16 dogs; there was no association with treatment group, temperament or level of sedation.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMedetomidine and butorphanol administered in combination reduce the anaesthetic induction dose of alfaxalone compared to either agent alone. This difference should be taken into account when using this combination of drugs in a clinical setting.     

Effects of vatinoxan in dogs premedicated with medetomidine and butorphanol followed by sevoflurane anaesthesia: a randomized clinical study

ObjectiveTo investigate effects of vatinoxan in dogs, when administered as intravenous (IV) premedication with medetomidine and butorphanol before anaesthesia for surgical castration.Study designA randomized, controlled, blinded, clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 28 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with medetomidine (0.125 mg m^?2) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^?1) (group MB; n = 14), or medetomidine (0.25 mg m^?2), butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^?1) and vatinoxan (5 mg m^?2) (group MB-VATI; n = 14). Anaesthesia was induced 15 minutes later with propofol and maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen (targeting 1.3%). Before surgical incision, lidocaine (2 mg kg^?1) was injected intratesticularly. At the end of the procedure, meloxicam (0.2 mg kg^?1) was administered IV. The level of sedation, the qualities of induction, intubation and recovery, and Glasgow Composite Pain Scale short form (GCPS-SF) were assessed. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), mean arterial pressure (MAP), end-tidal concentration of sevoflurane (Fe′Sevo) and carbon dioxide (Pe′CO₂) were recorded. Blood samples were collected at 10 and 30 minutes after premedication for plasma medetomidine and butorphanol concentrations.ResultsAt the beginning of surgery, HR was 61 ± 16 and 93 ± 23 beats minute^?1 (p = 0.001), and MAP was 78 ± 7 and 56 ± 7 mmHg (p = 0.001) in MB and MB-VATI groups, respectively. No differences were detected in f_R, Pe′CO₂, Fe′Sevo, the level of sedation, the qualities of induction, intubation and recovery, or in GCPS-SF. Plasma medetomidine concentrations were higher in group MB-VATI than in MB at 10 minutes (p = 0.002) and 30 minutes (p = 0.0001). Plasma butorphanol concentrations were not different between groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn group MB, HR was significantly lower than in group MB-VATI. Hypotension detected in group MB-VATI during sevoflurane anaesthesia was clinically the most significant difference between groups.     

The sedative effects of low-dose medetomidine and butorphanol alone and in combination intravenously in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the sedative effects of intravenous (IV) medetomidine (1 μg kg^?1) and butorphanol (0.1 mg kg^?1) alone and in combination in dogs.Study designProspective, blinded, randomized clinical trial.AnimalsSixty healthy (American Society of Anesthesiologists I) dogs, aged 6.2 ± 3.2 years and body mass 26 ± 12.5 kg.MethodsDogs were assigned to four groups: Group S (sodium chloride 0.9% IV), Group B (butorphanol IV), Group M (medetomidine IV) and Group MB (medetomidine and butorphanol IV). The same clinician assessed sedation before and 12 minutes after administration using a numerical scoring system in which 19 represented maximum sedation. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, pulse quality, capillary refill time and rectal temperature were recorded after each sedation score assessment. Sedation scores, sedation score difference (score after minus score before administration) and patient variables were compared using one-way anova for normally distributed variables and Kruskal–Wallis test for variables with skewed distributions and/or unequal variances. Where significance was found, further evaluation used Bonferroni multiple comparisons for pair-wise testing.ResultsBreed, sex, neuter status, age and body mass did not differ between groups. Sedation scores before substance administration were similar between groups (p = 0.2). Sedation scores after sedation were significantly higher in Group MB (mean 9.5 ± SD 5.5) than in group S (2.5 ± 1.8) (p < 0.001), group M (3.1 ± 2.5) (p < 0.001) and group B (3.7 ± 2.0) (p = 0.003). Sedation score difference was significantly higher in Group MB [7 (0–13)] than in Group S [0 (?1 to 4)] (p < 0.001) and Group M [0 (0–6)] (p < 0.001). HR decreased significantly in Groups M and MB compared with Group S (p < 0.05).Conclusion and clinical relevanceLow-dose medetomidine 1 μg kg^?1 IV combined with butorphanol 0.1 mg kg^?1 IV produced more sedation than medetomidine or butorphanol alone. HR was significantly decreased in both medetomidine groups.     

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.     

Development of a xylazine constant rate infusion with or without butorphanol for standing sedation of horses

ObjectiveTo elaborate constant rate infusion (CRI) protocols for xylazine (X) and xylazine/butorphanol (XB) which will result in constant sedation and steady xylazine plasma concentrations.Study designBlinded randomized experimental study.AnimalsTen adult research horses.MethodsPart I: After normal height of head above ground (HHAG = 100%) was determined, a loading dose of xylazine (1 mg kg^?1) with butorphanol (XB: 18 μg kg^?1) or saline (X: equal volume) was given slowly intravenously (IV). Immediately afterwards, a CRI of butorphanol (XB: 25 μg kg^?1 hour^?1) or saline (X) was administered for 2 hours. The HHAG was used as a marker of depth of sedation. Sedation was maintained for 2 hours by additional boluses of xylazine (0.3 mg kg^?1) whenever HHAG >50%. The dose of xylazine (mg kg^?1 hour^?1) required to maintain sedation was calculated for both groups. Part II: After the initial loading dose, the calculated xylazine infusion rates were administered in parallel to butorphanol (XB) or saline (X) and sedation evaluated. Xylazine plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC-MS-MS at time points 0, 5, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. Data were analyzed using paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank test and a 2-way anova for repeated measures (p < 0.05).ResultsThere was no significant difference in xylazine requirements (X: 0.69, XB: 0.65 mg kg^?1 hour^?1) between groups. With treatment X, a CRI leading to prolonged sedation was developed. With XB, five horses (part I: two, part II: three) fell down and during part II four horses appeared insufficiently sedated. Xylazine plasma concentrations were constant after 45 minutes in both groups.ConclusionXylazine bolus, followed by CRI, provided constant sedation. Additional butorphanol was ineffective in reducing xylazine requirements and increased ataxia and apparent early recovery from sedation in unstimulated horses.Clinical relevanceData were obtained on unstimulated healthy horses and extrapolation to clinical conditions requires caution.     

Evaluation of the isoflurane‐sparing effects of fentanyl,lidocaine, ketamine,dexmedetomidine, or the combination lidocaine‐ketamine‐dexmedetomidine during ovariohysterectomy in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the isoflurane‐sparing effects of an intravenous (IV) constant rate infusion (CRI) of fentanyl, lidocaine, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, or lidocaine‐ketamine‐dexmedetomidine (LKD) in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designRandomized, prospective, blinded, clinical study.AnimalsFifty four dogs.MethodsAnesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane with one of the following IV treatments: butorphanol/saline (butorphanol 0.4 mg kg^?1, saline 0.9% CRI, CONTROL/BUT); fentanyl (5 μg kg^?1, 10 μg kg^?1 hour^?1, FENT); ketamine (1 mg kg^?1, 40 μg kg^?1 minute^?1, KET), lidocaine (2 mg kg^?1, 100 μg kg^?1 minute^?1, LIDO); dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg^?1, 3 μg kg^?1 hour^?1, DEX); or a LKD combination. Positive pressure ventilation maintained eucapnia. An anesthetist unaware of treatment and end‐tidal isoflurane concentration (Fe′Iso) adjusted vaporizer settings to maintain surgical anesthetic depth. Cardiopulmonary variables and Fe′Iso concentrations were monitored. Data were analyzed using anova (p < 0.05).ResultsAt most time points, heart rate (HR) was lower in FENT than in other groups, except for DEX and LKD. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was lower in FENT and CONTROL/BUT than in DEX. Overall mean ± SD Fe′Iso and % reduced isoflurane requirements were 1.01 ± 0.31/41.6% (range, 0.75 ± 0.31/56.6% to 1.12 ± 0.80/35.3%, FENT), 1.37 ± 0.19/20.8% (1.23 ± 0.14/28.9% to 1.51 ± 0.22/12.7%, KET), 1.34 ± 0.19/22.5% (1.24 ± 0.19/28.3% to 1.44 ± 0.21/16.8%, LIDO), 1.30 ± 0.28/24.8% (1.16 ± 0.18/32.9% to 1.43 ± 0.32/17.3%, DEX), 0.95 ± 0.19/54.9% (0.7 ± 0.16/59.5% to 1.12 ± 0.16/35.3%, LKD) and 1.73 ± 0.18/0.0% (1.64 ± 0.21 to 1.82 ± 0.14, CONTROL/BUT) during surgery. FENT and LKD significantly reduced Fe′Iso.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAt the doses administered, FENT and LKD had greater isoflurane‐sparing effect than LIDO, KET or CONTROL/BUT, but not at all times. Low HR during FENT may limit improvement in MAP expected with reduced Fe′Iso.     

Effects of dissociative anesthesia opioid-free protocols combined with local anesthesia,with or without flumazenil or atipamezole postoperatively,for orchiectomy in cats

ObjectiveTo evaluate the anesthetic effects of two drug combinations with local anesthesia, with or without postoperative antagonists, for orchiectomy in cats.Study designProspective, randomized blinded clinical study.AnimalsA total of 64 healthy cats.MethodsCats were assigned to four equal groups: ketamine (5 mg kg^–1) and dexmedetomidine (10 μg kg^–1) were administered intramuscularly (IM), followed postoperatively with intravenous (IV) saline (5 mL; group KDS) or atipamezole (50 μg kg^–1; group KDA); and ketamine (14 mg kg^–1) with midazolam (0.5 mg kg^–1) and acepromazine (0.1 mg kg^–1) IM, with postoperative IV saline (5 mL; group KMAS) or flumazenil (0.1 mg kg^–1; group KMAF). Lidocaine (2 mg kg^–1) was divided between subcutaneous and intratesticular injection. Physiologic variables were recorded at time points during anesthesia. Ketamine rescue dose was recorded. The degree of sedation and the quality of recovery were evaluated postoperatively.ResultsTime to loss of pedal reflex was longer in groups KMAS and KMAF than in groups KDS and KDA (p = 0.010). Total rescue dose of ketamine was higher in KMAS and KMAF than in KDS and KDA (p = 0.003). Heart rate (HR) during anesthesia was higher in KMAS and KMAF than in KDS and KDA (p = 0.001). Times to head up (p = 0.0005) and to sternal recumbency (p = 0.0003) were shorter in KDA than in KDS, KMAS and KMAF. Lower sedation scores were assigned sooner to KDA than KDS, KMAS and KMAF (p < 0.001). Recovery quality scores were good in all groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceBoth anesthetic protocols allowed the performance of orchiectomy. Groups KMAS and KMAF required higher rescue doses of ketamine before injecting lidocaine. HR and oscillometric systolic pressure were minimally changed in groups KD and tachycardia was recorded in groups KMA. Only atipamezole shortened the anesthetic recovery.     

Comparison of intraperitoneal ropivacaine and ropivacaine–dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy

ObjectiveTo investigate the intraperitoneal (IP) administration of ropivacaine or ropivacaine–dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, positively controlled clinical study.AnimalsA total of 45 client-owned cats were enrolled.MethodsThe cats were administered intramuscular (IM) meperidine (6 mg kg⁻¹) and acepromazine (0.05 mg kg⁻¹). Anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Meloxicam (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) was administered subcutaneously in all cats after intubation. After the abdominal incision, the cats were administered one of three treatments (15 cats in each treatment): IP instillation of 0.9% saline solution (group Control), 0.25% ropivacaine (1 mg kg⁻¹, group ROP) or ropivacaine and dexmedetomidine (4 μg kg⁻¹, group ROP–DEX). During anesthesia, heart rate (HR), electrocardiography, noninvasive systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and respiratory variables were monitored. Sedation and pain were assessed preoperatively and at various time points up to 24 hours after extubation using sedation scoring, an interactive visual analog scale, the UNESP-Botucatu multidimensional composite pain scale (MCPS) and mechanical nociceptive thresholds (MNT; von Frey anesthesiometer). Rescue analgesia (morphine, 0.1 mg kg⁻¹) IM was administered if the MCPS ≥6. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test, Tukey test, Kruskal–Wallis test and Friedman test (p < 0.05).ResultsHR was significantly lower in ROP–DEX compared with Control (p = 0.002). The pain scores, MNT, sedation scores and the postoperative rescue analgesia did not differ statistically among groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAs part of a multimodal pain therapy, IP ropivacaine–dexmedetomidine was associated with decreased HR intraoperatively; however, SAP remained within normal limits. Using the stated anesthetic protocol, neither IP ropivacaine nor ropivacaine–dexmedetomidine significantly improved analgesia compared with IP saline in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy.     

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.     

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.     

A clinical study on the effect in horses during medetomidine-isoflurane anaesthesia, of butorphanol constant rate infusion on isoflurane requirements, on cardiopulmonary function and on recovery characteristics

ObjectiveTo test if the addition of butorphanol by constant rate infusion (CRI) to medetomidine–isoflurane anaesthesia reduced isoflurane requirements, and influenced cardiopulmonary function and/or recovery characteristics.Study designProspective blinded randomised clinical trial.Animals61 horses undergoing elective surgery.MethodsHorses were sedated with intravenous (IV) medetomidine (7 μg kg^?1); anaesthesia was induced with IV ketamine (2.2 mg kg^?1) and diazepam (0.02 mg kg^?1) and maintained with isoflurane and a CRI of medetomidine (3.5 μg kg^?1 hour^?1). Group MB (n = 31) received butorphanol CRI (25 μg kg^?1 IV bolus then 25 μg kg^?1 hour^?1); Group M (n = 30) an equal volume of saline. Artificial ventilation maintained end-tidal CO₂ in the normal range. Horses received lactated Ringer’s solution 5 mL kg^?1 hour^?1, dobutamine <1.25 μg kg^?1 minute^?1 and colloids if required. Inspired and exhaled gases, heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were monitored continuously; pH and arterial blood gases were measured every 30 minutes. Recovery was timed and scored. Data were analyzed using two way repeated measures anova, independent t-tests or Mann–Whitney Rank Sum test (p < 0.05).ResultsThere was no difference between groups with respect to anaesthesia duration, end-tidal isoflurane (MB: mean 1.06 ± SD 0.11, M: 1.05 ± 0.1%), MAP (MB: 88 ± 9, M: 87 ± 7 mmHg), heart rate (MB: 33 ± 6, M: 35 ± 8 beats minute^?1), pH, PaO₂ (MB: 19.2 ± 6.6, M: 18.2 ± 6.6 kPa) or PaCO_2. Recovery times and quality did not differ between groups, but the time to extubation was significantly longer in group MB (26.9 ± 10.9 minutes) than in group M (20.4 ± 9.4 minutes).Conclusion and clinical relevanceButorphanol CRI at the dose used does not decrease isoflurane requirements in horses anaesthetised with medetomidine–isoflurane and has no influence on cardiopulmonary function or recovery.     

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.     

The effect of butorphanol on the incidence of dexmedetomidine‐induced emesis in cats

ObjectiveTo evaluate the antiemetic effect of butorphanol (BUT) when co-administered with dexmedetomidine (DEX) in cats.Study designDouble-blind, randomized controlled cross-over experimental study.AnimalsFourteen purpose-bred healthy Domestic Short Hair cats, seven females and seven males, aged median (range) 14–84 (78) months and weighing 1.7–5.5 (4.0) kg.MethodsEach cat received five different treatment protocols intramuscularly (IM): (A) 25 μg kg⁻¹ DEX; (B) 20 μg kg⁻¹ DEX and 0.2 mg kg⁻¹ BUT; (C) 20 μg kg⁻¹ DEX and 0.1 mg kg⁻¹ BUT; (D) 25 μg kg⁻¹ DEX and 0.2 mg kg⁻¹ BUT; and (E) 20 μg kg⁻¹ DEX. Episodes of emesis, incidence and severity of nausea, and time to lateral recumbency were recorded for a period of 8 minutes after treatment administration, and the sedation was scored at the end of this period. The Friedman test and the Cochran’s Q-test were used to analyse the data. Significance was evaluated at the 5% level.ResultsThe proportion of cats that vomited was significantly lower with the treatment protocols that included BUT (B, C and D) compared with the protocols that included only DEX (A and E). The proportion of cats that had nausea was significantly higher with the protocols that included only DEX (A and E) compared with protocols B and D. Time to lateral recumbency (p = 0.09) and sedation score (p = 0.07) was not statistically different between the treatment protocols.Conclusions and clinical relevanceButorphanol can be used to prevent emesis and reduce the incidence and the severity of nausea caused by DEX in cats. It seems that the combination of BUT and DEX is very useful not only when emesis could result in serious complications, but also to provide comfort and well-being in cats sedated for minor procedures.     

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.     

Alfaxalone anaesthesia in Lemur catta following dexmedetomidine–butorphanol–midazolam sedation

Objective

To evaluate the clinical effects and quality of sedation, induction, maintenance and recovery in Lemur catta after dexmedetomidine–butorphanol–midazolam sedation and alfaxalone anaesthesia.

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.     

Cardiorespiratory,sedative and antinociceptive effects of dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with methadone,morphine or tramadol in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cardiorespiratory, sedative and antinociceptive effects of dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with methadone, morphine or tramadol in dogs.Study designExperimental, blinded, randomized, crossover study.AnimalsSix mixed breed dogs (two males and four females) weighing 10 ± 4 kg.MethodsThe animals were randomly divided into four treatments: D (10 μg kg^?1 of dexmedetomidine), DM (dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 and methadone 0.5 mg kg^?1); DMO (dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 and morphine 0.5 mg kg^?1), and DT (dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 and tramadol 2 mg kg^?1). The combinations were administered intramuscularly in all treatments. The variables evaluated were heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), rectal temperature (RT), systolic arterial pressure (SAP), sedation scale and pedal withdrawal reflex. These variables were measured at T0 (immediately before the administration of the protocol) and every 15 minutes thereafter until T105.ResultsA decrease in HR and f_R occurred in all the treatments compared with T0, but no significant difference was observed between the treatments. The RT decreased from T45 onward in all the treatments. The SAP did not show a difference between the treatments, but in the DT treatment, the SAP was lower at T30 and T45 compared with T0. The D treatment had lower scores of sedation at T15 to T75 compared with the other treatments, and the DMO and DM treatments showed higher scores at T60 and T75 compared with DT.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe treatments with morphine and methadone added to the dexmedetomidine showed higher sedation scores than the control treatment and the treatment with tramadol added to the dexmedetomidine showed no relevant differences in any of the variables evaluated in the study.