Comparison of racemic ketamine and S-ketamine as agents for the induction of anaesthesia in goats

ObjectiveTo compare racemic ketamine and S-ketamine as induction agents prior to isoflurane anaesthesia.Study designProspective, blinded, randomized experimental study.AnimalsThirty-one healthy adult goats weighing 39-86 kg.MethodsGoats were premedicated with xylazine (0.1 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV) given over 5 minutes. Each goat was assigned randomly to one of two treatments for IV anaesthetic induction: group RK (15 goats) racemic ketamine (3 mg kg^?1) and group SK (16 goats) S-ketamine (1.5 mg kg^?1). Time from end-injection to recumbency was measured and quality of anaesthetic induction and condition for endotracheal intubation were scored. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen for 90 minutes. Heart rate, invasive arterial blood pressure, oxygen saturation, temperature, end-tidal carbon dioxide and isoflurane were recorded every 5 minutes. Arterial blood samples were taken for analysis every 30 minutes. Recovery time to recurrence of swallowing reflex, to first head movement and to standing were recorded and recovery quality was scored. Two-way repeated measures anova, Mann-Whitney and a Mantel-Cox tests were used for statistical analysis as relevant with a significance level set at p < 0.05.ResultsInduction of anaesthesia was smooth and uneventful in all goats. There was no statistical difference between groups in any measured parameter. Side effects following anaesthetic induction included slight head or limb twitching, moving forward and backward, salivation and nystagmus but were minimal. Endotracheal intubation was achieved in all goats at first or second attempt. Recovery was uneventful on all occasions. All goats were quiet and needed only one or two attempts to stand.Conclusions and clinical relevanceS-ketamine at half the dose rate of racemic ketamine in goats sedated with xylazine and thereafter anaesthetised with isoflurane induces the same clinically measurable effects.     

Comparison of propofol with ketofol,a propofol‐ketamine admixture,for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo compare anaesthetic induction in healthy dogs using propofol or ketofol (a propofol-ketamine mixture).Study designProspective, randomized, controlled, ‘blinded’ study.AnimalsSeventy healthy dogs (33 males and 37 females), aged 6–157 months and weighing 4–48 kg.MethodsFollowing premedication, either propofol (10 mg mL^?1) or ketofol (9 mg propofol and 9 mg ketamine mL^?1) was titrated intravenously until laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were possible. Pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (f_R) and arterial blood pressure (ABP) were compared to post-premedication values and time to first breath (TTFB) recorded. Sedation quality, tracheal intubation and anaesthetic induction were scored by an observer who was unaware of treatment group. Mann–Whitney or t-tests were performed and significance set at p = 0.05.ResultsInduction mixture volume (mean ± SD) was lower for ketofol (0.2 ± 0.1 mL kg^?1) than propofol (0.4 ± 0.1 mL kg^?1) (p < 0.001). PR increased following ketofol (by 35 ± 20 beats minute^?1) but not consistently following propofol (4 ± 16 beats minute^?1) (p < 0.001). Ketofol administration was associated with a higher mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (82 ± 10 mmHg) than propofol (77 ± 11) (p = 0.05). TTFB was similar, but ketofol use resulted in a greater decrease in f_R (median (range): ketofol -32 (-158 to 0) propofol -24 (-187 to 2) breaths minute^?1) (p < 0.001). Sedation was similar between groups. Tracheal intubation and induction qualities were better with ketofol than propofol (p = 0.04 and 0.02 respectively).Conclusion and clinical relevanceInduction of anaesthesia with ketofol resulted in higher PR and MAP than when propofol was used, but lower f_R. Quality of induction and tracheal intubation were consistently good with ketofol, but more variable when using propofol.     

S‐ketamine versus racemic ketamine in dogs: their relative potency as induction agents

ObjectiveTo determine the potency ratio between S-ketamine and racemic ketamine as inductive agents for achieving tracheal intubation in dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, ‘blinded’, clinical trial conducted in two consecutive phases.Animals112 client-owned dogs (ASA I or II).MethodsAll animals were premedicated with intramuscular acepromazine (0.02 mg kg⁻¹) and methadone (0.2 mg kg⁻¹). In phase 1, midazolam (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) with either 3 mg kg⁻¹ of racemic ketamine (group K) or 1.5 mg kg⁻¹ of S-ketamine (group S) was administered IV, for induction of anaesthesia and intubation. Up to two additional doses of racemic (1.5 mg kg⁻¹) or S-ketamine (0.75 mg kg⁻¹) were administered if required. In phase 2, midazolam (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) with 1 mg kg⁻¹ of either racemic ketamine (group K) or S-ketamine (group S) was injected and followed by a continuous infusion (1 mg kg minute⁻¹) of each respective drug. Differences between groups were statistically analyzed via t-test, Fisher exact test and ANOVA for repeated measures.ResultsDemographics and quality and duration of premedication, induction and intubation were comparable among groups. During phase 1 it was possible to achieve tracheal intubation after a single dose in more dogs in group K (n = 25) than in group S (n = 16) (p = 0.046). A dose of 3 mg kg⁻¹ S-ketamine allowed tracheal intubation in the same number of dogs as 4.5 mg kg⁻¹ of racemic ketamine. The estimated potency ratio was 1.5:1. During phase 2, the total dose (mean ± SD) of S-ketamine (4.02 ±1.56 mg kg⁻¹) and racemic ketamine (4.01 ± 1.42) required for tracheal intubation was similar.Conclusion and clinical relevanceRacemic and S-ketamine provide a similar quality of anaesthetic induction and intubation. S-ketamine is not twice as potent as racemic ketamine and, if infused, the potency ratio is 1:1.     

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.     

Effects of propofol on isoflurane minimum alveolar concentration and cardiovascular function in mechanically ventilated goats

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of propofol, on isoflurane minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) and cardiovascular function in mechanically ventilated goats.Study designProspective, randomized, crossover experimental study.AnimalsSix goats, three does and three wethers.MethodsGeneral anaesthesia was induced with isoflurane in oxygen. Following endotracheal intubation, anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Intermittent positive pressure ventilation was applied. Baseline isoflurane MAC was determined, the noxious stimulus used being clamping a claw. The goats then received, on separate occasions, three propofol treatments intravenously: bolus of 0.5 mg kg^?1 followed by a constant rate infusion (CRI) of 0.05 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (treatment LPROP); bolus of 1.0 mg kg^?1 followed by a CRI of 0.1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (treatment MPROP), bolus of 2.0 mg kg^?1 followed by a CRI of 0.2 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (treatment HPROP). Isoflurane MAC was re-determined following propofol treatments. Plasma propofol concentrations at the time of MAC confirmation were measured. Cardiopulmonary parameters were monitored throughout the anaesthetic period. Quality of recovery was scored. The Friedman test was used to test for differences between isoflurane MACs. Medians of repeatedly measured cardiovascular parameters were tested for differences between and within treatments using repeated anova by ranks (p < 0.05 for statistical significance).ResultsIsoflurane MAC [median (interquartile range)] was 1.37 (1.36–1.37) vol%. Propofol CRI significantly reduced the isoflurane MAC, to 1.15 (1.08–1.15), 0.90 (0.87–0.93) and 0.55 (0.49–0.58) vol% following LPROP, MPROP and HPROP treatment, respectively. Increasing plasma propofol concentrations strongly correlated (Spearman rank correlation) with decrease in MAC (Rho = 0.91). Cardiovascular function was not affected significantly by propofol treatment. Quality of recovery was satisfactory.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn goats, propofol reduces isoflurane MAC in a dose-dependent manner with minimal cardiovascular effects.     

A comparison of subarachnoid buprenorphine or xylazine as an adjunct to lidocaine for analgesia in goats

ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that subarachnoid administration of buprenorphine and lidocaine provides more intense and longer lasting perioperative analgesia with less side effects than xylazine and lidocaine in goats.Study designRandomized, blinded, controlled study.Study animals Ten healthy female goats randomly assigned to two groups of five animals each.MethodsAfter sedation with acepromazine (0.1 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV), lidocaine 2% (0.1 mL kg^?1) combined with either xylazine (0.05 mg kg^?1; Group X) or buprenorphine (0.005 mg kg^?1; Group B) were injected intrathecally at the lumbo-sacral junction prior to stifle surgery. Electrocardiogram, heart rate, direct systolic, mean, and diastolic arterial blood pressures, rectal temperature and arterial blood gases were recorded as were post-operative sedation and pain scores using a visual analogue and numeric rating scale, respectively. Data were analyzed with one-way anova for repeated measures, one-way anova, Friedman's and Kruskal–Wallis tests as necessary (p< 0.05).ResultsSurgery was successfully performed under both analgesia protocols. Total pain and sedation scores were significantly lower in the B as compared with X group from 3–24 hours and 30–120 minutes, respectively after subarachnoid drug administration (SDA). Heart rate and arterial blood pressures decreased post SDA and were consistently lower in X versus B (p< 0.05). In B arterial blood gas parameters did not change post SDA, but in group X PaCO₂ increased slightly within 15 minutes of SDA and remained elevated for at least 3 hours (p< 0.05).ConclusionIn these goats intrathecal administration of buprenorphine and lidocaine produced more profound and longer lasting analgesia with less sedation and hemodynamic and respiratory impairment than xylazine with lidocaine.Clinical relevanceIn these goats undergoing hind limb surgery, subarachnoid buprenorphine/lidocaine offered more intense and longer lasting analgesia than a xylazine/lidocaine combination, with less sedation and impairment of cardiopulmonary function.     

Cardiopulmonary effects of dexmedetomidine and ketamine infusions with either propofol infusion or isoflurane for anesthesia in horses

ObjectiveTo examine the cardiopulmonary effects of two anesthetic protocols for dorsally recumbent horses undergoing carpal arthroscopy.Study designProspective, randomized, crossover study.AnimalsSix horses weighing 488.3 ± 29.1 kg.MethodsHorses were sedated with intravenous (IV) xylazine and pulmonary artery balloon and right atrial catheters inserted. More xylazine was administered prior to anesthetic induction with ketamine and propofol IV. Anesthesia was maintained for 60 minutes (or until surgery was complete) using either propofol IV infusion or isoflurane to effect. All horses were administered dexmedetomidine and ketamine infusions IV, and IV butorphanol. The endotracheal tube was attached to a large animal circle system and the lungs were ventilated with oxygen to maintain end-tidal CO₂ 40 ± 5 mmHg. Measurements of cardiac output, heart rate, pulmonary arterial and right atrial pressures, and body temperature were made under xylazine sedation. These, arterial and venous blood gas analyses were repeated 10, 30 and 60 minutes after induction. Systemic arterial blood pressures, expired and inspired gas concentrations were measured at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 minutes after induction. Horses were recovered from anesthesia with IV romifidine. Times to extubation, sternal recumbency and standing were recorded. Data were analyzed using one and two-way anovas for repeated measures and paired t-tests. Significance was taken at p=0.05.ResultsPulmonary arterial and right atrial pressures, and body temperature decreased from pre-induction values in both groups. PaO₂ and arterial pH were lower in propofol-anesthetized horses compared to isoflurane-anesthetized horses. The lowest PaO₂ values (70–80 mmHg) occurred 10 minutes after induction in two propofol-anesthetized horses. Cardiac output decreased in isoflurane-anesthetized horses 10 minutes after induction. End-tidal isoflurane concentration ranged 0.5%–1.3%.Conclusion and clinical relevanceBoth anesthetic protocols were suitable for arthroscopy. Administration of oxygen and ability to ventilate lungs is necessary for propofol-based anesthesia.     

A comparison of the effects of two different doses of ketamine used for co-induction of anaesthesia with a target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs

ObjectiveTo assess the cardiorespiratory and hypnotic-sparing effects of ketamine co-induction with target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsNinety healthy dogs (ASA grades I/II). Mean body mass 30.5 ± SD 8.6 kg and mean age 4.2 ± 2.6 years.MethodsAll dogs received pre-anaesthetic medication with acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.2 mg kg^?1) administered intramuscularly 30 minutes prior to induction of anaesthesia. Heart rate and respiratory rate were recorded prior to pre-medication. Animals were allocated into three different groups: Group 1 (control) received 0.9% NaCl, group 2, 0.25 mg kg^?1 ketamine and group 3, 0.5 mg kg^?1 ketamine, intravenously 1 minute prior to induction of anaesthesia, which was accomplished using a propofol target-controlled infusion system. The target propofol concentration was gradually increased until endotracheal intubation was possible and the target concentration at intubation was recorded. Heart rate, respiratory rate and noninvasive blood pressure were recorded immediately prior to induction, at successful intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. The quality of induction was graded according to the amount of muscle twitching and paddling observed. Data were analysed using a combination of chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, Kruskal–Wallis, and anova with significance assumed at p< 0.05.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups in the blood propofol targets required to achieve endotracheal intubation, nor with respect to heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure or quality of induction. Compared with the other groups, the incidence of post-induction apnoea was significantly higher in group 3, but despite this dogs in this group had higher respiratory rates overall.Conclusions and clinical relevanceUnder the conditions of this study, ketamine does not seem to be a useful agent for co-induction of anaesthesia with propofol in dogs.     

Alfaxalone compared with ketamine for induction of anaesthesia in horses following xylazine and guaifenesin

ObjectiveTo compare anaesthesia induced with either alfaxalone or ketamine in horses following premedication with xylazine and guaifenesin.Study designRandomized blinded cross-over experimental study.AnimalsSix adult horses, five Standardbreds and one Thoroughbred; two mares and four geldings.MethodsEach horse received, on separate occasions, induction of anaesthesia with either ketamine 2.2 mg kg^?1 or alfaxalone 1 mg kg^?1. Premedication was with xylazine 0.5 mg kg^?1 and guaifenesin 35 mg kg^?1. Incidence of tremors/shaking after induction, recovery and ataxia on recovery were scored. Time to recovery was recorded. Partial pressure of arterial blood oxygen (PaO₂) and carbon dioxide (PaO₂), arterial blood pressures, heart rate (HR) and respiratory rates were recorded before premedication and at intervals during anaesthesia. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test and are expressed as median (range).ResultsThere was no difference in the quality of recovery or in ataxia scores. Horses receiving alfaxalone exhibited a higher incidence of tremors/shaking on induction compared with those receiving ketamine (five and one of six horses respectively). Horses recovered to standing similarly [28 (24–47) minutes for alfaxalone; 22 (18–35) for ketamine] but took longer to recover adequately to return to the paddock after alfaxalone [44 (38–67) minutes] compared with ketamine [35 (30–47)]. There was no statistical difference between treatments in effect on HR, PaO₂ or PaCO₂ although for both regimens, PaO₂ decreased with respect to before premedication values. There was no difference between treatments in effect on blood pressure.Conclusions and clinical relevanceBoth alfaxalone and ketamine were effective at inducing anaesthesia, although at induction there were more muscle tremors after alfaxalone. As there were no differences between treatments in relation to cardiopulmonary responses or quality of recovery, and only minor differences in recovery times, both agents appear suitable for this purpose following the premedication regimen used in this study.     

Behavioral responses following eight anesthetic induction protocols in horses

Objective To compare behavioral characteristics of induction and recovery in horses anesthetized with eight anesthetic drug protocols. Study design Randomized prospective experimental study. Animals Eight horses, 5.5 ± 2.4 years (mean ± SD) of age, and weighing 505 ± 31 kg. Methods After xylazine pre‐medication, each of eight horses was anesthetized on four occasions using one of eight different anesthetic induction protocols which incorporated various combinations of ketamine (KET), propofol (PRO), and thiopental (THIO): THIO 8 mg kg^?1; THIO 6 mg kg^?1 + PRO 0.5 mg kg^?1; THIO 4 mg kg^?1 + PRO 1 mg kg^?1; THIO 2 mg kg^?1 + PRO 1.5 mg kg^?1; KET 2 mg kg^?1; KET 1.5 mg kg^?1 + PRO 0.5 mg kg^?1; KET 1 mg kg^?1 + PRO 1 mg kg^?1; KET 0.5 mg kg^?1 + PRO 1.5 mg kg^?1. Quality of induction and recovery were scored from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), and time taken to achieve lateral recumbency, first movement, sternal recumbency, and standing were evaluated. Results Time taken to achieve lateral recumbency after drug administration differed significantly (p < 0.0001) among the various combinations, being shortest in horses receiving THIO‐8 (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 0.3 minutes) and longest in horses receiving KET‐2 (1.4 ± 0.2 minutes). The best scores for induction quality were associated with KET‐1.5 + PRO‐0.5, and the worst scores for induction quality were associated with KET‐2, although the difference was not significant. Time to first movement varied significantly among drug protocols (p = 0.0133), being shortest in horses receiving KET‐2 (12.7 ± 3.6 minutes) and longest in horses receiving THIO‐8 (29.9 ± 1.5 minutes). Horses receiving THIO‐8 made the greatest number of attempts to attain sternal posture (6.5 ± 4.7) and to stand (1.6 ± 0.8). Horses in the THIO‐8 treatment also received the poorest recovery scores (3.3 ± 1.0 and 3.0 ± 0.7 for sternal and standing postures, respectively). The best recovery scores were associated with combinations comprised mainly of propofol. Conclusions Combining propofol with either ketamine or thiopental modifies behaviors associated with use of the individual drugs. Clinical relevance Quality of early anesthesia recovery in horses may be improved by some combinations of propofol with either thiopental or ketamine.     

An evaluation of anaesthetic induction in healthy dogs using rapid intravenous injection of propofol or alfaxalone

ObjectiveTo evaluate quality of anaesthetic induction and cardiorespiratory effects following rapid intravenous (IV) injection of propofol or alfaxalone.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded clinical study.AnimalsSixty healthy dogs (ASA I/II) anaesthetized for elective surgery or diagnostic procedures.MethodsPremedication was intramuscular acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1) and meperidine (pethidine) (3 mg kg^?1). For anaesthetic induction dogs received either 3 mg kg^?1 propofol (Group P) or 1.5 mg kg^?1 alfaxalone (Group A) by rapid IV injection. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R) and oscillometric arterial pressures were recorded prior to induction, at endotracheal intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. The occurrence of post-induction apnoea or hypotension was recorded. Pre-induction sedation and aspects of induction quality were scored using 4 point scales. Data were analysed using Chi-squared tests, two sample t-tests and general linear model mixed effect anova (p < 0.05).ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with respect to sex, age, body weight, f_R, post-induction apnoea, arterial pressures, hypotension, SpO₂, sedation score or quality of induction scores. Groups behaved differently over time with respect to HR. On induction HR decreased in Group P (?2 ± 28 beats minute^?1) but increased in Group A (14 ± 33 beats minute^?1) the difference being significant (p = 0.047). However HR change following premedication also differed between groups (p = 0.006). Arterial pressures decreased significantly over time in both groups and transient hypotension occurred in eight dogs (five in Group P, three in Group A). Post-induction apnoea occurred in 31 dogs (17 in Group P, 14 in Group A). Additional drug was required to achieve endotracheal intubation in two dogs.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceRapid IV injection of propofol or alfaxalone provided suitable conditions for endotracheal intubation in healthy dogs but post-induction apnoea was observed commonly.     

Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and S(+)‐ketamine in rabbits

ObjectiveTo evaluate total intravenous anesthesia with propofol alone or in combination with S(+)-ketamine in rabbits undergoing surgery.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded trial.AnimalsNine 6-month-old New Zealand white rabbits, weighing 2.5–3 kg.MethodsAnimals received acepromazine (0.1 mg kg^?1) and buprenorphine (20 μg kg^?1) IM, and anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg kg^?1) and S(+)-ketamine (1 mg kg^?1) IV. Rabbits received two of three treatments: propofol (0.8 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) (control treatment, P), propofol (0.8 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) + S(+)-ketamine (100 μg kg^?1 minute^?1) (PK100) or propofol (0.8 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) + S(+)-ketamine (200 μg kg^?1 minute^?1) (PK200). All animals received 100% O₂ during anesthesia. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure, hemoglobin oxygen saturation and respiratory rate were measured every 5 minutes for 60 minutes. Blood-gas parameters were measured at zero time and 60 minutes. Additional propofol injections, if necessary, and recovery time were recorded.ResultsAn increase in heart rate was observed in P and PK200 up to 10 minutes after induction of anesthesia. Blood pressure decreased from baseline values during the first 10 minutes in P and PK200, and during the first 15 minutes and between 45 and 55 minutes in PK100. A reduction in respiratory rate was observed after 5 minutes in all treatments. Respiratory acidosis was observed in all treatments. Six (2.8) [median (interquartile range)] further propofol injections were necessary in P, which differed statistically from PK100 [1 (0.2)] and PK200 [2 (0.6)]. Recovery time was shorter in P compared with PK100 and PK200, being [7.5 minutes (4.11)], [17.5 minutes (10.30)], and [12 minutes (10.30)], respectively.Conclusions and clinical relevanceS(+)-ketamine potentiates propofol-induced anesthesia in rabbits, providing better maintenance of heart rate. All of these techniques were accompanied by clinically significant respiratory depression.     

A comparison of induction of anaesthesia using a target-controlled infusion device in dogs with propofol or a propofol and alfentanil admixture

ObjectiveTo compare induction targets, and the haemodynamic and respiratory effects, of propofol, or as an admixture with two different concentrations of alfentanil, delivered via a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) system.Study designProspective blinded randomized clinical study.Animals Sixty client-owned dogs scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Mean body mass (SD) 28.5 kg (8.7) and mean age (SD) 3.5 years (2.4).MethodsDogs received pre-anaesthetic medication of acepromazine (0.03 mg kg⁻¹) and morphine (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) administered intramuscularly. Animals were randomly assigned to receive one of three induction protocols: propofol alone (group 1), a propofol/alfentanil (11.9 μg mL⁻¹) admixture (group 2), or a propofol/alfentanil (23.8 μg mL⁻¹) admixture (group 3), via a TCI system. Blood target concentrations were increased until endotracheal intubation was achieved, and induction targets were recorded. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_r) and non-invasive arterial blood pressure were recorded pre-induction, at endotracheal intubation (time 0) and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation (times 3 and 5, respectively). Data were analysed using anova for normally distributed data or Kruskal–Wallis test, with significance assumed at p < 0.05.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, body mass, HR, f_r, systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The blood propofol targets to achieve endotracheal intubation were significantly higher in group 1 compared with groups 2 and 3. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was significantly higher in group 1 at time 0 when compared with groups 2 and 3.Conclusions and clinical relevanceInduction of anaesthesia with a TCI system can be achieved at lower blood propofol targets when using a propofol/alfentanil admixture compared with using propofol alone. However, despite reduced targets with both propofol/alfentanil admixture groups, MAP was lower immediately following endotracheal intubation than when using propofol alone.     

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.