Comparison of the effects of alfaxalone and propofol with acepromazine,butorphanol and/or doxapram on laryngeal motion and quality of examination in dogs

Objective

To compare the effects of alfaxalone and propofol, with and without acepromazine and butorphanol followed by doxapram, on laryngeal motion and quality of laryngeal examination in dogs.

Alfaxalone for total intravenous anaesthesia in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy: a comparison of premedication with acepromazine or dexmedetomidine

ObjectiveTo describe alfaxalone total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) following premedication with buprenorphine and either acepromazine (ACP) or dexmedetomidine (DEX) in bitches undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designProspective, randomised, clinical study.AnimalsThirty-eight healthy female dogs.MethodsFollowing intramuscular buprenorphine (20 μg kg^?1) and acepromazine (0.05 mg kg^?1) or dexmedetomidine (approximately 10 μg kg^?1, adjusted for body surface area), anaesthesia was induced and maintained with intravenous alfaxalone. Oxygen was administered via a suitable anaesthetic circuit. Alfaxalone infusion rate (initially 0.07 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) was adjusted to maintain adequate anaesthetic depth based on clinical assessment. Alfaxalone boluses were given if required. Ventilation was assisted if necessary. Alfaxalone dose and physiologic parameters were recorded every 5 minutes. Depth of sedation after premedication, induction quality and recovery duration and quality were scored. A Student's t-test, Mann–Whitney U and Chi-squared tests determined the significance of differences between groups. Data are presented as mean ± SD or median (range). Significance was defined as p < 0.05.ResultsThere were no differences between groups in demographics; induction quality; induction (1.5 ± 0.57 mg kg^?1) and total bolus doses [1.2 (0 – 6.3) mg kg^?1] of alfaxalone; anaesthesia duration (131 ± 18 minutes); or time to extubation [16.6 (3–50) minutes]. DEX dogs were more sedated than ACP dogs. Alfaxalone infusion rate was significantly lower in DEX [0.08 (0.06–0.19) mg kg^?1 minute^?1] than ACP dogs [0.11 (0.07–0.33) mg kg^?1 minute^?1]. Cardiovascular variables increased significantly during ovarian and cervical ligation and wound closure compared to baseline values in both groups. Apnoea and hypoventilation were common and not significantly different between groups. Arterial haemoglobin oxygen saturation remained above 95% in all animals. Recovery quality scores were significantly poorer for DEX than for ACP dogs.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone TIVA is an effective anaesthetic for surgical procedures but, in the protocol of this study, causes respiratory depression at infusion rates required for surgery.     

Evaluation of alfaxalone total intravenous anesthesia in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) premedicated with dexmedetomidine or dexmedetomidine and buprenorphine

ObjectiveTo evaluate alfaxalone for total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in rabbits premedicated with dexmedetomidine or dexmedetomidine and buprenorphine.Study designCrossover study (part 1) with observational study (part 2).AnimalsA total of eight New Zealand White rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), four female and four male, aged 12–16 weeks and weighing 2.8–3.5 kg in part 1. Separately, four additional rabbits in part 2.MethodsCrossover study design with eight rabbits per treatment. Rabbits were administered treatment D, dexmedetomidine (0.2 mg kg^–1), or treatment DB, dexmedetomidine (0.1 mg kg^–1) and buprenorphine (0.05 mg kg^–1) intramuscularly. Anesthesia was induced with alfaxalone intravenously until a supraglottic airway device was placed to deliver 100% oxygen. Anesthesia was maintained with alfaxalone (TIVA). Infusion rates were adjusted to achieve an absent pedal withdrawal reflex. Heart rate, respiratory rate, noninvasive blood pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure and peripheral hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were recorded every 5 minutes. Subsequently, four rabbits underwent ovariohysterectomy using treatment DB and alfaxalone TIVA.ResultsThe mean ± standard deviation alfaxalone infusion rate was 9.6 ± 2.6 and 4.5 ± 1.3 mg kg^–1 hour^–1 for treatments D and DB, respectively. In both treatments, blood pressure remained within acceptable range and SpO₂ was > 95%. Postinduction apnea and respiratory depression were observed in both treatments and managed with manual positive pressure ventilation. Four separate rabbits underwent successful ovariohysterectomy with treatment DB and alfaxalone TIVA. One rabbit required supplementation with inhalant anesthesia; three rabbits were successfully maintained using alfaxalone TIVA alone.Conclusions and clinical relevancePremedication with dexmedetomidine–buprenorphine combined with alfaxalone TIVA may be a viable alternative for performing abdominal surgery in the rabbit. The use of supplemental oxygen and ability to provide respiratory support are advised.     

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.     

Chronotropic effect of propofol or alfaxalone following fentanyl administration in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of alfaxalone and propofol on heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) after fentanyl administration in healthy dogs.Study designProspective, randomised clinical study.AnimalsFifty healthy client owned dogs (ASA I/II) requiring general anaesthesia for elective magnetic resonance imaging for neurological conditions.MethodsAll dogs received fentanyl 7 μg kg⁻¹ IV and were allocated randomly to receive either alfaxalone (n = 25) or propofol (n = 25) to effect until endotracheal (ET) intubation was possible. Heart rate and oscillometric BP were measured before fentanyl (baseline), after fentanyl (Time F) and after ET intubation (Time GA). Post-induction apnoea were recorded. Data were analysed using Fisher’s exact test, Mann Whitney U test and one-way anova for repeated measures as appropriate; p value <0.05 was considered significant.ResultsDogs receiving propofol showed a greater decrease in HR (-14 beat minute⁻¹, range -47 to 10) compared to alfaxalone (1 beat minute⁻¹, range -33 to 26) (p = 0.0116). Blood pressure decreased over the three time periods with no difference between groups. Incidence of post-induction apnoea was not different between groups.ConclusionFollowing fentanyl administration, anaesthetic induction with propofol resulted in a greater negative chronotropic effect while alfaxalone preserved or increased HR.Clinical relevanceFollowing fentanyl administration, HR decreases more frequently when propofol rather than alfaxalone is used as induction agent. However, given the high individual variability and the small change in predicted HR (-7.7 beats per minute after propofol), the clinical impact arising from choosing propofol or alfaxalone is likely to be small in healthy animals. Further studies in dogs with myocardial disease and altered haemodynamics are warranted.     

Comparison of intraocular pressure and pupil diameter after sedation with either acepromazine or dexmedetomidine in healthy dogs

Objective

To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) and pupillary diameter (PD) following intravenous (IV) administration of dexmedetomidine and acepromazine in dogs.

24-hour Holter-monitoring in the perianaesthetic period in dogs premedicated with dexmedetomidine

Baseline and perianaesthetic 24-hour Holter recordings were carried out in six healthy beagles. After dexmedetomidine premedication anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with propofol infusion or isoflurane for one hour. Dexmedetomidine alone was used as control. The recordings were analysed for ventricular premature complexes (VPC), atrioventricular (AV) blocks and mean heart rate/hour (HR). In most recordings, no ventricular arrhythmias were detected, the maximum frequency being two VPCs/24 h. VPCs were not seen during anaesthesia or during the recovery period. The development of second-degree AV-blocks varied from dog to dog. Most of the heart blocks were seen during the premedication period when bradycardia was most prominent. During the subsequent night, HR was similar between treatments and did not differ from that seen on the baseline recordings. In beagles treated with dexmedetomidine alone or combined with propofol or propofol/isoflurane, ventricular arrhythmias were not detected more frequently than those reported in healthy non-anaesthetised dogs.     

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.     

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).

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.     

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.     

Effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine on anaesthetic induction with alfaxalone – a clinical trial

ObjectiveTo document the effects of two doses of dexmedetomidine on the induction characteristics and dose requirements of alfaxalone.Study designRandomized controlled clinical trial.AnimalsSixty one client owned dogs, status ASA I-II.MethodsDogs were allocated randomly into three groups, receiving as pre-anaesthetic medication, no dexmedetomidine (D₀), 1 μg kg^?1 dexmedetomidine (D₁) intramuscularly (IM) or 3 μg kg^?1 dexmedetomidine IM (D₃). All dogs also received 0.2 mg kg^?1 methadone IM. Level of sedation was assessed prior to induction of anaesthesia. Induction of general anaesthesia was performed with alfaxalone administered intravenously to effect at a rate of 1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1; the required dose to achieve tracheal intubation was recorded. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary parameters were recorded throughout the anaesthetic period. Quality of intubation, induction and recovery of anaesthesia were recorded. Quantitative data were compared with one-way anova or Kruskal-Wallis test. Repeated measures were log-transformed and analysed with repeated measures anova (p < 0.05).ResultsTreatment groups were similar for categorical data, with exception of sedation level (p < 0.001). The doses (mean ± SD) of alfaxalone required for intubation were D₀ 1.68 ± 0.24, D₁ 1.60 ± 0.36 and D₃ 1.41 ± 0.43, the difference between D₀ and D₃ being statistically significant (p = 0.036). Heart and respiratory rates during the anaesthetic period were significantly different over time and between groups (p < 0.001); systolic arterial blood pressure was significantly different over time (p < 0.001) but not between groups (p = 0.833). Induction quality and recovery scores were similar between groups (p = 1.000 and p = 0.414, respectively).Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe administration of alfaxalone resulted in a good quality anaesthetic induction which was not affected by the dose of dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine at 3 μg kg^?1 IM combined with methadone provides good sedation and enables a reduction of alfaxalone requirements.     

Comparison of pain on injection during induction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone and two formulations of propofol in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the incidence of pain during injection of three intravenous induction agents in dogs.Study designProspective, crossover, randomized, blinded, clinical study.AnimalsThirty dogs requiring anaesthesia for radiotherapy.MethodsDogs were anaesthetized on three occasions at weekly intervals. An IV cephalic catheter was placed, flushed with saline and alfentanil 0.01 mg kg^?1 and atropine 0.02 mg kg^?1 administered. After 30 seconds either: propofol lipid macroemulsion (Drug_P), propofol lipid-free microemulsion (Drug_PC) or alfaxalone (Drug_A) was administered over 60 seconds. Each induction agent was administered once to each dog. Induction was recorded by video and reviewed by an assessor, unaware of treatment. Catheter placement (number of attempts, site, size and recent vein use) were recorded. Behavioural changes associated with pain or excitation, were recorded. Severity of pain on injection was recorded (mild, moderate or severe pain). Incidence of pain was analysed using logistic regression, excitation using McNemar's test (p < 0.05) and association of pain with induction agent and catheter placement using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).ResultsNo dogs reacted to saline or Drug_A, thus Drug_A was excluded from analysis. Pain on injection occurred in six dogs (20%) with Drug_PC and one dog (3.3%) with Drug_P. Pain was severe in four dogs with Drug_PC. Drug_P resulted in a trend for reduced risk of pain compared to Drug_PC (p = 0.076, odds ratio [confidence intervals] 0.14 [0.027–0.86]). Both propofol formulations resulted in greater risk of excitation than Drug_A (p = 0.0003, odds ratio 4.5 [1.86–10.90]). Induction agent was associated with pain, whilst catheter placement was not. One dog developed facial oedema and one other dog skin necrosis adjacent to the catheter site following Drug_PC. The study was terminated early due to ethical concerns about the severity of reactions with Drug_PC.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceDrug_PC was associated with clinically relevant moderate to severe pain behaviour whilst Drug_A and Drug_P were not.