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 ketamine or midazolam continuous rate infusions on alfaxalone total intravenous anaesthesia requirements and recovery quality in healthy dogs: a randomized clinical trial

ObjectiveTo determine the alfaxalone dose reduction during total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) when combined with ketamine or midazolam constant rate infusions and to assess recovery quality in healthy dogs.Study designProspective, blinded clinical study.AnimalsA group of 33 healthy, client-owned dogs subjected to dental procedures.MethodsAfter premedication with intramuscular acepromazine 0.05 mg kg^-1 and methadone 0.3 mg kg^-1, anaesthetic induction started with intravenous alfaxalone 0.5 mg kg^-1 followed by either lactated Ringer’s solution (0.04 mL kg^-1, group A), ketamine (2 mg kg^-1, group AK) or midazolam (0.2 mg kg^-1, group AM) and completed with alfaxalone until endotracheal intubation was achieved. Anaesthesia was maintained with alfaxalone (6 mg kg^-1 hour^-1), adjusted (±20%) every 5 minutes to maintain a suitable level of anaesthesia. Ketamine (0.6 mg kg^-1 hour^-1) or midazolam (0.4 mg kg^-1 hour^-1) were employed for anaesthetic maintenance in groups AK and AM, respectively. Physiological variables were monitored during anaesthesia. Times from alfaxalone discontinuation to extubation, sternal recumbency and standing position were calculated. Recovery quality and incidence of adverse events were recorded. Groups were compared using parametric analysis of variance and nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, Fisher’s exact) tests as appropriate, p < 0.05.ResultsMidazolam significantly reduced alfaxalone induction and maintenance doses (46%; p = 0.034 and 32%, p = 0.012, respectively), whereas ketamine only reduced the alfaxalone induction dose (30%; p = 0.010). Recovery quality was unacceptable in nine dogs in group A, three dogs in group AK and three dogs in group AM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam, but not ketamine, reduced the alfaxalone infusion rate, and both co-adjuvant drugs reduced the alfaxalone induction dose. Alfaxalone TIVA allowed anaesthetic maintenance for dental procedures in dogs, but the quality of anaesthetic recovery remained unacceptable irrespective of its combination with ketamine or midazolam.     

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.     

Effects of midazolam before or after alfaxalone for co-induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs

Objective

To study the effect of alternating the order of midazolam and alfaxalone administration on the incidence of behavioural changes, alfaxalone induction dose and some cardiorespiratory variables in healthy dogs.

Cardiopulmonary and anesthetic effects of the combination of butorphanol,midazolam and alfaxalone in Beagle dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the physiological variables, arterial blood gas values, induction of anesthesia quality, and recovery quality using the combination of butorphanol, midazolam and alfaxalone in dogs.AnimalsTen healthy adult Beagle dogs weighing 8.3 ± 3.1 kg.MethodsRectal temperature (T), pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (f_R), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and arterial blood gases were measured and recorded prior to intravenous (IV) administration of butorphanol, prior to administration of both midazolam and alfaxalone IV 10 minutes later, then every 5 minutes for 20 minutes. M-mode echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) indices were measured before and 5 minutes after administration of alfaxalone. Qualitative scores for induction of anesthesia and recovery were allocated, duration of anesthesia and recovery were calculated, and adverse events were recorded.ResultsScores for induction and recovery quality were excellent. No significant adverse events were observed. Mean ± SD time from induction to extubation and to standing (full recovery) was 29 ± 6 and 36 ± 8 minutes, respectively. There were statistically significant changes in PR, f_R and MAP after drug administration. Transient hypercarbia developed after alfaxalone injection. The echocardiographic LV indices were reduced after alfaxalone injection, although those changes were not statistically significant.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe combination of butorphanol, midazolam and alfaxalone provided excellent quality of induction of anesthesia and exerted minimal cardiopulmonary effects in healthy dogs.     

Fentanyl or midazolam for co-induction of anaesthesia with propofol in dogs

ObjectivePropofol may cause adverse effects (e.g. apnoea, hypotension) at induction of anaesthesia. Co-induction of anaesthesia may reduce propofol requirements. The effect of fentanyl or midazolam on propofol dose requirements and cardiorespiratory parameters was studied.Study designRandomized, controlled, blinded clinical study.AnimalsSixty-six client owned dogs (35 male, 31 female, ASA I-II, age 6–120 months, body mass 4.7–48.0 kg) were selected.MethodsPre-medication with acepromazine (0.025 mg kg⁻¹) and morphine (0.25 mg kg⁻¹) was administered by intramuscular injection. After 30 minutes group fentanyl-propofol (FP) received fentanyl (2 μg kg⁻¹), group midazolam-propofol (MP) midazolam (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) injected over 30 seconds via a cephalic catheter and in a third group, control-propofol (CP), the IV catheter was flushed with an equivalent volume of heparinized saline. Anaesthesia was induced 2 minutes later, with propofol (4 mg kg⁻¹minute⁻¹) administered to effect. After endotracheal intubation anaesthesia was maintained with a standardized anaesthetic protocol. Pulse rate, respiratory rate (RR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before the co-induction agent, before induction, and 0, 2 and 5 minutes after intubation. Apnoea ≥30 seconds was recorded and treated. Sedation after pre-medication, activity after the co-induction agent, quality of anaesthetic induction and endotracheal intubation were scored.ResultsPropofol dose requirement was significantly reduced in FP [2.90 mg kg⁻¹(0.57)] compared to CP [3.51 mg kg⁻¹ (0.74)] and MP [3.58 mg kg⁻¹(0.49)]. Mean pulse rate was higher in MP than in CP or FP (p = 0.003). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in mean RR, MAP or incidence of apnoea. Activity score was significantly higher (i.e. more excited) (p = 0.0001), and quality of induction score was significantly poorer (p = 0.0001) in MP compared to CP or FP. Intubation score was similar in all groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceFentanyl decreased propofol requirement but did not significantly alter cardiovascular parameters. Midazolam did not reduce propofol requirements and caused excitement in some animals.     

Postinduction apnoea in dogs premedicated with acepromazine or dexmedetomidine and anaesthetized with alfaxalone or propofol

Objective

To compare incidence and duration of postinduction apnoea in dogs after premedication with methadone and acepromazine (MA) or methadone and dexmedetomidine (MD) followed by induction with propofol (P) or alfaxalone (A).

A comparison of the effect of propofol and alfaxalone on laryngeal motion in nonbrachycephalic and brachycephalic dogs

Objective

To compare the effect of propofol and alfaxalone on laryngeal motion under a light plane of anaesthesia in nonbrachycephalic and brachycephalic dogs anaesthetized for nonemergency procedures.

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.     

Effects of sevoflurane,propofol or alfaxalone on neuromuscular blockade produced by a single intravenous bolus of rocuronium in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of sevoflurane, propofol and alfaxalone on the neuromuscular blockade induced by a single intravenous bolus of rocuronium in dogs.Study designA randomized, prospective, crossover experimental study.AnimalsA total of eight adult Beagle dogs (four female, four male), weighing 8.9–15.3 kg and aged 5–7 years.MethodsThe dogs were anesthetized three times with 1.25× minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane (SEVO treatment) and 1.25× minimum infusion rate of propofol (PROP treatment) or alfaxalone (ALFX treatment) at intervals of ≥14 days. Neuromuscular function was monitored with train-of-four (TOF) stimulation of the peroneal nerve by acceleromyography. After recording the control TOF ratio (TOFRC), a single bolus dose of rocuronium (1 mg kg^–1) was administered intravenously. The times from rocuronium administration to achieving TOF count 0 (onset time), from achieving TOF count 0 to the reappearance of TOF count 4 (clinical blockade period), from 25% to 75% of TOFRC (recovery index) and from achieving TOF count 0 to TOF ratio/TOFRC >0.9 (total neuromuscular blockade duration) were recorded.ResultsThe onset time and recovery index did not differ among the treatments. The median clinical blockade period was longer in the SEVO treatment [27.3 (26.0–30.3) minutes] than in PROP [16.6 (15.4–18.0) minutes; p = 0.002] and ALFX [22.4 (18.6–23.1) minutes; p = 0.017] treatments; and longer in the ALFX treatment than in the PROP treatment (p = 0.020). The mean total neuromuscular blockade duration was longer in the SEVO treatment (43.7 ± 9.9 minutes) than in PROP (25.1 ± 2.7 minutes; p < 0.001) and ALFX (32.5 ± 8.4 minutes; p = 0.036) treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceCompared with alfaxalone and propofol, sevoflurane prolonged rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade by a significantly greater extent in dogs.     

Dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in critically ill dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥III dogs requiring emergency abdominal surgery.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 19 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were sedated with fentanyl (2 μg kg^–1) intravenously (IV) for instrumentation for measurement of heart rate, arterial blood pressure, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate and rectal temperature. After additional IV fentanyl (3 μg kg^–1), the quality of sedation was scored and cardiopulmonary variables recorded. Induction of anesthesia was with IV propofol (1 mg kg^–1) and saline (0.06 mL kg^–1; group PS; nine dogs) or midazolam (0.3 mg kg^–1; group PM; 10 dogs), with additional propofol (0.25 mg kg^–1) IV every 6 seconds until endotracheal intubation. Induction/intubation quality was scored, and anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane. Variables were recorded for 5 minutes with the dog in lateral recumbency, breathing spontaneously, and then in dorsal recumbency with mechanical ventilation for the next 15 minutes. A general linear mixed model was used with post hoc analysis for multiple comparisons between groups (p < 0.05).ResultsThere were no differences in group demographics, temperature and cardiopulmonary variables between groups or within groups before or after induction. The propofol doses for induction of anesthesia were significantly different between groups, 1.9 ± 0.5 and 1.1 ± 0.5 mg kg^–1 for groups PS and PM, respectively, and the induction/intubation score was significantly better for group PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam co-induction reduced the propofol induction dose and improved the quality of induction in critically ill dogs without an improvement in cardiopulmonary variables, when compared with a higher dose of propofol alone.     

Evaluation of alfaxalone and midazolam with or without flumazenil reversal in Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus)

ObjectivesTo evaluate alfaxalone–midazolam anesthesia in Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus) and the effect of flumazenil administration on recovery time and quality.Study designRandomized, blinded, crossover and controlled, experimental trial.AnimalsA total of 10 male Egyptian fruit bats.MethodsBats were anesthetized with alfaxalone (15 mg kg^?1) and midazolam (2 mg kg^?1) administered subcutaneously. During anesthesia, vital signs, muscle tone and reflexes were monitored every 10 minutes. Flumazenil (0.3 mg kg^?1) or saline at an equal volume was administered subcutaneously 60 minutes after anesthetic administration. Time to induction, time to first movement and recovery time (flying) were measured. Quality of induction, anesthesia and recovery were assessed on a 1–3 scale (1, poor; 2, good; 3, excellent).ResultsTime to induction was 4.2 ± 1.9 minutes (mean ± standard deviation), with median quality score of 2 (range, 1–3). Anesthesia quality score was 3 (1–3). During anesthesia, heart rate and respiratory frequency decreased significantly and penis relaxation, indicating muscle tone, increased significantly. Administration of flumazenil significantly reduced mean recovery time compared with saline (10 ± 5 versus 45 ± 17 minutes, respectively), and significantly improved the quality of recovery [2.5 (2–3) versus 1 (1–2), respectively].Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone–midazolam anesthesia resulted in good induction, muscle relaxation and sufficient anesthesia to perform routine diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for approximately 40 minutes. Reversal of midazolam with flumazenil is recommended, resulting in quicker and better recovery.     

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.     

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.