Propofol and fentanyl infusions in dogs of various breeds undergoing surgery

ObjectiveTo report the cardiovascular variables, anaesthetic effects and recovery quality of an anaesthesia technique using variable rate infusion propofol combined with constant rate infusion fentanyl in dogs undergoing elective surgery.Study designProspective clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 27 dogs, aged 2.7 ± 2.65 years and weighing 24 ± 11 kg.MethodsFollowing intramuscular acepromazine (0.03 or 0.05 mg kg^?1) and subcutaneous carprofen (4 mg kg^?1) pre-medication, anaesthesia was induced with propofol (4.0 ± 0.5 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV). All dogs were ventilated with 100% oxygen to maintain normocapnia. Propofol was infused at 0.4 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 for 20 minutes and then at 0.3 mg kg^?1minute^?1. If mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) decreased below 70 mmHg, propofol infusion was reduced by 0.1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1. Five minutes after induction of anaesthesia, fentanyl was administered (2 μg kg^?1) IV followed by the infusion at 0.5 μg kg^?1 minute^?1 and atropine (40 μg kg^?1) IV. Heart rate, MAP, respiratory rate, tidal volume, end-tidal carbon dioxide, presence of reflexes, movements and recovery times and quality were recorded.ResultsMean anaesthetic duration was 131 ± 38.5 minutes. Mean heart rate peaked 10 minutes after atropine injection and gradually declined, reaching pre-anaesthetic values at 55 minutes. MAP easily was maintained above 70 mmHg. Mean times to return of spontaneous ventilation, extubation, head lift and sternal recumbency were 21 ± 10.1, 33 ± 14.6, 43 ± 19.7 and 65 ± 23.4 minutes, respectively. Recovery was smooth and quiet. The time to sternal recumbency was significantly correlated with the duration of anaesthesia and total dose of propofol; time to extubation was correlated to total dose of propofol.Conclusion and clinical relevancePropofol and fentanyl infusions provided stable cardiovascular function and satisfactory conditions for surgery. Some modifications of infusion rates are required to improve the long-recovery times.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of the effects of propofol or alfaxalone for anaesthesia induction and maintenance on respiration in cats

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of propofol and alfaxalone on respiration in cats.Study designRandomized, ‘blinded’, prospective clinical trial.AnimalsTwenty cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy.MethodsAfter premedication with medetomidine 0.01 mg kg⁻¹ intramuscularly and meloxicam 0.3 mg kg⁻¹ subcutaneously, the cats were assigned randomly into two groups: group A (n = 10) were administered alfaxalone 5 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ followed by 10 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ intravenously (IV) and group P (n = 10) were administered propofol 6 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ followed by 12 mg kg⁻¹hour⁻¹ IV for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, respectively. After endotracheal intubation, the tube was connected to a non-rebreathing system delivering 100% oxygen. The anaesthetic maintenance drug rate was adjusted (± 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹) every 5 minutes according to a scoring sheet based on physiologic variables and clinical signs. If apnoea > 30 seconds, end-tidal carbon dioxide (Pe′CO₂) > 7.3 kPa (55 mmHg) or arterial haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) < 90% occurred, manual ventilation was provided. Methadone was administered postoperatively. Data were analyzed using independent-samples t-tests, Fisher's exact test, linear mixed-effects models and binomial test.ResultsManual ventilation was required in two and eight of the cats in group A and P, respectively (p = 0.02). Two cats in both groups showed apnoea. Pe′CO₂ > 7.3 kPa was recorded in zero versus four and SpO₂ < 90% in zero versus six cats in groups A and P respectively. Induction and maintenance dose rates (mean ± SD) were 11.6 ± 0.3 mg kg⁻¹ and 10.7 ± 0.8 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ for alfaxalone and 11.7 ± 2.7 mg kg⁻¹ and 12.4 ± 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ for propofol.Conclusion and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone had less adverse influence on respiration than propofol in cats premedicated with medetomidine. Alfaxalone might be better than propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia when artificial ventilation cannot be provided.     

Midazolam,as a co‐induction agent,has propofol sparing effects but also decreases systolic blood pressure in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of the co-administration of midazolam on the dose requirement for propofol anesthesia induction, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and the incidence of excitement.Study designProspective, randomized, controlled and blinded clinical study, with owner consent.AnimalsSeventeen healthy, client owned dogs weighing 28 ± 18 kg and aged 4.9 ± 3.9 years old.MethodsDogs were sedated with acepromazine 0.025 mg kg^?1 and morphine 0.25 mg kg^?1 intramuscularly (IM), 30 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to receive midazolam (MP; 0.2 mg kg^?1) or sterile normal saline (CP; 0.04 mL kg^?1) intravenously (IV) over 15 seconds. Propofol was administered IV immediately following test drug and delivered at 3 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 until intubation was possible. Scoring of pre-induction sedation, ease of intubation, quality of induction, and presence or absence of excitement following co-induction agent, was recorded. HR, SAP and respiratory rate (f_R) were obtained immediately prior to, immediately following, and 5 minutes following induction of anesthesia.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with regard to weight, age, gender, or sedation. Excitement occurred in 5/9 dogs following midazolam administration, with none noted in the control group. The dose of propofol administered to the midazolam group was significantly less than in the control group. Differences in HR were not significant between groups. SAP was significantly lower in the midazolam group compared with baseline values 5 minutes after its administration. However, values remained clinically acceptable.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe co-administration of midazolam with propofol decreased the total dose of propofol needed for induction of anesthesia in sedated healthy dogs, caused some excitement and a clinically unimportant decrease in SAP.     

The effect of body condition on propofol requirement in dogs

ObjectiveTo determine if body condition score (BCS) influences the sedative effect of intramuscular (IM) premedication or the dose of intravenous (IV) propofol required to achieve endotracheal intubation in dogs.Study designProspective clinical study.AnimalsForty–six client–owned dogs undergoing general anaesthesia.MethodsDogs were allocated to groups according to their BCS (BCS, 1 [emaciated] to 9 [obese]): Normal–weight Group (NG, n = 25) if BCS 4–5 or Over–weight Group (OG, n = 21) if BCS over 6. Dogs were scored for sedation prior to IM injection of medetomidine (5 μg kg^?1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^?1) and twenty minutes later anaesthesia was induced by a slow infusion of propofol at 1.5 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 until endotracheal intubation could be achieved. The total dose of propofol administered was recorded. Data were tested for normality then analyzed using Student t–tests, Mann–Whitney U tests, chi–square tests or linear regression as appropriate.ResultsMean ( ± SD) propofol requirement in NG was 2.24 ± 0.53 mg kg^?1 and in OG was 1.83 ± 0.36 mg kg^?1. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (p = 0.005). The degree of sedation was not different between the groups (p = 0.7). Post–induction apnoea occurred in 11 of 25 animals in the NG and three of 21 in OG (p = 0.052).ConclusionsOverweight dogs required a lower IV propofol dose per kg of total body mass to allow tracheal intubation than did normal body condition score animals suggesting that IV anaesthetic doses should be calculated according to lean body mass. The lower dose per kg of total body mass may have resulted in less post–induction apnoea in overweight/obese dogs. The effect of IM premedication was not significantly affected by the BCS.Clinical relevanceInduction of general anaesthesia with propofol in overweight dogs may be expected at lower doses than normal–weight animals.     

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.     

Cardiovascular,respiratory, electrolyte and acid–base balance during continuous dexmedetomidine infusion in anesthetized dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cardiovascular, respiratory, electrolyte and acid–base effects of a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine during propofol–isoflurane anesthesia following premedication with dexmedetomidine.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsFive adult male Walker Hound dogs 1–2 years of age averaging 25.4 ± 3.6 kg.MethodsDogs were sedated with dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 IM, 78 ± 2.3 minutes (mean ± SD) before general anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with propofol (2.5 ± 0.5 mg kg^?1) IV and maintained with 1.5% isoflurane. Thirty minutes later dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg kg^?1 IV was administered over 5 minutes followed by an infusion of 0.5 μg kg^?1 hour^?1. Cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR), ECG, direct blood pressure, body temperature, respiratory parameters, acid–base and arterial blood gases and electrolytes were measured 30 and 60 minutes after the infusion started. Data were analyzed via multiple linear regression modeling of individual variables over time, compared to anesthetized baseline values. Data are presented as mean ± SD.ResultsNo statistical difference from baseline for any parameter was measured at any time point. Baseline CO, HR and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) before infusion were 3.11 ± 0.9 L minute^?1, 78 ± 18 beats minute^?1 and 96 ± 10 mmHg, respectively. During infusion CO, HR and MAP were 3.20 ± 0.83 L minute^?1, 78 ± 14 beats minute^?1 and 89 ± 16 mmHg, respectively. No differences were found in respiratory rates, PaO₂, PaCO₂, pH, base excess, bicarbonate, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium or lactate measurements before or during infusion.Conclusions and clinical relevanceDexmedetomidine infusion using a loading dose of 0.5 μg kg^?1 IV followed by a constant rate infusion of 0.5 μg kg^?1 hour^?1 does not cause any significant changes beyond those associated with an IM premedication dose of 10 μg kg^?1, in propofol–isoflurane anesthetized dogs. IM dexmedetomidine given 108 ± 2 minutes before onset of infusion showed typical significant effects on cardiovascular parameters.     

The effect of low dose rocuronium bromide on eyeball position, muscle relaxation, and ventilation in dogs

A central eyeball position is often required during sedation or anaesthesia to facilitate examination of the eye. However, use of neuromuscular blockade to produce a central eye position may result in depressed ventilation. This study evaluated the eyeball position, muscle relaxation and changes in ventilation during general anaesthesia after the IV administration of 0.1 mg kg^?1 rocuronium. With client consent, 12 dogs of different breeds, body mass 27.2 ± 11.8 kg, aged 5.6 ± 2.8 years (mean ± SD) were anaesthetized for ocular examination. Pre‐anaesthetic medication was 0.01 mg kg^?1 medetomidine and 0.2 mg kg^?1 butorphanol IV. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol to effect and maintained with 10 mg kg^?1 hour^?1 propofol by infusion. The dogs were placed in left lateral recumbency, their trachea intubated and connected to a circle breathing system (Fi O₂ = 1.0). All dogs breathed spontaneously. The superficial peroneal nerve of the right hind leg was stimulated every 15 seconds with a train‐of‐four (TOF) stimulation pattern and neuromuscular function was assessed with an acceleromyograph (TOF‐Guard). Adequacy of ventilation was measured with the Ventrak 1550. After 10 minutes of anaesthesia to allow stabilisation of baseline values, 0.1 mg kg^?1 rocuronium was administered IV. Minute volume (Vm ), tidal volume (Vt ), respiratory rate (RR), Pe ′CO₂ and maximal depression of T1 and TOF ratio were measured. Data were analysed using a paired t‐test. The changes in the eyeball position were recorded. A total of 100 ± 33 seconds after the injection of rocuronium, T1 was maximally depressed to 62 ± 21% and the TOF ratio to 42 ± 18% of baseline values. Both variables returned to baseline after 366 ± 132 seconds (T1) and 478 ± 111 seconds (TOF). There was no significant reduction in Vm (2.32 ± 1.1 L minute^?1), Vt (124.1 ± 69.3 mL) and RR (10 ± 3.8 breaths minute^?1) and no increase in Pe ′CO₂ (6.5 ± 2.1 kPa (48.8 ± 16.1 mm Hg)) throughout the procedure. The eyeball rotated to a central position 35 ± 7 seconds after rocuronium IV and remained there for a minimum of 20 ± 7 minutes in all dogs. We conclude that rocuronium at a dose of 0.1 mg kg^?1 can be administered to dogs IV with minimal changes in ventilatory variables. The eyeball is fixed in a central position for at least 20 minutes, which greatly facilitates clinical examination.     

The cardiopulmonary effects of anesthetic induction with isoflurane,ketamine‐diazepam or propofol‐diazepam in the hypovolemic dog

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the cardiopulmonary effects of induction of anesthesia with isoflurane (Iso), ketamine–diazepam (KD), or propofol–diazepam (PD) in hypovolemic dogs.Study designProspective randomized cross–over trial.AnimalsSix healthy intact, mixed breed, female dogs weighing 20.7 ± 4.2 kg and aged 22 ± 2 months.MethodsDogs had 30 mL kg^?1 of blood removed at a rate of 1.5 mL kg^?1 minute^?1 under isoflurane anesthesia. Following a 30–minute recovery period, anesthesia was reinduced. Dogs were assigned to one of three treatments: isoflurane via facemask using 0.5% incremental increases in the delivered concentration every 30 seconds, 1.25 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.0625 mg kg^?1 diazepam intravenously (IV) with doses repeated every 30 seconds as required, and 2 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam IV followed by 1 mg kg^?1 propofol increments IV every 30 seconds as required. Following endotracheal intubation all dogs received 1.7% end–tidal isoflurane in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded at baseline (before induction) and at 5 or 10 minute intervals following endotracheal intubation.ResultsInduction time was longer in Iso (4.98 ± 0.47 minutes) compared to KD (3.10 ± 0.47 minutes) or PD (3.22 ± 0.45 minutes). To produce anesthesia, KD received 4.9 ± 2.3 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.24 ± 0.1 mg kg^?1 diazepam, while PD received 2.2 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam. End–tidal isoflurane concentration immediately following intubation was 1.7 ± 0.4% in Iso. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were significantly higher in KD and PD compared to Iso and in KD compared to PD. Arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure was significantly higher in PD compared to KD and Iso immediately after induction.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn hypovolemic dogs, KD or PD, as used in this study to induce anesthesia, resulted in less hemodynamic depression compared to isoflurane.     

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol with or without 2% benzyl alcohol following a single induction dose administered intravenously in cats

ObjectiveTo compare the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol with or without 2% benzyl alcohol administered intravenously (IV) as a single induction dose in cats.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsSix healthy adult cats, three female intact, three male castrated, weighing 4.8 ± 1.8 kg.MethodsCats received 8 mg kg⁻¹ IV of propofol (P) or propofol with 2% benzyl alcohol (P28) using a randomized crossover design. Venous blood samples were collected at predetermined time points to 24 hours after drug administration to determine drug plasma concentrations. Physiologic and behavioral variables were also recorded. Propofol and benzyl alcohol concentrations were determined using high pressure liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Pharmacokinetic parameters were described using a 2-compartment model. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were analyzed using repeated measures anova (p < 0.05).ResultsPlasma concentrations of benzyl alcohol were below the lower limits of quantification (LLOQ) at all time points for two of the six cats (33%), and by 30 minutes for the remaining four cats. Propofol pharmacokinetics, with or without 2% benzyl alcohol, were characterized by rapid distribution, a long elimination phase, and a large volume of distribution. No differences were noted between treatments with the exception of clearance from the second compartment (CLD2), which was 23.6 and 38.8 mL kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ in the P and P28 treatments, respectively. Physiologic and behavioral variables were not different between treatments with the exception of heart rate at 4 hours post administration.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe addition of 2% benzyl alcohol as a preservative minimally altered the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol 1% emulsion when administered as a single IV bolus in this group of cats. These data support the cautious use of propofol with 2% benzyl alcohol for induction of anesthesia in healthy cats.     

Continuous infusion of propofol or intermittent bolus of tiletamine‐zolazepam in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)

ObjectiveTo investigate an infusion of propofol for anesthesia in comparison to tiletamine-zolazepam anesthesia, evaluating physiological variables and recovery in squirrel monkeys.Study designProspective non-blinded randomized study.AnimalsEight healthy squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus), aged 3 years and weighing 0.340–0.695 kg.MethodsPremedication was intramuscular midazolam (0.5 mg) and meperidine (4 mg). Anesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) propofol (4 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) and maintained with propofol starting at 0.4 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (PRO, n = 4) or IV tiletamine-zolazepam (5 mg kg^?1) and maintained with supplementary doses of TZ (TZ, n = 4). Cardiopulmonary variables were measured continuously. Arterial blood gases and lactate concentration were measured at the end of anesthesia. Quality and times of recovery were determined. Repeatedly measured data for significant differences were tested between groups with t-test and within groups by anova.ResultsMedian time for induction of anesthesia in PRO was 180 seconds. Mean maintenance infusion rate of propofol was 0.43 ± 0.05 mg kg^?1 minute^?1, varying during the 1 hour period. One monkey died after administration of TZ; others required 1, 4, or 8 supplemental doses. Cardiopulmonary variables were similar between groups, but hypotension was recorded. Recovery times to ventral recumbency in PRO (32 ± 17 minutes) and TZ (84 ± 11 minutes) and normal ambulation in PRO (58 ± 22 minutes) and TZ (358 ± 109minutes) were significantly different (p < 0.05). Recovery quality was superior in PRO, with less ataxia and fewer unsuccessful attempts to stand. Lactate concentration was not different between treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceCardiopulmonary variables were similar between protocols, aside from the higher incidence of hypotension in PRO, indicating that further studies with a larger number of animals are required. Compared to tiletamine-zolazepam, propofol anesthesia provided faster and superior anesthetic recovery in these animals.     

Neuraxial morphine induced pruritus in two cats and treatment with sub anaesthetic doses of propofol

HistoryTwo cats were presented for orthopaedic surgery.Physical ExaminationWith the exception of the orthopaedic injuries found, clinical examination showed no abnormality.ManagementAs part of anaesthetic management, one cat received intrathecal morphine, the other epidural morphine. Following recovery, intense grooming was observed. After ensuring adequate analgesia this behaviour was interpreted as pruritus.In the first cat, pruritus was initially managed with medetomidine constant rate infusion (CRI) at 1 and 1.5 μg kg^?1 hour^?1. The lower dose produced sedation and no relief from pruritus, the higher dose ablated pruritus but induced sedation. Two propofol (lipid emulsion formulation) boli of 0.1 mg kg^?1 ablated pruritus without causing sedation. The second cat was successfully treated with four boli of 0.1 mg kg^?1 propofol over 20 minutes.Follow–upFollowing treatment with propofol, pruritus did not recur in either cat and both were discharged from the hospital.ConclusionsThis is the first clinical report of morphine–induced pruritus in cats and management with low–dose propofol. These cases suggest an antipruritic mechanism for lipid–formulation propofol.     

Alfaxalone or ketamine‐medetomidine in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy: a comparison of intra‐operative parameters and post‐operative pain

ObjectiveTo compare post-operative pain in cats after alfaxalone or ketamine- medetomidine anaesthesia for ovariohysterectomy (OHE) and physiologic parameters during and after surgery.Study designProspective ‘blinded’ randomized clinical study.AnimalsTwenty-one healthy cats.MethodsCats were assigned randomly into two groups: Group A, anaesthesia was induced and maintained with alfaxalone [5 mg kg^?1 intravenously (IV) followed by boli (2 mg kg^?1 IV); Group MK, induction with ketamine (5 mg kg^?1 IV) after medetomidine (30 μg kg^?1 intramuscularly (IM)], and maintenance with ketamine (2 mg kg^?1 IV). Meloxicam (0.2 mg kg^?1 IV) was administered after surgery. Basic physiological data were collected. At time T = -2, 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 hours post-operatively pain was assessed by three methods, a composite pain scale (CPS; 0–24 points), a visual analogue scale (VAS 0–100 mm), and a mechanical wound threshold (MWT) device. Butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^?1 IM) was administered if CPS was scored =13. Data were analyzed using a general linear model, Kruskal–Wallis analyses, Bonferroni-Dunn test, unpaired t-test and Fisher's exact test as relevant. Significance was set at p < 0.05.ResultsVASs were significantly higher at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 20 hours in group A; MWT values were significantly higher at 8 and 12 hours in group MK. Post-operative MWT decreased significantly compared to baseline in both groups. There was no difference in CPS at any time point. Five cats required rescue analgesia (four in A; one in MK).Conclusion and clinical relevanceAnaesthesia with ketamine-medetomidine was found to provide better post-surgical analgesia than alfaxalone in cats undergoing OHE; however, primary hyperalgesia developed in both groups. Alfaxalone is suitable for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia in cats undergoing OHE, but administration of additional sedative and analgesic drugs is highly recommended.     

Use of naltrexone to antagonize high doses of remifentanil in cats: a dose-finding study

ObjectiveTo determine the dose of naltrexone necessary to fully antagonize a high dose of remifentanil in cats.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsSix healthy adult cats weighing 4.9 ± 0.7 kg.MethodsIn a first phase, remifentanil (200 μg kg^?1 followed by 60 μg kg^?1 minute^?1) was administered intravenously to two cats, causing an increase in locomotor activity. Naltrexone (100 μg kg^?1) was then administered intravenously every minute until the increase in locomotor activity had been reversed. In a second phase, six cats were used. Baseline thermal threshold was determined, naltrexone (600 μg kg^?1) was administered intravenously and 30 minutes later thermal threshold determination repeated. Remifentanil (200 μg kg^?1 followed by 60 μg kg^?1 minute^?1) was administered intravenously and thermal threshold determination repeated at 60, 120, 180, and/or 240 minutes after naltrexone administration. Thermal threshold determinations were started shortly after the start of the continuous rate infusion (CRI) of remifentanil and this CRI was discontinued immediately after thermal threshold determination. If an increase in thermal threshold was found, naltrexone administration was repeated at decreasing intervals in the next experiment (all cats were not used for all dosing intervals). Experiments were repeated until a naltrexone dosing interval was found that prevented increases in thermal threshold for 4 hours in all six cats.ResultsIn the first phase, both cats became severely dysphoric following remifentanil administration. A cumulative naltrexone dose of 300 μg kg^?1 was necessary to restore normal behavior in both cats. In the second phase, hourly administration of naltrexone (600 μg kg^?1) prevented increases in thermal threshold associated with hourly administration of remifentanil for 4 hours. Less frequent administration did not prevent increases in thermal threshold consistently.ConclusionsHourly administration of naltrexone (600 μg kg^?1) antagonizes the behavioral and antinociceptive effects of a high dose of remifentanil in cats.Clinical relevanceNaltrexone may be useful for the treatment of opioid overdose in cats.     

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 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.     

The effect of preanaesthetic oral trazodone hydrochloride on the induction dose of propofol: a preliminary retrospective study

ObjectiveTo determine whether the administration of trazodone to dogs 2 hours prior to radiotherapy treatment reduced the dose of propofol required to induce anaesthesia.Study designRetrospective, crossover, case-matched study.AnimalsRecords of 30 client-owned dogs.MethodsAnaesthetic records from all dogs undergoing weekly radiotherapy treatment between January 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively assessed. All dogs were premedicated with 10 μg kg^–1 alfentanil and 12 μg kg^–1 atropine intravenously (IV) and anaesthesia was induced with IV propofol. In part 1, the propofol induction dose was compared between anaesthetics when trazodone was administered prior to the anaesthetic (T) versus not (NT). For part 2, control dogs not administered trazodone during the treatment course were case-matched based on bodyweight and tumour location and type. The propofol induction dose was compared between the first (C1) and last (C2) anaesthetic to identify the effects of confounding factors. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test for repeated measurements was performed to identify any significant differences in the propofol induction dose between NT and T in the study dogs and between C1 and C2 in the control dogs.ResultsIn part 1, 15 study dogs that were administered trazodone prior to at least one anaesthetic were identified. A significant difference in propofol induction dose between groups NT and T was identified [3.3 (2.1–7.4) and 2.0 (1.5–5.0) mg kg^–1, respectively; p = 0.003]. In part 2, 15 dogs were case-matched to the study cohort. The dose of propofol administered did not differ between the first and last anaesthetic [2.5 (1.6–6.4) and 2.6 (1.9–8.9) mg kg^–1, respectively; p = 0.638].Conclusions and clinical relevancePreanaesthetic trazodone administration reduced the induction dose of propofol compared to when it was not administered to dogs following premedication with IV atropine and alfentanil.