A comparison in dogs of medetomidine,with or without MK‐467, and the combination acepromazine‐butorphanol as premedication prior to anaesthesia induced by propofol and maintained with isoflurane

ObjectiveTo compare the haemodynamic effects of three premedicant regimens during propofol-induced isoflurane anaesthesia.Study designProspective, randomized cross-over study.AnimalsEight healthy purpose-bred beagles aged 4 years and weighing mean 13.6 ± SD 1.9 kg.MethodsThe dogs were instrumented whilst under isoflurane anaesthesia prior to each experiment, then allowed to recover for 60 minutes. Each dog was treated with three different premedications given intravenously (IV): medetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 (MED), medetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 with MK-467 250 μg kg^?1 (MMK), or acepromazine 0.01 mg kg^?1 with butorphanol 0.3 mg kg^?1 (AB). Anaesthesia was induced 20 minutes later with propofol and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen for 60 minutes. Heart rate (HR), cardiac output, arterial blood pressures (ABP), central venous pressure (CVP), respiratory rate, inspired oxygen fraction, rectal temperature (RT) and bispectral index (BIS) were measured and arterial and venous blood gases analyzed. Cardiac index (CI), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), oxygen delivery index (DO₂I), systemic oxygen consumption index (VO₂I) and oxygen extraction (EO₂) were calculated. Times to extubation, righting, sternal recumbency and walking were recorded. The differences between treatment groups were evaluated with repeated measures analysis of covariance.ResultsHR, CI, DO₂I and BIS were significantly lower with MED than with MMK. ABP, CVP, SVRI, EO₂, RT and arterial lactate were significantly higher with MED than with MMK and AB. HR and ABP were significantly higher with MMK than with AB. However, CVP, CI, SVRI, DO₂I, VO₂I, EO₂, T, BIS and blood lactate did not differ significantly between MMK and AB. The times to extubation, righting, sternal recumbency and walking were significantly shorter with MMK than with MED and AB.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMK-467 attenuates certain cardiovascular effects of medetomidine in dogs anaesthetized with isoflurane. The cardiovascular effects of MMK are very similar to those of AB.     

Effects of altering the sequence of midazolam and propofol during co‐induction of anaesthesia

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of varying the sequence of midazolam and propofol administration on the quality of induction, cardiorespiratory parameters and propofol requirements in dogs.Study designRandomized, controlled, clinical study.AnimalsThirty‐three client owned dogs (ASA I‐III, 0.5–10 years, 5–30 kg).MethodsDogs were premedicated with acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.4 mg kg^?1) intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, group midazolam‐propofol (MP) received midazolam (0.25 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV) before propofol (1 mg kg^?1) IV, group propofol‐midazolam (PM) received propofol before midazolam IV at the same doses, and control group (CP) received saline IV, instead of midazolam, before propofol. Supplementary boluses of propofol (0.5 mg kg^?1) were administered to effect to all groups until orotracheal intubation was completed. Behaviour after midazolam administration, quality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were scored. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, and systolic arterial blood pressure were recorded before premedication, post‐premedication, after midazolam or saline administration, and at 0, 2, 5, and 10 minutes post‐intubation. End‐tidal CO₂ and arterial oxygen haemoglobin saturation were recorded at 2, 5 and 10 minutes post‐intubation.ResultsQuality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were similar in all groups. Incidence of excitement was higher in the MP compared to CP (p = 0.014) and PM (p = 0.026) groups. Propofol requirements were decreased in MP and PM groups with respect to CP (p < 0.001), and in PM compared to MP (p = 0.022). The HR decreased after premedication in all groups, and increased after midazolam and subsequent times in MP (p = 0.019) and PM (p = 0.001) groups. Incidence of apnoea and paddling was higher in CP (p = 0.005) and MP (p = 0.031) groups than in PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAdministration of midazolam before propofol reduced propofol requirements although caused mild excitement in some dogs. Administration of propofol before midazolam resulted in less excitatory phenomena and greater reduction of propofol requirements.     

Effects of acepromazine on pulmonary gas exchange and circulation during sedation and dissociative anaesthesia in horses

OBJECTIVE: To study pulmonary gas exchange and cardiovascular responses to sedation achieved with romifidine and butorphanol (RB) alone, or combined with acepromazine, and during subsequent tiletamine-zolazepam anaesthesia in horses. ANIMALS: Six (four males and two females) healthy Standardbred trotters aged 3-12 years; mass 423-520 kg. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, cross-over, experimental study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Horses were anaesthetized on two occasions (with a minimum interval of 1 week) with intravenous (IV) tiletamine-zolazepam (Z; 1.4 mg kg(-1)) after pre-anaesthetic medication with IV romifidine (R; 0.1 mg kg(-1)) and butorphanol (B; 25 microg kg(-1) IV). At the first trial, horses were randomly allocated to receive (protocol ARBZ) or not to receive (protocol RBZ) acepromazine (A; 35 microg kg(-1)) intramuscularly (IM) 35 minutes before induction of anaesthesia. Each horse was placed in left lateral recumbency and, after tracheal intubation, allowed to breathe room air spontaneously. Respiratory and haemodynamic variables and ventilation-perfusion (; multiple inert gas elimination technique) ratios were determined in the conscious horse, after sedation and during anaesthesia. One- and two-way repeated-measures anova were used to identify within- and between-technique differences, respectively. RESULTS: During sedation with RB, arterial oxygen tension (PaO(2)) decreased compared to baseline and increased mismatch was evident; there was no O(2) diffusion limitation or increase in intrapulmonary shunt fraction identified. With ARB, PaO(2) and remained unaffected. During anaesthesia, intrapulmonary shunt occurred to the same extent in both protocols, and mismatching increased. This was less in the ARBZ group. Arterial O(2) tension decreased in both protocols, but was lower at 25 and 35 minutes of anaesthesia in RBZ than in ARBZ. During sedation, heart rate (HR) and cardiac output (Qt) were lower while arterial-mixed venous oxygen content differences and haemoglobin concentrations were higher in RBZ compared with ARBZ. Total systemic vascular resistance, mean systemic, and mean pulmonary arterial pressures were higher during anaesthesia with RBZ compared to ARBZ. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Acepromazine added to RB generally improved haemodynamic variables and arterial oxygenation during sedation and anaesthesia. Arterial oxygenation was impaired as a result of increased shunt and mismatch during anaesthesia, although acepromazine treatment reduced disturbances and falls in PaO(2) to some extent. Haemodynamic variables were closer to baseline during sedation and anaesthesia when horses received acepromazine. Acepromazine may confer advantages in healthy normovolaemic horses.     

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).

Intravenous sufentanil‐midazolam versus sevoflurane anaesthesia in medetomidine pre‐medicated Himalayan rabbits undergoing ovariohysterectomy

ObjectiveTo compare physiological effects of sufentanil-midazolam with sevoflurane for surgical anaesthesia in medetomidine premedicated rabbits.Study designProspective, randomized controlled experimental study.AnimalsEighteen female Himalayan rabbits, weight 2.1 ± 0.1 kg.MethodsPremedication with 0.1 mg kg⁻¹ medetomidine and 5 mg kg⁻¹ carprofen subcutaneously, was followed by intravenous anaesthetic induction with sufentanil (2.3 μg mL⁻¹) and midazolam (0.45 mg mL⁻¹). After endotracheal intubation, anaesthesia was maintained with sufentanil-midazolam (n = 9) or sevoflurane (n = 9). Ovariohysterectomy was performed. Intermittent positive pressure ventilation was performed as required. Physiological variables were studied perioperatively. Group means of physiologic data were generated for different anaesthetic periods. Data were compared for changes from sedation, and between groups by anova. Post-operatively, 0.05 mg kg⁻¹ buprenorphine was administered once and 5 mg kg⁻¹ carprofen once daily for 2–3 days. Rabbits were examined and weighed daily until one week after surgery.ResultsSmooth induction of anaesthesia was achieved within 5 minutes. Sufentanil and midazolam doses were 0.5 μg kg⁻¹ and 0.1 mg kg⁻¹, during induction and 3.9 μg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ and 0.8 mg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ during surgery, respectively. End-tidal sevoflurane concentration was 2.1% during surgery. Assisted ventilation was required in nine rabbits receiving sufentanil-midazolam and four receiving sevoflurane. There were no differences between groups in physiologic data other than arterial carbon dioxide. In rabbits receiving sevoflurane, mean arterial pressure decreased pre-surgical intervention, heart rate increased 25% during and after surgery and body weight decreased 4% post-operatively. Post-operative problems sometimes resulted from catheterization of the ear artery.ConclusionSevoflurane and sufentanil-midazolam provided surgical anaesthesia of similar quality. Arterial blood pressure was sustained during sufentanil-midazolam anaesthesia and rabbits receiving sevoflurane lost body weight following ovariohysterectomy. Mechanical ventilation was required with both anaesthetic regimens.Clinical relevanceAnaesthesia with sufentanil-midazolam in medetomidine premedicated healthy rabbits is useful in the clinical and the research setting, as an alternative to sevoflurane.     

Evaluation of cardiorespiratory and biochemical effects of ketamine‐propofol and guaifenesin‐ketamine‐xylazine anesthesia in donkeys (Equus asinus)

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cardiorespiratory and biochemical effects of ketamine-propofol (KP) or guaifenesin-ketamine-xylazine (GKX) anesthesia in donkeys.Study designProspective crossover trial.AnimalsEight healthy, standard donkeys, aged 10 ± 5 years and weighing 153 ± 23 kg.MethodsDonkeys were premedicated with 1.0 mg kg^?1 of xylazine (IV) in both treatments. Eight donkeys were administered ketamine (1.5 mg kg^?1) and propofol (0.5 mg kg^?1) for induction, and anesthesia was maintained by constant rate infusion (CRI) of ketamine (0.05 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) and propofol (0.15 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) in the KP treatment. After 10 days, diazepam (0.05 mg kg^?1) and ketamine (2.2 mg kg^?1) were administered for induction, and anesthesia was maintained by a CRI (2.0 mL kg^?1 hour^?1) of ketamine (2.0 mg mL^?1), xylazine (0.5 mg mL^?1) and guaifenesin (50 mg mL^?1) solution. Quality of anesthesia was assessed along with cardiorespiratory and biochemical measurements.ResultsAnesthetic induction took longer in GKX than in KP. The induction was considered good in 7/8 with KP and in 6/8 in GKX. Anesthetic recovery was classified as good in 7/8 animals in both treatments. Xylazine administration decreased heart rate (HR) in both treatments, but in KP the HR increased and was higher than GKX throughout the anesthetic period. Respiratory rate was higher in GKX than in KP. PaO₂ decreased significantly in both groups during the anesthetic period. Glucose concentrations [GLU] increased and rectal temperature and PCV decreased in both treatments. Arterial lactate [LAC] increased at recovery compared with all time points in KP. [GLU] and calcium were higher in GKX than in KP at recovery.Conclusion and clinical relevanceThese protocols induced significant hypoxemia but no other cardiorespiratory or metabolic changes. These protocols could be used to maintain anesthesia in donkeys, however, they were not tested in animals undergoing surgery.     

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.     

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.

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.     

Effects of intravenous acepromazine and butorphanol on propofol dosage for induction of anesthesia in healthy Beagle dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of intravenous (IV) premedication with acepromazine, butorphanol or their combination, on the propofol anesthetic induction dosage in dogs.Study designProspective, blinded, Latin square design.AnimalsA total of three male and three female, healthy Beagle dogs, aged 3.79 ± 0.02 years, weighing 10.6 ± 1.1 kg, mean ± standard deviation.MethodsEach dog was assigned to one of six IV treatments weekly: 0.9% saline (treatment SAL), low-dose acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^–1; treatment LDA), high-dose acepromazine (0.04 mg kg^–1; treatment HDA), low-dose butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^–1; treatment LDB), high-dose butorphanol (0.4 mg kg^–1; treatment HDB); and a combination of acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^–1) with butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^–1; treatment ABC). Physiologic variables and sedation scores were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after premedication. Then propofol was administered at 1 mg kg^–1 IV over 15 seconds, followed by boluses (0.5 mg kg^–1 over 5 seconds) every 15 seconds until intubation. Propofol dose, physiologic variables, recovery time, recovery score and adverse effects were monitored and recorded. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects anova (p < 0.05).ResultsPropofol dosage was lower in all treatments than in treatment SAL (4.4 ± 0.5 mg kg^–1); the largest decrease was recorded in treatment ABC (1.7 ± 0.3 mg kg^–1). Post induction mean arterial pressures (MAPs) were lower than baseline values of treatments LDA, HDA and ABC. Apnea and hypotension (MAP < 60 mmHg) developed in some dogs in all treatments with the greatest incidence of hypotension in treatment ABC (4/6 dogs).Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlthough the largest decrease in propofol dosage required for intubation was after IV premedication with acepromazine and butorphanol, hypotension and apnea still occurred.     

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.     

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.     

Two doses of dexmedetomidine in combination with buprenorphine for premedication in dogs; a comparison with acepromazine and buprenorphine

ObjectiveTo assess as premedicants, the sedative, cardiorespiratory and propofol-sparing effects in dogs of dexmedetomidine and buprenorphine compared to acepromazine and buprenorphine.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded clinical studyAnimalsSixty healthy dogs (ASA grades I/II). Mean (SD) body mass 28.0 ± 9.1 kg, and mean age 3.4 ± 2.3 years.MethodsDogs were allocated randomly to receive 15 μg kg^?1 buprenorphine combined with either 30 μg kg^?1 acepromazine (group 1), 62.5 μg m^?2 dexmedetomidine (group 2), or 125 μg m^?2 dexmedetomidine (group 3) intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, anaesthesia was induced using a propofol target controlled infusion. Heart rate, respiratory rate, and oscillometric arterial blood pressure were recorded prior to induction, at endotracheal intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. Induction quality and pre-induction sedation were scored on 4 point scales. Propofol target required for endotracheal intubation was recorded. Data were analysed using Chi-squared tests, Kruskal-Wallis, one way and general linear model anova (p < 0.05).ResultsAge was significantly lower in group 1 (1.0 (1.0–3.8) years) than group 2 (5.0 (2.0–7.0) years), (median, (IQR)). There were no significant differences in sedation or quality of induction between groups. After premedication, heart rate was significantly lower and arterial blood pressures higher in groups 2 and 3 than group 1, but there was no significant difference between groups 2 and 3. Propofol targets were significantly lower in group 3 (1.5 (1.0–2.5) μg mL^?1) than group 1 (2.5 (2.0–3.0) μg mL^?1); no significant differences existed between group 2 (2.0 (1.5–2.5) μg mL^?1) and the other groups (median, (interquartile range)).Conclusions and Clinical relevanceWhen administered with buprenorphine, at these doses, dexmedetomidine had no advantages in terms of sedation and induction quality over acepromazine. Both doses of dexmedetomidine produced characteristic cardiovascular and respiratory effects of a similar magnitude.     

Acepromazine‐dexmedetomidine‐ketamine for injectable anaesthesia in captive European brown hares (Lepus europaeus)

ObjectiveTo evaluate a combination of acepromazine, dexmedetomidine and ketamine (ADK) on induction and recovery from anaesthesia, and on physiological parameters in hares undergoing non‐invasive procedures.Study designProspective clinical study.AnimalsSixteen European hares (Lepus europaeus), seven males and nine females, aged (mean ± SD) 3.25 ± 0.9 months and weight 2.1 ± 0.6 kg.MethodsAcepromazine 1% (A), dexmedetomidine 0.05% (D) and ketamine 5% (K) were mixed and given intramuscularly (IM) at 0.25 mL kg^?1, representing 10 mg kg^?1 K, 0.25 mg kg^?1 A, 12.5 μg kg^?1 D. If the righting reflex was present after four minutes, a second injection of 0.15 mL kg^?1 (6 mg kg^?1 K, 0.15 mg kg^?1 A, 7.5 μg kg^?1 D) was administered IM. Surgical anaesthesia was judged as present when righting, palpebral, ear‐pinch and pedal withdrawal reflexes were absent. Anaesthetized hares were tagged, and underwent blood sampling and ocular ultrasound examination. Physiological parameters were recorded every ten minutes, and were compared by Kruskal‐Wallis tests.ResultsA single dose induced loss of righting reflex in 11/16 (69%) hares within four minutes; the second dose was effective in the remaining hares. Ten minutes after the loss of the righting reflex, a surgical plane of anaesthesia was present in all hares. Sleep time to regaining righting reflex was 34 ± 11 (range 21–62) minutes and recovery was calm. Although there were some statistical differences over time, cardiovascular parameters remained within an acceptable range but there was respiratory depression and hares were hypoxemic.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe ADK mixture produced a smooth and rapid induction of anaesthesia, a low incidence of untoward side effects and full recovery after four hours. Supplementary oxygen might be advisable if a deeper plane of anaesthesia was required. Chemical restraint was adequate to perform non‐invasive procedures.