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 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.     

Plasma pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alfaxalone in neonatal foals after an intravenous bolus of alfaxalone following premedication with butorphanol tartrate

ObjectiveTo determine the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the neurosteroid anaesthetic, alfaxalone, in neonatal foals after a single intravenous (IV) injection of alfaxalone following premedication with butorphanol tartrate.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsFive clinically healthy Australian Stock Horse foals of mean ± SD age of 12 ± 3 days and weighing 67.3 ± 12.4 kg.MethodsFoals were premedicated with butorphanol (0.05 mg kg^?1 IV) and anaesthesia was induced 10 minutes later by IV injection with alfaxalone 3 mg kg^?1. Cardiorespiratory variables (pulse rate, respiratory rate, direct arterial blood pressure, arterial blood gases) and clinical signs of anaesthetic depth were evaluated throughout anaesthesia. Venous blood samples were collected at strategic time points and alfaxalone plasma concentrations were assayed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS) and analysed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis.ResultsThe harmonic, mean ± SD plasma elimination half life (t½) for alfaxalone was 22.8 ± 5.2 minutes. The observed mean plasma clearance (Cl_p) and volume of distribution (Vd) were 19.9 ± 5.9 mL minute kg^?1 and 0.6 ± 0.2 L kg^?1, respectively. Overall, the quality of the anaesthetic inductions and recoveries was good and most monitored physiological variables were clinically acceptable in all foals, although some foals became hypoxaemic for a short period following recumbency. The mean durations of anaesthesia from induction to first movement and from induction to standing were 18.7 ± 7 and 37.2 ± 4.7 minutes, respectively.ConclusionsThe anaesthetic protocol used provided a predictable and consistent plane of anaesthesia in the five foals studied, with minimal cardiovascular depression. In foals, as in the adult horse, alfaxalone has a short elimination half life.Clinical relevanceAlfaxalone appears to be an adequate anaesthetic induction agent in foals and the pharmacokinetics suggest that, with continuous infusion, it might be suitable to provide more prolonged anaesthesia. Oxygen supplementation is recommended.     

Effects of two preanesthetic regimens for ophthalmic surgery on intraocular pressure and cardiovascular measurements in dogs

The effects of different preanesthetic medications (acepromazine plus either meperidine or butorphanol) given before the induction of anesthesia with midazolam and ketamine on intraocular pressure, heart rate, and arterial blood pressure were investigated in 20 dogs. Following administration of preanesthetics and induction of anesthesia, dogs were intubated and anesthesia was maintained with halothane for 10 minutes. Intraocular pressure was significantly higher (P <.05) at several evaluations for dogs premedicated with acepromazine/meperidine than for those premedicated with acepromazine/butorphanol. Mean heart rate and diastolic arterial blood pressure were significantly (P <.05) higher 5 minutes after administration of acepromazine/meperidine than after acepromazine/butorphanol. Results of this study suggest that acepromazine/butorphanol is a satisfactory preanesthetic combination to use before induction of anesthesia with midazolam and ketamine for ophthalmic surgery in dogs.     

Alfaxalone anaesthesia in Lemur catta following dexmedetomidine–butorphanol–midazolam sedation

Objective

To evaluate the clinical effects and quality of sedation, induction, maintenance and recovery in Lemur catta after dexmedetomidine–butorphanol–midazolam sedation and alfaxalone anaesthesia.

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.     

Cardiorespiratory and anesthetic effects of clinical and supraclinical doses of alfaxalone in dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the cardiorespiratory and anesthetic effects of 2, 6, and 20 mg kg⁻¹ IV alfaxalone in hydroxypropyl beta cyclodextrin (Alfaxan) in dogs.Study designBlinded four-way crossover randomized by dose.AnimalsEight healthy adult purpose-bred mixed breed dogs (four male, four female) weighing between 12 and 28 kg.MethodsFour (0, 2, 6, 20 mg kg⁻¹) IV treatments of alfaxalone were administered to each dog with a 3-hour washout period between doses. Measurements of heart rate, aortic systolic, mean, and diastolic blood pressures, pulmonary arterial and right atrial mean pressures, cardiac output, respiratory rate, tidal and minute volumes, and arterial blood pH, blood gases (PaO₂, PaCO₂) were performed prior to and at predetermined intervals after drug administration. Systemic vascular resistance and rate pressure product were calculated. The quality of induction, maintenance, and recovery from anesthesia were categorically scored as was the response to noxious stimulation.ResultsThe administration of alfaxalone resulted in dose-dependent changes in cardiovascular and respiratory parameters. Decreases in arterial blood pressure and increases in heart rate occurred at higher doses with most variables returning to baseline in 15–30 minutes. Respiratory rate, minute volume, and PaO₂ decreased and apnea was the most common side effect. The duration of anesthesia increased with dose, and induction, maintenance, and recovery were judged to be good to excellent with all doses studied.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone produced good to excellent short-term anesthesia in unpremedicated dogs. Cardiorespiratory effects were minimal at lower doses. Anesthesia was judged to be good to excellent and associated with unresponsiveness to noxious stimulation for the majority of anesthesia. Hypoventilation and apnea were the most prominent and dose-dependent effects.     

Induction of anesthesia and recovery in donkeys sedated with xylazine: a comparison of midazolam–alfaxalone and midazolam–ketamine

Objective

To compare the induction and recovery characteristics and selected cardiopulmonary variables of midazolam–alfaxalone or midazolam–ketamine in donkeys sedated with xylazine.

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.     

Alfaxalone induction dose following administration of medetomidine and butorphanol in the dog

ObjectiveTo determine in dogs the effects of medetomidine and butorphanol, alone and in combination, on the induction dose of alfaxalone and to describe the induction and intubation conditions.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical trial.AnimalsEighty-five client-owned dogs (ASA 1 or 2).MethodsSubjects were block randomized to treatment group according to temperament. The treatment groups were: medetomidine 4 μg kg^?1 (M), butorphanol 0.1 mg kg^?1 (B), or a combination of both (MB), all administered intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, a sedation score was assigned, and alfaxalone 0.5 mg kg^?1 was administered intravenously over 60 seconds by an observer who was unaware of treatment group. Tracheal intubation conditions were assessed and, if tracheal intubation was not possible after 20 seconds, further boluses of 0.2 mg kg^?1 were given every 20 seconds until intubation was achieved. Induction dose and adverse events (sneezing, twitching, paddling, excitement, apnoea and cyanosis) were recorded; induction quality and intubation conditions were scored and recorded.ResultsThe mean dose of alfaxalone required for induction was similar for groups M and B: 1.2 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1. The mean dose requirement for group MB (0.8 ± 0.3 mg kg^?1) was lower than groups M and B (p < 0.0001). Induction dose was not influenced by temperament or level of sedation. Induction and intubation scores did not differ between treatment groups. Adverse events were noted in 16 dogs; there was no association with treatment group, temperament or level of sedation.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMedetomidine and butorphanol administered in combination reduce the anaesthetic induction dose of alfaxalone compared to either agent alone. This difference should be taken into account when using this combination of drugs in a clinical setting.     

Evaluation of xylazine–alfaxalone anesthesia for field castration in donkey foals

ObjectiveTo evaluate the anesthetic and cardiopulmonary effects of xylazine–alfaxalone anesthesia in donkey foals undergoing field castration.Study designProspective clinical study.AnimalsA group of seven standard donkeys aged [median (range)] 12 (10–26) weeks, weighing 47.3 (37.3–68.2) kg.MethodsDonkeys were anesthetized with xylazine (1 mg kg⁻¹) intravenously (IV) followed 3 minutes later by alfaxalone (1 mg kg⁻¹) IV. Additional doses of xylazine (0.5 mg kg⁻¹) and alfaxalone (0.5 mg kg⁻¹) IV were administered as needed to maintain surgical anesthesia. Intranasal oxygen was supplemented at 3 L minute⁻¹. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) by oscillometry were recorded before drug administration and every 5 minutes after induction of anesthesia. Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) was recorded every 5 minutes after induction. Time to recumbency after alfaxalone administration, time to anesthetic re-dose, time to first movement, sternal and standing after last anesthetic dose and surgery time were recorded. Induction and recovery quality were scored (1, very poor; 5, excellent).ResultsMedian (range) induction score was 5 (1–5), and recovery score 4 (1–5). Overall, two donkeys were assigned a score of 1 (excitement) during induction or recovery. HR and MAP during the procedure did not differ from baseline. f_R was decreased at 5 and 10 minutes but was not considered clinically significant. SpO₂ was <90% at one time point in two animals.Conclusions and clinical relevanceXylazine–alfaxalone anesthesia resulted in adequate conditions for castration in 12 week old donkeys. While the majority of inductions and recoveries were good to excellent, significant excitement occurred in two animals and may limit the utility of this protocol for larger donkeys. Hypoxemia occurred despite intranasal oxygen supplementation.     

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).

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.     

Hemodynamic effects of butorphanol in desflurane-anesthetized dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of butorphanol on cardiopulmonary parameters in dogs anesthetized with desflurane and breathing spontaneously.Study designProspective, randomized experimental trial.AnimalsTwenty dogs weighing 12 ± 3 kg.MethodsAnimals were distributed into two groups: a control group (CG) and butorphanol group (BG). Propofol was used for induction and anesthesia was maintained with desflurane (10%). Forty minutes after induction, the dogs in the CG received sodium chloride 0.9% (0.05 mL kg^?1 IM), and dogs in the BG received butorphanol (0.4 mg kg^?1 IM). The first measurements of body temperature (BT), heart rate (HR), arterial pressures (AP), cardiac output (CO), cardiac index (CI), central venous pressure (CVP), stroke volume index (SVI), pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure (PAOP), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), left ventricular stroke work (LVSW), systemic (SVR) and pulmonary (PVR) vascular resistances, respiratory rate (f_R), and arterial oxygen (PaO₂) and carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) partial pressures were taken immediately before the administration of butorphanol or sodium chloride solution (T0) and then at 15-minute intervals (T15–T75).ResultsIn the BG, HR, AP, mPAP and SVR decreased significantly from T15 to T75 compared to baseline. f_R was lower at T30 than at T0 in the BG. AP and f_R were significantly lower than in the CG from T15 to T75. PVR was lower in the BG than in the CG at T30, while PaCO₂ was higher compared with T0 from T30 to T75 in the BG and significantly higher than in the CG at T30 to T75.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAt the studied dose, butorphanol caused hypotension and decreased ventilation during desflurane anesthesia in dogs. The hypotension (from 86 ± 10 to 64 ± 10 mmHg) is clinically relevant, despite the maintenance of cardiac index.     

Cardiorespiratory and anesthetic effects produced by the combination of butorphanol,medetomidine and alfaxalone administered intramuscularly in Beagle dogs

This study evaluated anesthesia quality, degree of analgesia and cardiorespiratory parameters after intramuscular (IM) injection of a combination of butorphanol (0.1 mg/kg), medetomidine (10 µg/kg) and alfaxalone (1.5 mg/kg) in ten healthy adult Beagle dogs. Rectal temperature (T), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), arterial pressure, arterial blood gases and M-mode echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) indices were measured before drug administration and every 10 min thereafter until extubation. Mean duration of anesthesia, recovery and analgesia were 89 ± 17, 6 ± 1 and 80 ± 12 min. HR, f_R, partial pressure of arterial CO₂ and O₂, arterial pressure, and LV contractility were significantly altered during anesthesia. IM administration of the drug combination provided acceptable anesthesia, but produced substantial cardiorespiratory suppression.     

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the injectable anaesthetic alfaxalone in the horse

ObjectiveTo determine the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the neurosteroidal anaesthetic, alfaxalone, in horses after a single intravenous (IV) injection of alfaxalone, following premedication with acepromazine, xylazine and guaiphenesin.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsTen (five male and five female), adult, healthy, Standardbred horses.MethodsHorses were premedicated with acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1 IV). Twenty minutes later they received xylazine (1 mg kg^?1 IV), then after 5 minutes, guaiphenesin (35 mg kg^?1 IV) followed immediately by IV induction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone (1 mg kg^?1). Cardiorespiratory variables (pulse rate, respiratory rate, pulse oximetry) and clinical signs of anaesthetic depth were evaluated throughout anaesthesia. Venous blood samples were collected at strategic time points and plasma concentrations of alfaxalone were assayed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS) and analysed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis. The quality of anaesthetic induction and recovery was scored on a scale of 1–5 (1 very poor, 5 excellent).ResultsThe median (range) induction and recovery scores were 4 (3–5) (good: horse slowly and moderately gently attained recumbency with minimal or no rigidity or paddling) and 4 (1–5) (good: horse stood on first attempt with some knuckling and ataxia) respectively. The monitored cardiopulmonary variables were within the range expected for clinical equine anaesthesia. The mean ± SD durations of anaesthesia from induction to sternal recumbency and from induction to standing were 42.7 ± 8.4 and 47 ± 9.6 minutes, respectively. The mean ± SD plasma elimination half life (t_1/2), plasma clearance (Clp) and volume of distribution (V_d) for alfaxalone were 33.4 minutes, 37.1 ± 11.1 mL minute^?1 kg^?1 and 1.6 ± 0.4 L kg^?1, respectively.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone, in a 2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin formulation, provides anaesthesia with a short duration of recumbency that is characterised by a smooth induction and satisfactory recovery in the horse. As in other species, alfaxalone is rapidly cleared from the plasma in the horse.     

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.

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.     

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.