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.     

A controlled randomized clinical trial to assess postoperative analgesia after thiopental–isoflurane anaesthesia or total intravenous anaesthesia with alfaxalone in dogs

Alfaxalone, a synthetic neuroactive steroid, has been attributed with properties including sedation, anaesthesia and analgesia. The clinical relevance of any analgesic properties of alfaxalone has not been demonstrated. This study was a prospective, blinded, randomized, negative control clinical trial in 65 healthy dogs presented for ovariohysterectomy. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained, for Group 1 (TIVA) dogs (n = 30) with intravenous alfaxalone alone and for Group 2 dogs (n = 35) with thiopental followed by isoflurane in 100% oxygen inhalation. After ovariohysterectomy, quantitative measures of pain or nociception were recorded at 15 min intervals for 4 hr using three independent scoring systems, a composite measure pain scale (CMPS), von Frey threshold testing and measures of fentanyl rescue analgesia. The mean CMPS scores of Group 2 (THIO/ISO) dogs remained higher than Group 1 (TIVA) dogs from 15 to 135 min post‐surgery but this difference was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences between groups in the proportions of dogs requiring rescue fentanyl analgesia, the total fentanyl dose used or the time to first fentanyl dose. The Von Frey threshold testing was found to be unsuitable for measurement of pain in this experimental model. When administered as total intravenous anaesthesia, alfaxalone did not provide analgesia in the postoperative period.     

Comparison of alfaxalone and propofol administered as total intravenous anaesthesia for ovariohysterectomy in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the anaesthetic and cardiopulmonary effects of alfaxalone with propofol when used for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) during ovariohysterectomy in dogs.Study designA prospective non-blinded randomized clinical study.AnimalsFourteen healthy female crossbred bitches, aged 0.5–5 years and weight 16–42 kg.MethodsDogs were premedicated with acepromazine 0.01 mg kg^?1 and morphine 0.4 mg kg^?1. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained with either propofol or alfaxalone to effect for tracheal intubation followed by an infusion of the same agent. Dogs breathed spontaneously via a ‘circle’ circuit, with oxygen supplementation. Cardiopulmonary parameters (respiratory and heart rates, end-tidal carbon dioxide, tidal volume, and invasive blood pressures) were measured continuously and recorded at intervals related to the surgical procedure. Arterial blood samples were analysed for blood gas values. Quality of induction and recovery, and recovery times were determined. Non-parametric data were tested for significant differences between groups using the Mann–Whitney U-test and repeatedly measured data (normally distributed) for significant differences between and within groups by anova.ResultsBoth propofol and alphaxalone injection and subsequent infusions resulted in smooth, rapid induction and satisfactory maintenance of anaesthesia. Doses for induction (mean ± SD) were 5.8 ± 0.30 and 1.9 ± 0.07 mg kg^?1 and for the CRIs, 0.37 ± 0.09 and 0.11 ± 0.01 mg kg^?1 per minute for propofol and alfaxalone respectively. Median (IQR) recovery times were to sternal 45 (33–69) and 60 (46–61) and to standing 74 (69–76) and 90 (85–107) for propofol and alphaxalone respectively. Recovery quality was good. Cardiopulmonary effects did not differ between groups. Hypoventilation occurred in both groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceFollowing premedication with acepromazine and morphine, both propofol and alphaxalone produce good quality anaesthesia adequate for ovariohysterectomy. Hypoventilation occurs suggesting a need for ventilatory support during prolonged infusion periods with either anaesthetic agent.     

Sedative and physiologic effects of low-dose intramuscular alfaxalone in dogs

Objective

To describe the sedative and physiologic effects of two doses of alfaxalone administered intramuscularly in dogs.

Pharmacokinetics and effects of alfaxalone after intravenous and intramuscular administration to cats

AIMS: To determine the pharmacokinetics, and anaesthetic and sedative effects of alfaxalone after I/V and I/M administration to cats.

METHODS: Six European shorthair cats, three males and three females, with a mean weight of 4.21 (SD 0.53) kg and aged 3.8 (SD 0.9) years were enrolled in this crossover, two–treatment, two-period study. Alfaxalone at a dose of 5?mg/kg was administered either I/V or I/M. Blood samples were collected between 2–480 minutes after drug administration and analysed for concentrations of alfaxalone by HPLC. The plasma concentration-time curves were analysed by non-compartmental analysis. Sedation scores were evaluated between 5–120 minutes after drug administration using a numerical rating scale (from 0–18). Intervals from drug administration to sit, sternal and lateral recumbency during the induction phase, and to head-lift, sternal recumbency and standing position during recovery were recorded.

RESULTS: The mean half-life and mean residence time of alfaxalone were longer after I/M (1.28 (SD 0.21) and 2.09 (SD 0.36) hours, respectively) than after I/V (0.49 (SD 0.07) and 0.66 (SD 0.16) hours, respectively) administration (p<0.05). Bioavailability after I/M injection of alfaxalone was 94.7 (SD 19.8)%. The mean intervals to sternal and lateral recumbency were longer in the I/M (3.73 (SD 1.99) and 6.12 (SD 0.90) minutes, respectively) compared to I/V (0 minutes for all animals) treated cats (p<0.01). Sedation scores indicative of general anaesthesia (scores >15) were recorded from 5–15 minutes after I/V administration and deep sedation (scores 11–15) at 20 and 30 minutes. Deep sedation was observed from 10–45 minutes after I/M administration. One cat from each group showed hyperkinesia during recovery, and the remainder had an uneventful recovery.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alfaxalone administered I/V in cats provides rapid and smooth induction of anaesthesia. After I/M administration, a longer exposure to the drug and an extended half life were obtained compared to I/V administration. Therefore I/M administration of alfaxalone could be a reliable, suitable and easy route in cats, taking into account that alfaxalone has a slower onset of sedation than when given I/V and achieves deep sedation rather than general anaesthesia.     

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.     

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).

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.     

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.

Clinical efficacy and cardiorespiratory effects of alfaxalone, or diazepam/fentanyl for induction of anaesthesia in dogs that are a poor anaesthetic risk

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and cardiorespiratory effects of alfaxalone as an anaesthetic induction agent in dogs with moderate to severe systemic disease.Study designRandomized prospective clinical study.AnimalsForty dogs of physical status ASA III-V referred for various surgical procedures.MethodsDogs were pre-medicated with intramuscular methadone (0.2 mg kg^?1) and allocated randomly to one of two treatment groups for induction of anaesthesia: alfaxalone (ALF) 1–2 mg kg^?1 administered intravenously (IV) over 60 seconds or fentanyl 5 μg kg^?1 with diazepam 0.2 mg kg^?1± propofol 1–2 mg kg^?1 (FDP) IV to allow endotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen and fentanyl infusion following both treatments. All dogs were mechanically ventilated to maintain normocapnia. Systolic blood pressure (SAP) was measured by Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after anaesthetic induction, but before isoflurane administration. Parameters recorded every 5 minutes throughout subsequent anaesthesia were heart and respiratory rates, end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide and isoflurane, oxygen saturation of haemoglobin and invasive systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure. Quality of anaesthetic induction and recovery were recorded. Continuous variables were assessed for normality and analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test. Repeated measures were log transformed and analyzed with repeated measures anova (p < 0.05).ResultsTreatment groups were similar for continuous and categorical data. Anaesthetic induction quality was good following both treatments. Pre-induction and post-induction systolic blood pressure did not differ between treatments and there was no significant change after induction. The parameters measured throughout the subsequent anaesthetic procedures did not differ between treatments. Quality of recovery was very, quite or moderately smooth.Conclusions and clinical relevanceInduction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone resulted in similar cardiorespiratory effects when compared to the fentanyl-diazepam-propofol combination and is a clinically acceptable induction agent in sick dogs.     

Effect of alfaxalone infusion on the electroencephalogram of dogs anaesthetized with halothane

ObjectiveTo describe the effects of alfaxalone on the canine electroencephalogram (EEG).Study designExperimental study.AnimalsEight healthy adult Huntaway dogs.MethodsAnaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with halothane (0.85-0.95 end-tidal volume %) in oxygen. Animals were ventilated to maintain stable end-tidal CO₂ and halothane concentrations. Following a 30 minute stabilisation period, alfaxalone (0.5 mg kg^?1) was infused intravenously over a 5 minute period. The electroencephalogram was recorded from the beginning of the stabilisation period until 60 minutes following the start of alfaxalone treatment. Data were subjected to fast Fourier transformation, and median frequency, 95% spectral edge frequency and total EEG power were calculated. Two-factorial repeated measures anova (time and EEG channels were factors) was used for statistical analysis (p<0.05).ResultsA shift in the dominant frequency band from beta to delta after alfaxalone treatment and occasional burst suppression were observed. Median frequency decreased significantly below baseline (9.2 ± 1.4 Hz) (mean ± SD) during alfaxalone infusion. The lowest value (4.8 ± 1.2 Hz) was recorded 5 minutes after the start of infusion. Spectral edge frequency also decreased below baseline (26.2 ± 1.5 Hz) and the lowest value (22.6 ± 1.5 Hz) also was detected at 5 minutes after the start of infusion. Total EEG power did not change significantly. In some frequencies EEG power increased soon after the start of alfaxalone infusion, then decreased below baseline later (biphasic pattern).Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlfaxalone induced biphasic changes on EEG and decreased F₅₀ and F₉₅ in halothane anaesthetized dogs.     

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.     

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

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

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.