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.     

A comparison of thiopental,propofol, and diazepam-ketamine anesthesia for evaluation of laryngeal function in dogs premedicated with butorphanol-glycopyrrolate

Thiopental, propofol, and diazepam-ketamine were compared for evaluation of laryngeal function in dogs. There was no significant difference among the three protocols in time to observation of normal function after drug administration or in the occurrence of swallowing, laryngospasm, or breathing. Jaw tone was significantly greater with diazepam-ketamine. Exposure of the larynx was excellent in five dogs and moderate in three dogs, each receiving thiopental or propofol. Exposure was excellent in one dog, moderate in six dogs, and poor in one dog receiving diazepam-ketamine. Exposure of the larynx for laryngeal function evaluation is more readily accomplished with thiopental or propofol than with diazepam-ketamine.     

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.     

Effects of thiopentone,propofol and alfaxalone on laryngeal motion during oral laryngoscopy in healthy dogs

Objective

To compare the effects of thiopentone, propofol and alfaxalone on arytenoid cartilage motion and establish the dose rates to achieve a consistent oral laryngoscopy examination.

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.     

Comparison of diazepam–ketamine and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs

Objective To compare the anaesthetic and cardiopulmonary effects of a diazepam–ketamine combination with thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia in dogs. Animal population Twenty healthy dogs of various breeds weighing between 3.8 and 42.6 kg undergoing major orthopaedic or soft tissue surgery. Materials and methods Pre‐anaesthetic medication in all cases was intramuscular acepromazine and methadone given 30 minutes before induction of anaesthesia. Each animal was then randomly assigned to receive either thiopentone or diazepam and ketamine. Quality of conditions for, and time to tracheal intubation were recorded. Anaesthesia was maintained with halothane in oxygen and nitrous oxide. Heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, end tidal carbon dioxide tensions and oxygen saturation were recorded at 10 minute intervals throughout surgery. The quality of recovery from anaesthesia was assessed. Results The quality of induction in both groups was satisfactory. The total mean time (± SD) to tracheal intubation (162 ± 84 seconds) was significantly longer in dogs receiving diazepam and ketamine compared to dogs receiving thiopentone (62 ± 28 seconds). Heart rate, systolic blood pressure and end tidal carbon dioxide concentration were not significantly different between groups. Respiratory rate was significantly higher in the diazepam–ketamine group between 0 and 30 minutes. The quality of recovery was similar in each group. Conclusions There appear to be fewer differences between the induction agents examined in this study than was previously believed. No pressor, or other cardiovascular stimulating effects were detected in the dogs that received diazepam and ketamine. Clinical relevance The absence of obvious differences between groups suggests that pre‐anaesthetic medication, inhaled anaesthetics and the physiological effects of surgery itself probably had a greater effect on the variables studied than the induction agent used. Further studies are required to determine whether diazepam and ketamine offers significant advantages over other induction agents in the unhealthy dog.     

Clinical usefulness of propofol as an anesthetic induction agent in dogs and cats

Propofol was used as an induction agent of general anesthesia in 77 dogs and 64 cats, all client owned, for a variety of surgeries/treatments or diagnostic procedures. The mean intravenous doses of propofol required to achieve endotracheal intubation in dogs and cats were 6.5 +/- 1.4 mg/kg and 10.1 +/- 2.8 mg /kg, respectively. Most of the animals could be induced to anesthesia smoothly by the administration of propofol with a high incidence of apnea. Propofol is a clinically valuable anesthetic induction agent in both dogs and cats, however, care must be taken for apnea.     

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.     

Comparative study of propofol or propofol and ketamine for the induction of anaesthesia in dogs

The effects of propofol alone or propofol and ketamine for the induction of anaesthesia in dogs were compared. Thirty healthy dogs were premedicated with acepromazine and pethidine, then randomly allocated to either treatment. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol (4 mg/kg bodyweight intravenously) (group 1), or propofol and ketamine (2 mg/kg bodyweight of each intravenously) (group 2). Anaesthesia was maintained with halothane, delivered in a mixture of oxygen and nitrous oxide (1:2) via a non-rebreathing Bain circuit. Various cardiorespiratory parameters were monitored at two, five, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes after induction, and the animals were observed during anaesthesia and recovery, and any adverse effects were recorded. During anaesthesia, the heart rate, but not the systolic arterial pressure, was consistently higher in group 2 (range 95 to 102 beats per minute) than in group 1 (range 73 to 90 beats per minute). Post-induction apnoea was more common in group 2 (11 of 15) than in group 1 (six of 15). Muscle twitching was observed in three dogs in each group. Recovery times were similar in both groups. Propofol followed by ketamine was comparable with propofol alone for the induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs.     

Determining an optimum propofol infusion rate for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs: a randomized clinical trial

ObjectiveTo determine an optimum infusion rate of propofol that permitted rapid tracheal intubation while minimizing the duration of postinduction apnoea.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 60 client-owned dogs presented for elective neutering and radiography.MethodsDogs were randomly allocated to one of five groups (groups A–E) to have propofol at an infusion rate of 0.5, 1, 2, 3, or 4 mg kg^–1 minute^–1, respectively, following intramuscular premedication with methadone 0.5 mg kg^–1 and dexmedetomidine 5 μg kg^–1. Propofol administration was stopped when adequate conditions for tracheal intubation were identified. Time to tracheal intubation and duration of apnoea were recorded. If oxygen haemoglobin saturation decreased to < 90%, manual ventilation was initiated. A one-way analysis of covariance was conducted to compare the effect of propofol infusion rate on duration of apnoea and intubation time whilst controlling for covariates, followed by post hoc tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.ResultsPropofol infusion rate had a significant effect on duration of apnoea (p = 0.004) and intubation time (p < 0.001) after controlling for bodyweight and sedation scores, respectively. The adjusted means (± standard error) of duration of apnoea were significantly shorter in groups A and B (49 ± 39 and 67 ± 37 seconds, respectively) than in groups C, D and E (207 ± 34, 192 ± 36 and 196 ± 34 seconds, respectively). Group B (115 ± 10 seconds) had a significantly shorter intubation time than group A (201 ± 10 seconds, p < 0.001).Conclusions and clinical relevanceAn infusion rate of 1.0 mg kg^–1 minute^–1 (group B) appears to offer the optimal compromise between speed of induction and duration of postinduction apnoea.     

A comparison of propofol, thiopental or ketamine as induction agents in goats

OBJECTIVE: To compare propofol, thiopental and ketamine as induction agents before halothane anaesthesia in goats. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized cross-over study. Animals Seven healthy adult female goats with mean (+/-SD; range) body mass of 38.9 +/- 3.29 kg; 35-45 kg. METHODS: The seven animals were used on 21 occasions. Each received all three anaesthetics in a randomized cross-over design, with an interval of at least 2 weeks before re-use. Anaesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) propofol (3 mg kg(-1)), thiopental (8 mg kg(-1), IV) or ketamine (10 mg kg(-1), IV). Following tracheal intubation, anaesthesia was maintained with halothane for 30 minutes. Indirect blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and arterial blood gases were monitored. The quality of induction and recovery, recovery times and incidence of side-effects were recorded. RESULTS: Induction of anaesthesia was smooth and uneventful, and tracheal intubation was easily performed in all but two goats receiving ketamine. Changes in cardiopulmonary variables and acid-base status were similar with all three induction agents and were within clinically acceptable limits. Mean recovery times (time to recovery of swallowing reflex and to standing) were significantly shorter, and side-effects, e.g. apnoea, regurgitation, hypersalivation and tympany, were less common in goats receiving propofol, compared with the other treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Propofol 3 mg kg(-1) IV is superior to thiopental and ketamine as an induction agent before halothane anaesthesia in goats. It provides uneventful recovery which is more rapid than thiopental or ketamine, so reduces anaesthetic risk.     

The effects of doxapram hydrochloride (dopram-V) on laryngeal function in healthy dogs

Laryngeal dysfunction is assessed most accurately by direct visualization of the larynx under a light plane of anesthesia. If the plane of anesthesia used is too deep, laryngeal structures may appear paralyzed and remain in a paramedian position. Doxapram hydrochloride is a known respiratory stimulant. We hypothesized that doxapram would significantly increase intrinsic laryngeal motion in healthy anesthetized dogs. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of doxapram on the area of rima glottidis (RG) in healthy dogs. Thirty healthy dogs were studied. Dogs were premedicated with butorphanol tartrate (0.22 mg/kg IV), acepromazine maleate (0.05 mg/kg SC), and glycopyrrolate (0.005 mg/kg SC), followed by induction with propofol (4 mg/kg IV). Intrinsic laryngeal motion observed in each dog was recorded on videotape after induction. Doxapram then was administered (2.2 mg/kg IV) and respirations again were recorded. Representative breaths for each dog were photographed during 4 phases of respiration (inspiration at rest, inspiration with doxapram, expiration at rest, and expiration with doxapram). The area of the RG then was calculated by using a computer-assisted analysis program. Results of each category were compared by using a 1-way analysis of variance; P < or = .05 was considered significant. Doxapram visibly increased respiratory effort, and was associated with increased intrinsic laryngeal motion. Compared to the resting state, the area of the RG was significantly increased after doxapram administration during both inspiration and expiration. We propose the routine use of doxapram during laryngoscopy to increase intrinsic laryngeal motion and aid in the diagnosis of laryngeal dysfunction.     

Clinical evaluation of propofol as an intravenous anaesthetic agent in cats and dogs

The clinical efficacy and safety of an emulsion containing 10 mg/ml of the intravenous anaesthetic propofol were evaluated in cats and dogs by veterinary surgeons in eight practices in the United Kingdom. A total of 290 dogs and 207 cats were anaesthetised with propofol either as a single injection for procedures of short duration, or as an induction agent with maintenance provided by further incremental injections or as an induction agent with maintenance by gaseous agents. The mean induction doses of propofol for unpremedicated dogs and cats were respectively 6.55 mg/kg and 8.03 mg/kg. The mean induction doses after premedication with a tranquilliser were 4.5 mg/kg and 5.97 mg/kg for dogs and cats, respectively. Mean recovery times ranged, depending on the method of anaesthesia, from 23 to 40 minutes in dogs and from 27 to 38 minutes in cats; recovery was defined as the time at which the animals were alert and able to stand. Adverse side effects were infrequent, apnoea during induction being the commonest. Acepromazine and atropine were most often used as premedicants although in a few cases diazepam, xylazine and other agents were employed. No clinical incompatibility was observed between propofol and any of the other agents administered during the study. The rapid and usually excitement-free recovery of the animals was a valuable feature of anaesthesia with propofol.     

Median effective dosage of propofol for induction of anesthesia in dogs.

The median effective dosage (ED50) of propofol for induction of anesthesia was determined in 25 dogs premedicated with acepromazine, 0.05 mg/kg of body weight, and in 35 unpremedicated dogs. The ED50 was found to be 2.2 mg/kg in premedicated dogs and was 3.8 mg/kg in unpremedicated dogs. The mean +/- SD total dosage of propofol required to induce anesthesia in premedicated animals was 2.8 +/- 0.5 mg/kg and was 4.7 +/- 1.3 mg/kg in unpremedicated animals. Signs of excitement were observed in 5 of the unpremedicated dogs, but in none of those that were premedicated.     

Comparison of the effect of propofol and sevoflurane on the urethral pressure profile in healthy female dogs

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of propofol and sevoflurane on the urethral pressure profile in female dogs. ANIMALS: 10 healthy female dogs. PROCEDURE: Urethral pressure profilometry was performed in awake dogs, during anesthesia with sevoflurane at 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0% end-tidal concentration, and during infusion of propofol at rates of 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 mg/kg/min. A consistent plane of anesthesia was maintained for each anesthetic protocol. Maximum urethral pressure, maximum urethral closure pressure, functional profile length, and functional area were measured. RESULTS: Mean maximum urethral closure pressure of awake dogs was not significantly different than that of dogs anesthetized with propofol at all infusion rates or with sevoflurane at 1.5 and 2.0% end-tidal concentration. Functional area in awake dogs was significantly higher than in anesthetized dogs. Functional area of dogs during anesthesia with sevoflurane at 3.0% end-tidal concentration was significantly lower than functional area for other anesthetic protocols. Individual differences in the magnitude of effects of propofol and sevoflurane on urethral pressures were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sevoflurane is an alternative to propofol for anesthesia in female dogs undergoing urethral pressure profilometry. Use of these anesthetics at appropriate administration rates should reliably distinguish normal from abnormal maximum urethral closure pressures and functional areas. Titration of anesthetic depth is a critical component of urodynamic testing.     

Comparison of pain on injection during induction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone and two formulations of propofol in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the incidence of pain during injection of three intravenous induction agents in dogs.Study designProspective, crossover, randomized, blinded, clinical study.AnimalsThirty dogs requiring anaesthesia for radiotherapy.MethodsDogs were anaesthetized on three occasions at weekly intervals. An IV cephalic catheter was placed, flushed with saline and alfentanil 0.01 mg kg^?1 and atropine 0.02 mg kg^?1 administered. After 30 seconds either: propofol lipid macroemulsion (Drug_P), propofol lipid-free microemulsion (Drug_PC) or alfaxalone (Drug_A) was administered over 60 seconds. Each induction agent was administered once to each dog. Induction was recorded by video and reviewed by an assessor, unaware of treatment. Catheter placement (number of attempts, site, size and recent vein use) were recorded. Behavioural changes associated with pain or excitation, were recorded. Severity of pain on injection was recorded (mild, moderate or severe pain). Incidence of pain was analysed using logistic regression, excitation using McNemar's test (p < 0.05) and association of pain with induction agent and catheter placement using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).ResultsNo dogs reacted to saline or Drug_A, thus Drug_A was excluded from analysis. Pain on injection occurred in six dogs (20%) with Drug_PC and one dog (3.3%) with Drug_P. Pain was severe in four dogs with Drug_PC. Drug_P resulted in a trend for reduced risk of pain compared to Drug_PC (p = 0.076, odds ratio [confidence intervals] 0.14 [0.027–0.86]). Both propofol formulations resulted in greater risk of excitation than Drug_A (p = 0.0003, odds ratio 4.5 [1.86–10.90]). Induction agent was associated with pain, whilst catheter placement was not. One dog developed facial oedema and one other dog skin necrosis adjacent to the catheter site following Drug_PC. The study was terminated early due to ethical concerns about the severity of reactions with Drug_PC.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceDrug_PC was associated with clinically relevant moderate to severe pain behaviour whilst Drug_A and Drug_P were not.     

Comparison of racemic ketamine and S-ketamine as agents for the induction of anaesthesia in goats

ObjectiveTo compare racemic ketamine and S-ketamine as induction agents prior to isoflurane anaesthesia.Study designProspective, blinded, randomized experimental study.AnimalsThirty-one healthy adult goats weighing 39-86 kg.MethodsGoats were premedicated with xylazine (0.1 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV) given over 5 minutes. Each goat was assigned randomly to one of two treatments for IV anaesthetic induction: group RK (15 goats) racemic ketamine (3 mg kg^?1) and group SK (16 goats) S-ketamine (1.5 mg kg^?1). Time from end-injection to recumbency was measured and quality of anaesthetic induction and condition for endotracheal intubation were scored. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen for 90 minutes. Heart rate, invasive arterial blood pressure, oxygen saturation, temperature, end-tidal carbon dioxide and isoflurane were recorded every 5 minutes. Arterial blood samples were taken for analysis every 30 minutes. Recovery time to recurrence of swallowing reflex, to first head movement and to standing were recorded and recovery quality was scored. Two-way repeated measures anova, Mann-Whitney and a Mantel-Cox tests were used for statistical analysis as relevant with a significance level set at p < 0.05.ResultsInduction of anaesthesia was smooth and uneventful in all goats. There was no statistical difference between groups in any measured parameter. Side effects following anaesthetic induction included slight head or limb twitching, moving forward and backward, salivation and nystagmus but were minimal. Endotracheal intubation was achieved in all goats at first or second attempt. Recovery was uneventful on all occasions. All goats were quiet and needed only one or two attempts to stand.Conclusions and clinical relevanceS-ketamine at half the dose rate of racemic ketamine in goats sedated with xylazine and thereafter anaesthetised with isoflurane induces the same clinically measurable effects.