Fentanyl or midazolam for co-induction of anaesthesia with propofol in dogs

ObjectivePropofol may cause adverse effects (e.g. apnoea, hypotension) at induction of anaesthesia. Co-induction of anaesthesia may reduce propofol requirements. The effect of fentanyl or midazolam on propofol dose requirements and cardiorespiratory parameters was studied.Study designRandomized, controlled, blinded clinical study.AnimalsSixty-six client owned dogs (35 male, 31 female, ASA I-II, age 6–120 months, body mass 4.7–48.0 kg) were selected.MethodsPre-medication with acepromazine (0.025 mg kg⁻¹) and morphine (0.25 mg kg⁻¹) was administered by intramuscular injection. After 30 minutes group fentanyl-propofol (FP) received fentanyl (2 μg kg⁻¹), group midazolam-propofol (MP) midazolam (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) injected over 30 seconds via a cephalic catheter and in a third group, control-propofol (CP), the IV catheter was flushed with an equivalent volume of heparinized saline. Anaesthesia was induced 2 minutes later, with propofol (4 mg kg⁻¹minute⁻¹) administered to effect. After endotracheal intubation anaesthesia was maintained with a standardized anaesthetic protocol. Pulse rate, respiratory rate (RR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before the co-induction agent, before induction, and 0, 2 and 5 minutes after intubation. Apnoea ≥30 seconds was recorded and treated. Sedation after pre-medication, activity after the co-induction agent, quality of anaesthetic induction and endotracheal intubation were scored.ResultsPropofol dose requirement was significantly reduced in FP [2.90 mg kg⁻¹(0.57)] compared to CP [3.51 mg kg⁻¹ (0.74)] and MP [3.58 mg kg⁻¹(0.49)]. Mean pulse rate was higher in MP than in CP or FP (p = 0.003). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in mean RR, MAP or incidence of apnoea. Activity score was significantly higher (i.e. more excited) (p = 0.0001), and quality of induction score was significantly poorer (p = 0.0001) in MP compared to CP or FP. Intubation score was similar in all groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceFentanyl decreased propofol requirement but did not significantly alter cardiovascular parameters. Midazolam did not reduce propofol requirements and caused excitement in some animals.     

Dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in critically ill dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥III dogs requiring emergency abdominal surgery.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 19 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were sedated with fentanyl (2 μg kg^–1) intravenously (IV) for instrumentation for measurement of heart rate, arterial blood pressure, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate and rectal temperature. After additional IV fentanyl (3 μg kg^–1), the quality of sedation was scored and cardiopulmonary variables recorded. Induction of anesthesia was with IV propofol (1 mg kg^–1) and saline (0.06 mL kg^–1; group PS; nine dogs) or midazolam (0.3 mg kg^–1; group PM; 10 dogs), with additional propofol (0.25 mg kg^–1) IV every 6 seconds until endotracheal intubation. Induction/intubation quality was scored, and anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane. Variables were recorded for 5 minutes with the dog in lateral recumbency, breathing spontaneously, and then in dorsal recumbency with mechanical ventilation for the next 15 minutes. A general linear mixed model was used with post hoc analysis for multiple comparisons between groups (p < 0.05).ResultsThere were no differences in group demographics, temperature and cardiopulmonary variables between groups or within groups before or after induction. The propofol doses for induction of anesthesia were significantly different between groups, 1.9 ± 0.5 and 1.1 ± 0.5 mg kg^–1 for groups PS and PM, respectively, and the induction/intubation score was significantly better for group PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam co-induction reduced the propofol induction dose and improved the quality of induction in critically ill dogs without an improvement in cardiopulmonary variables, when compared with a higher dose of propofol alone.     

The effects of diazepam or midazolam on the dose of propofol required to induce anaesthesia in cats

ObjectivesAssess effects of benzodiazepine administration on the propofol dose required to induce anaesthesia in healthy cats, investigate differences between midazolam and diazepam, and determine an optimal benzodiazepine dose for co-induction.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.AnimalsNinety client-owned cats (ASA I and II) with a median (interquartile range) body mass of 4.0 (3.4–4.9) kg.MethodsAll cats received 0.01 mg kg⁻¹ acepromazine and 0.2 mg kg⁻¹ methadone intravenously (IV). Fifteen minutes later, sedation was scored on a scale of 1–5, with 5 indicating greatest sedation. Propofol, 2 mg kg⁻¹, administered IV, was followed by either midazolam or diazepam at 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 or 0.5 mg kg⁻¹ or saline 0.1 mL kg⁻¹. Further propofol was administered until endotracheal intubation was possible. Patient signalment, sedation score, propofol dosage and adverse reactions were recorded.ResultsMidazolam and diazepam (all doses) significantly reduced the propofol dose required compared with saline (p < 0.001). There was no difference between midazolam and diazepam in propofol dose reduction (p = 0.488). All individual doses of midazolam reduced propofol requirement compared with saline (0.2 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.028; 0.3 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.006; 0.4 mg kg⁻¹, p < 0.001; 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.009). Diazepam 0.2 mg kg⁻¹ did not reduce the propofol dose compared with saline (p = 0.087), but the remaining doses did (0.3 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.001; 0.4 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.032; 0.5 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.041). Cats with sedation scores of 3 required less propofol than cats with scores of 2 (p = 0.008). There was no difference between groups in adverse events.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam (0.2–0.5 mg kg⁻¹) and diazepam (0.3–0.5 mg kg⁻¹) administered IV after 2 mg kg⁻¹ propofol significantly reduced the propofol dose required for tracheal intubation.     

A dose titration study into the effects of diazepam or midazolam on the propofol dose requirements for induction of general anaesthesia in client owned dogs,premedicated with methadone and acepromazine

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of a benzodiazepine co–induction on propofol dose requirement for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs, to describe any differences between midazolam and diazepam and to determine an optimal benzodiazepine dose for co–induction.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded placebo controlled clinical trial.AnimalsNinety client owned dogs (ASA I–III, median body mass 21.5kg (IQR 10–33)) presented for anaesthesia for a variety of procedures.MethodsDogs were randomised to receive saline 0.1 mL kg^?1, midazolam or diazepam at 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 or 0.5 mg kg^?1. All dogs received 0.01 mg kg^?1 acepromazine and 0.2 mg kg^?1 methadone intravenously (IV). Fifteen minutes later, sedation was assessed and scored prior to anaesthetic induction. Propofol, 1 mg kg^?1, was administered IV, followed by the treatment drug. Further propofol was administered until endotracheal intubation was possible. Recorded data included patient signalment, sedation score, propofol dosage and any adverse reactions.ResultsMidazolam (all groups combined) significantly reduced propofol dose requirement compared to saline (p < 0.001) and diazepam (p = 0.008). Midazolam (0.4 mg kg^?1) significantly reduced propofol dose requirement (p = 0.014) compared to saline, however other doses failed to reach statistical significance. Diazepam did not significantly reduce propofol dose requirement compared to saline (p = 0.089). Dogs weighing <5 kg, regardless of treatment group, required a greater propofol dose than those weighing 5–40 kg (p = 0.002) and those >40 kg (p = 0.008). Dogs which were profoundly sedated required less propofol than those which were mildly sedated (p < 0.001) and adequately sedated (p = 0.003).Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam (0.4 mg kg^?1) given IV after 1 mg kg^?1 of propofol significantly reduced the further propofol dose required for intubation compared to saline. At the investigated doses, diazepam did not have significant propofol dose sparing effects.     

The effect of body condition on propofol requirement in dogs

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

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.     

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.     

Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) with propofol-fentanyl and propofol-midazolam combinations in spontaneously-breathing goats

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol and fentanyl, with propofol and midazolam for total intravenous anaesthesia.Study designProspective, randomized, crossover experimental study.AnimalsSix goats; three does and three wethers.MethodsGoats received either fentanyl 0.02 mg kg^?1 (treatment FP) or midazolam 0.3 mg kg^?1 (treatment MP) intravenously. One minute later anaesthesia was induced with propofol, then maintained by constant rate infusion of propofol 12.0 mg kg^?1 hour^?1 and fentanyl 0.02 mg kg^?1 hour^?1 (treatment FP) or propofol 12.0 mg kg^?1 hour^?1 and midazolam 0.3 mg kg^?1 hour^?1 (treatment MP) for 90 minutes. Response to noxious stimulus was tested every 10 minutes and propofol dose adjusted to prevent purposeful movement. Cardiopulmonary parameters were measured continuously, and arterial blood-gas analysis performed intermittently. Recovery was timed and quality scored. Results are presented as median (IQR).ResultsDifferences in the propofol induction dose [4.00 (3.96-4.01) and 3.97 (3.91-4.00) mg kg^?1 for treatments FP and MP, respectively] were not significant. Quality of induction in both groups was smooth. The median propofol dose for maintenance was less (p = 0.004) with treatment FP (12.0 mg kg^?1 hour^?1) than MP (18.0 mg kg^?1 hour^?1). Cardiopulmonary function was well maintained with both treatments. Recovery times in minutes from the end of anaesthetic infusion for treatments FP and MP respectively were; to extubation 3.0 (3.0-3.0) and 4.5 (3.3-5.0); to sternal position, 4.5 (3.3-5.0) and 5.0 (5.0-6.5) and to standing 13.0 (10.3-15.0) and 15.0 (11.3-17.3). Quality of recovery was acceptable in both groups, but abnormal behavioural signs were observed after treatment FP.Conclusions and clinical relevanceTotal intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl or propofol and midazolam, at the doses studied, in spontaneously-breathing, oxygen-supplemented goats is practicable. Recovery from the fentanyl-propofol combination is not always smooth.     

The effect of midazolam or lidocaine administration prior to etomidate induction of anesthesia on heart rate,arterial pressure,intraocular pressure and serum cortisol concentration in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate selected effects of midazolam or lidocaine administered prior to etomidate for co-induction of anesthesia in healthy dogs.Study designProspective crossover experimental study.AnimalsA group of 12 healthy adult female Beagle dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with intravenous (IV) butorphanol (0.3 mg kg^–1), and anesthesia was induced with etomidate following midazolam (0.3 mg kg^–1), lidocaine (2 mg kg^–1) or physiologic saline (1 mL) IV. Heart rate (HR), arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate (f_R) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded following butorphanol, after co-induction administration, after etomidate administration and immediately following intubation. Baseline IOP values were also obtained prior to sedation. Etomidate dose requirements and the presence of myoclonus, as well as coughing or gagging during intubation were recorded. Serum cortisol concentrations were measured prior to premedication and 6 hours following etomidate administration.ResultsBlood pressure, f_R and IOP were similar among treatments. Blood pressure decreased in all treatments following etomidate administration and generally returned to sedated values following intubation. HR increased following intubation with midazolam and lidocaine but remained stable in the saline treatment. The dose of etomidate (median, interquartile range, range) required for intubation was lower following midazolam (2.2, 2.1–2.6, 1.7–4.1 mg kg⁻¹) compared with lidocaine (2.7, 2.4–3.6, 2.2–5.1 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.012) or saline (3.0, 2.8–3.8, 1.9–5.1 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.015). Coughing or gagging was less frequent with midazolam compared with saline. Myoclonus was not observed. Changes in serum cortisol concentrations were not different among treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam administration reduced etomidate dose requirements and improved intubation conditions compared with lidocaine or saline treatments. Neither co-induction agent caused clinically relevant differences in measured cardiopulmonary function, IOP or cortisol concentrations compared with saline in healthy dogs. Apnea was noted in all treatments following the induction of anesthesia and preoxygenation is recommended.     

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.     

S‐ketamine versus racemic ketamine in dogs: their relative potency as induction agents

ObjectiveTo determine the potency ratio between S-ketamine and racemic ketamine as inductive agents for achieving tracheal intubation in dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, ‘blinded’, clinical trial conducted in two consecutive phases.Animals112 client-owned dogs (ASA I or II).MethodsAll animals were premedicated with intramuscular acepromazine (0.02 mg kg⁻¹) and methadone (0.2 mg kg⁻¹). In phase 1, midazolam (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) with either 3 mg kg⁻¹ of racemic ketamine (group K) or 1.5 mg kg⁻¹ of S-ketamine (group S) was administered IV, for induction of anaesthesia and intubation. Up to two additional doses of racemic (1.5 mg kg⁻¹) or S-ketamine (0.75 mg kg⁻¹) were administered if required. In phase 2, midazolam (0.2 mg kg⁻¹) with 1 mg kg⁻¹ of either racemic ketamine (group K) or S-ketamine (group S) was injected and followed by a continuous infusion (1 mg kg minute⁻¹) of each respective drug. Differences between groups were statistically analyzed via t-test, Fisher exact test and ANOVA for repeated measures.ResultsDemographics and quality and duration of premedication, induction and intubation were comparable among groups. During phase 1 it was possible to achieve tracheal intubation after a single dose in more dogs in group K (n = 25) than in group S (n = 16) (p = 0.046). A dose of 3 mg kg⁻¹ S-ketamine allowed tracheal intubation in the same number of dogs as 4.5 mg kg⁻¹ of racemic ketamine. The estimated potency ratio was 1.5:1. During phase 2, the total dose (mean ± SD) of S-ketamine (4.02 ±1.56 mg kg⁻¹) and racemic ketamine (4.01 ± 1.42) required for tracheal intubation was similar.Conclusion and clinical relevanceRacemic and S-ketamine provide a similar quality of anaesthetic induction and intubation. S-ketamine is not twice as potent as racemic ketamine and, if infused, the potency ratio is 1:1.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of vatinoxan in dogs premedicated with medetomidine and butorphanol followed by sevoflurane anaesthesia: a randomized clinical study

ObjectiveTo investigate effects of vatinoxan in dogs, when administered as intravenous (IV) premedication with medetomidine and butorphanol before anaesthesia for surgical castration.Study designA randomized, controlled, blinded, clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 28 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with medetomidine (0.125 mg m^?2) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^?1) (group MB; n = 14), or medetomidine (0.25 mg m^?2), butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^?1) and vatinoxan (5 mg m^?2) (group MB-VATI; n = 14). Anaesthesia was induced 15 minutes later with propofol and maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen (targeting 1.3%). Before surgical incision, lidocaine (2 mg kg^?1) was injected intratesticularly. At the end of the procedure, meloxicam (0.2 mg kg^?1) was administered IV. The level of sedation, the qualities of induction, intubation and recovery, and Glasgow Composite Pain Scale short form (GCPS-SF) were assessed. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), mean arterial pressure (MAP), end-tidal concentration of sevoflurane (Fe′Sevo) and carbon dioxide (Pe′CO₂) were recorded. Blood samples were collected at 10 and 30 minutes after premedication for plasma medetomidine and butorphanol concentrations.ResultsAt the beginning of surgery, HR was 61 ± 16 and 93 ± 23 beats minute^?1 (p = 0.001), and MAP was 78 ± 7 and 56 ± 7 mmHg (p = 0.001) in MB and MB-VATI groups, respectively. No differences were detected in f_R, Pe′CO₂, Fe′Sevo, the level of sedation, the qualities of induction, intubation and recovery, or in GCPS-SF. Plasma medetomidine concentrations were higher in group MB-VATI than in MB at 10 minutes (p = 0.002) and 30 minutes (p = 0.0001). Plasma butorphanol concentrations were not different between groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn group MB, HR was significantly lower than in group MB-VATI. Hypotension detected in group MB-VATI during sevoflurane anaesthesia was clinically the most significant difference between groups.     

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

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

Effects of graded doses of propofol for anesthesia induction on cardiovascular parameters and intraocular pressures in normal dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of graded doses of propofol on cardiovascular parameters and intraocular pressures (IOP) in normal dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, modified Latin square, cross-over experimental study.AnimalsEleven adult random-source dogs weighing 20.2 ± 5.7 kg.MethodsThere were three treatment groups: propofol 8 mg kg^?1 intravenous (IV) until loss of jaw tone (Group P), propofol until loss of jaw tone +20% (Group P20), and propofol until loss of jaw tone +50% (Group P50). Atracurium 0.1 mg kg^?1 IV was administered in all treatments immediately after the propofol. All dogs received the three treatments in a randomized order, with at least a one week interval between treatments. Direct arterial blood pressure and IOP by applanation tonometry were obtained at baseline, after 5 minutes of pre-oxygenation (before induction), before, and after intubation. Blood gas samples were obtained at baseline, after pre-oxygenation, and before intubation.ResultsThere was no significant difference in IOP readings at any time point among groups. The IOP was significantly higher before intubation versus before induction in all three groups. There was a significantly smaller change in systolic, mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures in the P50 group compared with the P group after intubation. There was a significantly smaller change in MAP and DAP in the P50 group compared with the P20 group after intubation. The increase in CO₂ from before induction to before intubation was significantly greater in the P50 group than in the P or P20 groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceGraded doses of propofol did not affect the increase in IOP observed with propofol induction in normal dogs. Higher doses of propofol are of no apparent additional benefit in animals who cannot tolerate an abrupt increase in IOP but may be of benefit in dogs who cannot tolerate an abrupt increase in blood pressure accompanying orotracheal intubation.     

Effects of detomidine or romifidine during maintenance and recovery from isoflurane anaesthesia in horses

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of detomidine or romifidine on cardiovascular function, isoflurane requirements and recovery quality in horses undergoing isoflurane anaesthesia.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, clinical study.AnimalsA total of 63 healthy horses undergoing elective surgery during general anaesthesia.MethodsHorses were randomly allocated to three groups of 21 animals each. In group R, horses were given romifidine intravenously (IV) for premedication (80 μg kg^–1), maintenance (40 μg kg^–1 hour^–1) and before recovery (20 μg kg^–1). In group D2.5, horses were given detomidine IV for premedication (15 μg kg^–1), maintenance (5 μg kg^–1 hour^–1) and before recovery (2.5 μg kg^–1). In group D5, horses were given the same doses of detomidine IV for premedication and maintenance but 5 μg kg^–1 prior to recovery. Premedication was combined with morphine IV (0.1 mg kg^–1) in all groups. Cardiovascular and blood gas variables, expired fraction of isoflurane (Fe′Iso), dobutamine or ketamine requirements, recovery times, recovery events scores (from sternal to standing position) and visual analogue scale (VAS) were compared between groups using either anova followed by Tukey, Kruskal-Wallis followed by Bonferroni or chi-square tests, as appropriate (p < 0.05).ResultsNo significant differences were observed between groups for Fe′Iso, dobutamine or ketamine requirements and recovery times. Cardiovascular and blood gas measurements remained within physiological ranges for all groups. Group D5 horses had significantly worse scores for balance and coordination (p = 0.002), overall impression (p = 0.021) and final score (p = 0.008) than group R horses and significantly worse mean scores for VAS than the other groups (p = 0.002).Conclusions and clinical relevanceDetomidine or romifidine constant rate infusion provided similar conditions for maintenance of anaesthesia. Higher doses of detomidine at the end of anaesthesia might decrease the recovery quality.