A comparison of epidural morphine with low dose bupivacaine versus epidural morphine alone on motor and respiratory function in dogs following splenectomy

ObjectiveTo compare post-operative motor function in dogs that received epidural morphine and low dose bupivacaine versus epidural morphine alone following splenectomy.Study designProspective, randomized study.Animals16 client owned dogs undergoing routine splenectomy.MethodsFollowing splenectomy dogs were randomly allocated into one of two groups. The morphine group (MOR) was administered epidural morphine (0.1 mg kg^?1); the morphine-bupivacaine group (MORB) received epidural morphine (0.1 mg kg^?1) and low dose bupivacaine [0.25 mg kg^?1, (0.167%)]. The adjusted final volume was 0.15 mL kg^?1 in both groups. Motor function and pain assessment were performed at pre-determined times using a simple numerical motor score and the University of Melbourne Pain Scale (UMPS) respectively. An arterial blood gas was performed 2 hours following epidural administration to check for respiratory compromise. If patients scored >7 on the UMPS or were deemed painful by the observer they were administered hydromorphone intravenously and dose and time of rescue analgesia were recorded.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in motor scores, pain scores, amount of rescue analgesia administered or PaCO₂ between treatment groups. No dogs demonstrated respiratory depression or profound motor dysfunction at any time point during the study. 9/16 (56%) dogs did not require rescue analgesia during the first 18 hours following splenectomy.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe combination of low dose bupivacaine (0.25 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.1 mg kg^?1) when administered epidurally has little effect on post-operative motor function. This combination can be used without concern of motor paralysis in healthy animals.     

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.     

Comparison of analgesic efficacy of epidural methadone or ropivacaine/methadone with or without pre‐operative oral tepoxalin in dogs undergoing tuberositas tibiae advancement surgery

ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical efficacy of four analgesia protocols in dogs undergoing tibial tuberosity advancement (TTA).Study designProspective, randomized, blinded study.AnimalsThirty-two client owned dogs undergoing TTA-surgery.MethodsDogs (n= 8 per treatment) received an oral placebo (PM and PRM) or tepoxalin (10 mg kg^?1) tablet (TM and TRM) once daily for 1 week before surgery. Epidural methadone (0.1 mg kg^?1) (PM and TM) or the epidural combination methadone (0.1 mg kg^?1)/ropivacaine 0.75% (1.65 mg kg^?1) (PRM and TRM) was administered after induction of anaesthesia. Intra-operative fentanyl requirements (2 μg kg^?1 IV) and end-tidal isoflurane concentration after 60 minutes of anaesthesia (Fe′ISO₆₀) were recorded. Post-operative analgesia was evaluated hourly from 1 to 8 and at 20 hours post-extubation with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the University of Melbourne Pain Scale (UMPS). If VAS > 50 and/or UMPS > 10, rescue methadone (0.1 mg kg^?1) was administered IV. Analgesic duration (time from epidural until post-operative rescue analgesia) and time to standing were recorded. Normally distributed variables were analysed with an F-test (α = 0.05) or t-test for pairwise inter-treatment comparisons (Bonferonni adjusted α = 0.0083). Non-normally distributed data were analysed with the Kruskall–Wallis test (α = 0.05 or Bonferonni adjusted α = 0.005 for inter-treatment comparison of post-operative pain scores).ResultsMore intra-operative analgesia interventions were required in PM [2 (0–11)] [median (range)] and TM [2 (1–2)] compared to PRM (0) and TRM (0). Fe′ISO₆₀ was significantly lower in (PRM + TRM) compared to (PM + TM). Analgesic duration was shorter in PM (459 ± 276 minutes) (mean ± SD) and TM (318 ± 152 minutes) compared to TRM (853 ± 288 minutes), but not to PRM (554 ± 234 minutes). Times to standing were longer in the ropivacaine treatments compared to TM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceInclusion of epidural ropivacaine resulted in reduction of Fe′ISO₆₀, avoidance of intra-operative fentanyl administration, a longer duration of post-operative analgesia (in TRM) and a delay in time to standing compared to TM.     

Comparison of bupivacaine femoral and sciatic nerve block versus bupivacaine and morphine epidural for stifle surgery in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of combined femoral and sciatic nerve blocks as an alternative to epidural anesthesia and analgesia in dogs undergoing stifle surgery under general anesthesia.Study designProspective, blinded, randomized, clinical comparison.AnimalsTwenty dogs weighing 37 ± 11 (mean ± SD) kg, aged 3 (1–8) [median (minimum–maximum)] years undergoing elective unilateral tibial-plateau leveling osteotomy.MethodsDogs were assigned randomly to receive either epidural anesthesia (bupivacaine 0.5%, 0.5 mg kg^?1 + morphine 0.1%, 0.1 mg kg^?1, in 0.2 mL kg^?1; EPID) or femoral and sciatic nerve blocks (Bupivacaine 0.5%, 0.1 mL kg^?1, was administered at each site; F + S) guided by electrolocation. All patients received a standard general anesthesia technique. Pain and sedation were scored (on scales of 0–10 and 0–3, respectively) pre-operatively, at extubation, and at 1, 4 and then every 4 hours thereafter up to 24 hours. Postoperatively, hydromorphone was administered to any patient with a pain score of >5 or whenever the blinded caregiver determined that more hydromorphone was necessary. Intraoperative heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), end tidal isoflurane (FE′ISO), body temperature, post-operative pain scores, time to first hydromorphone dose after surgery, time to first feeding, time to first drinking, time to first urination, time to first ambulation (walk on a lead) and cumulative dose of hydromorphone were recorded.ResultsIntra-operatively, FE′ISO and MAP were significantly lower in the EPID group (p = 0.05 and p = 0.04, respectively). Postoperatively, the cumulative hydromorphone consumption (p = 0.04) and the incidence of urinary retention (p = 0.03) were higher in the EPID group.Conclusion and clinical relevance F + S is a practical alternative to EPID that produces less urine retention and reduces opioid consumption in the 24 hours after surgery. EPID might be associated with a lower isoflurane requirement and lower systemic blood pressure.     

Midazolam enhances the analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine in the rat

ObjectiveTo investigate the analgesic properties of different dose combinations of midazolam and dexmedetomidine administered intraperitoneally (IP) in the rat.Study designProspective experimental trial.AnimalsSeventy adult male Sprague Dawley rats weighing 250-300 g.MethodsDexmedetomidine (D) 0.03, 0.06, 0.09, 0.12, 0.15, 0.18, 0.21 mg kg^?1 and midazolam (M) 5, 10, 25, 50 mg kg^?1 were administered IP, alone then in combinations ranging from 0.03 D:5 M to 0.18 D:30 M mg kg^?1. Analgesia was evaluated using the tail-flick test at time 0 (before injection), 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 minutes.ResultsMidazolam at all doses administered (5-50 mg kg^?1) did not significantly change tail-flick latencies from baseline values whereas D showed clear dose-dependent increases in tail-flick latency for doses administered in the range of 0.03-0.18 mg kg^?1. Tail-flick latencies in rats administered D + M combinations were significantly greater than D alone (p<0.05).ConclusionsA dose-related analgesic effect was demonstrated for D in the rat, which was enhanced by co-administration of M.Clinical relevanceThe combination of D + M administered IP to rats at doses of 0.12:20 and 0.09:15 mg kg^?1 was shown to be a good combination to provide sedation/analgesia with a duration of action greater than 60 minutes. The onset of sedation was rapid (1-3 minutes), and onset of profound analgesia was reached within 5-10 minutes.     

Cardiorespiratory,sedative and antinociceptive effects of dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with methadone,morphine or tramadol in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cardiorespiratory, sedative and antinociceptive effects of dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with methadone, morphine or tramadol in dogs.Study designExperimental, blinded, randomized, crossover study.AnimalsSix mixed breed dogs (two males and four females) weighing 10 ± 4 kg.MethodsThe animals were randomly divided into four treatments: D (10 μg kg^?1 of dexmedetomidine), DM (dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 and methadone 0.5 mg kg^?1); DMO (dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 and morphine 0.5 mg kg^?1), and DT (dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 and tramadol 2 mg kg^?1). The combinations were administered intramuscularly in all treatments. The variables evaluated were heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), rectal temperature (RT), systolic arterial pressure (SAP), sedation scale and pedal withdrawal reflex. These variables were measured at T0 (immediately before the administration of the protocol) and every 15 minutes thereafter until T105.ResultsA decrease in HR and f_R occurred in all the treatments compared with T0, but no significant difference was observed between the treatments. The RT decreased from T45 onward in all the treatments. The SAP did not show a difference between the treatments, but in the DT treatment, the SAP was lower at T30 and T45 compared with T0. The D treatment had lower scores of sedation at T15 to T75 compared with the other treatments, and the DMO and DM treatments showed higher scores at T60 and T75 compared with DT.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe treatments with morphine and methadone added to the dexmedetomidine showed higher sedation scores than the control treatment and the treatment with tramadol added to the dexmedetomidine showed no relevant differences in any of the variables evaluated in the study.     

Comparison of postoperative effects between lidocaine infusion,meloxicam, and their combination in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy

ObjectiveTo compare the postoperative analgesic effects of intravenous (IV) lidocaine, meloxicam, and their combination in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designProspective, randomized, double‐blind, controlled clinical trial.AnimalsTwenty‐seven dogs aged (mean ± SD) 16.1 ± 7.5 months and weighing 22.4 ± 17.9 kg scheduled for ovariohysterectomy.MethodsAnaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane. Dogs (n = 9 in each group) were allocated to receive just prior to and during surgery one of the following regimens: M group, 0.2 mg kg^?1 IV meloxicam then a continuous rate infusion (CRI) of lactated Ringer's at 10 mL kg^?1 hour^?1; L group, a bolus of lidocaine (1 mg kg^?1 IV) then a CRI of lidocaine at 0.025 mg kg^?1 minute^?1; and M + L group, both the above meloxicam and lidocaine treatments. Pain and sedation were scored, and venous samples taken for serum cortisol and glucose measurement before and at intervals for 12 hours after anaesthesia. Pain scores were assessed using a multi‐parameter subjective scoring scale (cumulative scale 0–21) by three observers. The protocol stated that dogs with a total score exceeding 9 or a sub‐score above 3 in any one category would receive rescue analgesia. Sedation was scored on a scale of 0–4.ResultsThere were no significant differences in subjective pain scores, serum cortisol, and glucose concentrations between the three groups. The highest pain score at any time was 5, and no dog required rescue analgesia. None of the three regimens caused any observable side effects during or after anaesthesia. At 1 and 2 hours after extubation dogs in group L were significantly more sedated than in the other two groups.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceThis study suggests that, with the scoring system used, IV lidocaine and meloxicam provide similar and adequate post‐operative analgesia in healthy dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.     

Combined paravertebral plexus block and parasacral sciatic block in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of paravertebral lumbar plexus block combined with parasacral sciatic block to anesthetize one hind limb in awake dogs.Study designRandomized, controlled, blinded experimental study.AnimalsEight healthy mongrel dogs weighing 12.4 ± 4.5 kg and aged 7 ± 2.33 years.MethodsAfter sedation with medetomidine, dogs received B1: bupivacaine 0.25%, 0.2 mL kg^?1, B2: bupivacaine 0.5%, 0.2 mL kg^?1, B3: bupivacaine 0.25% 0.4 mL kg^?1, P1: NaCl 0.2 mL kg^?1, P2: NaCl 0.4 mL kg^?1. The lumbosacral plexus was blocked through a paravertebral block of the fourth, fifth and sixth lumbar nerves combined with a parasacral block. The relevant nerves were located using a nerve stimulator and injections of each treatment were administered. Degree and durations of sensory blockade were determined through the response to a Halsted clamp pressure on the skin innervated by the saphenous/femoral and lateral cutaneous femoral nerves (lumbar dermatomes) and by the peroneal and tibial nerves. The degree and duration of motor blockade was assessed evaluating the ability to walk normally and proprioception.ResultsP1 and P2 treatments did not show any grade of sensory or motor blockade. The B2 treatment produced a higher degree of sensory blockade compared to B1 and B3 for both lumbar and sciatic dermatomes. There was no significant difference in the degree of sensory blockade comparing B1 to B3. The B2 treatment had greater motor blockade compared to B1 and B3. The duration of sensory and motor blockade was longer in B2 compared to B1 and B3.Conclusion and clinical relevanceWhen the nerve stimulator is used to perform the lumbosacral plexus block, the concentration of the bupivacaine has a more important role than the volume to produce a more solid and longer block.     

Effects of pre‐operative administration of medetomidine on plasma insulin and glucose concentrations in healthy dogs and dogs with insulinoma

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of medetomidine on plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in dogs with insulinoma and in healthy dogs undergoing anesthesia and surgery.AnimalsTwenty–five dogs with insulinoma and 26 healthy dogs.MethodsIn dogs with insulinoma, medetomidine (5 μg kg^?1) was randomly included (n = 12) or omitted (n = 13) from the pre–anesthetic medication protocol, which typically contained an opioid and an anticholinergic. Healthy dogs received medetomidine (5 μg kg^?1; n = 13) or acepromazine (0.04 mg kg^?1; n = 13) plus an opioid (morphine 0.5 mg kg^?1) and an anticholinergic (atropine 0.04 mg kg^?1) as pre–anesthetic medications. Pre–anesthetic medications were given intramuscularly. Plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were measured before (sample 1) and 30 minutes after pre–anesthetic medication (sample 2), and at the end of surgery in dogs with insulinoma or at 2 hours of anesthesia in healthy dogs (sample 3). Glucose requirement to maintain intra–operative normoglycemia in dogs with insulinoma was quantified and compared. Data were analyzed with anova and Bonferroni post–test, t–tests or chi–square tests as appropriate with p < 0.05 considered significant. Data are shown as mean ± SD.ResultsMedetomidine significantly decreased plasma insulin concentrations and increased plasma glucose concentrations in healthy dogs and those with insulinoma. These variables did not change significantly in the dogs not receiving medetomidine. In the dogs with insulinoma, intra–operative glucose administration rate was significantly less in the animals that received medetomidine compared to those that did not.ConclusionsPre–anesthetic administration of medetomidine significantly suppressed insulin secretion and increased plasma glucose concentration in dogs with insulinoma and in healthy dogs undergoing anesthesia and surgery.Clinical relevanceThese findings support the judicious use of medetomidine at low doses as an adjunct to the anesthetic management of dogs with insulinoma.     

Maropitant prevented vomiting but not gastroesophageal reflux in anesthetized dogs premedicated with acepromazine‐hydromorphone

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of maropitant for prevention of vomiting and gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in dogs following acepromazine-hydromorphone premedication and inhalation anesthesia.Study designRandomized, blinded, prospective clinical study.AnimalsTwenty-six dogs admitted for elective soft tissue or orthopedic procedures that were 3.1 ±3.1 years of age and weighed 20.5 ± 11.4 kg.MethodsDogs were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group M received maropitant (1.0 mg kg^?1) and Group S received 0.9% saline (0.1 mL kg^?1) intravenously 45–60 minutes before premedication with hydromorphone (0.1 mg kg^?1) and acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1) intramuscularly. An observer blinded to treatment documented any retching or vomiting for 20 minutes before induction with propofol (2–6 mg kg^?1) and inhalation anesthesia. A pH probe inserted into the distal esophagus was used to detect GER.ResultsNone of the dogs in Group M retched or vomited (0/13), 6/13 (46%) in Group S were observed to retch or vomit, and the difference between groups was significant (p = 0.015). There were no differences between groups in the number of dogs with GER (Group M: 4/13, Group S: 6/13 dogs) or the number of reflux events. Esophageal pH at the end of anesthesia was significantly lower in both M and S groups in dogs with GER versus dogs without GER (p = 0.004 and 0.011, respectively). Only dogs with GER in Group S had significantly lower pH at the end compared to the beginning of anesthesia (p = 0.004).Conclusions and clinical relevanceIntravenous maropitant prevented retching and vomiting associated with acepromazine-hydromorphone premedication. Maropitant did not prevent the occurrence of GER. Fewer dogs in Group M developed GER but further study with a larger number of dogs is necessary to determine if there is a significant difference.     

Evaluation of the isoflurane‐sparing effects of fentanyl,lidocaine, ketamine,dexmedetomidine, or the combination lidocaine‐ketamine‐dexmedetomidine during ovariohysterectomy in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the isoflurane‐sparing effects of an intravenous (IV) constant rate infusion (CRI) of fentanyl, lidocaine, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, or lidocaine‐ketamine‐dexmedetomidine (LKD) in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designRandomized, prospective, blinded, clinical study.AnimalsFifty four dogs.MethodsAnesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane with one of the following IV treatments: butorphanol/saline (butorphanol 0.4 mg kg^?1, saline 0.9% CRI, CONTROL/BUT); fentanyl (5 μg kg^?1, 10 μg kg^?1 hour^?1, FENT); ketamine (1 mg kg^?1, 40 μg kg^?1 minute^?1, KET), lidocaine (2 mg kg^?1, 100 μg kg^?1 minute^?1, LIDO); dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg^?1, 3 μg kg^?1 hour^?1, DEX); or a LKD combination. Positive pressure ventilation maintained eucapnia. An anesthetist unaware of treatment and end‐tidal isoflurane concentration (Fe′Iso) adjusted vaporizer settings to maintain surgical anesthetic depth. Cardiopulmonary variables and Fe′Iso concentrations were monitored. Data were analyzed using anova (p < 0.05).ResultsAt most time points, heart rate (HR) was lower in FENT than in other groups, except for DEX and LKD. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was lower in FENT and CONTROL/BUT than in DEX. Overall mean ± SD Fe′Iso and % reduced isoflurane requirements were 1.01 ± 0.31/41.6% (range, 0.75 ± 0.31/56.6% to 1.12 ± 0.80/35.3%, FENT), 1.37 ± 0.19/20.8% (1.23 ± 0.14/28.9% to 1.51 ± 0.22/12.7%, KET), 1.34 ± 0.19/22.5% (1.24 ± 0.19/28.3% to 1.44 ± 0.21/16.8%, LIDO), 1.30 ± 0.28/24.8% (1.16 ± 0.18/32.9% to 1.43 ± 0.32/17.3%, DEX), 0.95 ± 0.19/54.9% (0.7 ± 0.16/59.5% to 1.12 ± 0.16/35.3%, LKD) and 1.73 ± 0.18/0.0% (1.64 ± 0.21 to 1.82 ± 0.14, CONTROL/BUT) during surgery. FENT and LKD significantly reduced Fe′Iso.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAt the doses administered, FENT and LKD had greater isoflurane‐sparing effect than LIDO, KET or CONTROL/BUT, but not at all times. Low HR during FENT may limit improvement in MAP expected with reduced Fe′Iso.     

Effects of dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with opioids on intraocular pressure in healthy Beagle dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with different opioids on intraocular pressure (IOP) in dogs.Study designExperimental, prospective, crossover, randomized, blinded study.AnimalsA total of six Beagle dogs (two males and four females) aged 2 years and weighing 15.9 ± 2.9 kg (mean ± standard deviation).MethodsDogs were distributed randomly into seven treatments (n = 6 per treatment) and were administered dexmedetomidine alone (10 μg kg^–1; Dex) or in combination with butorphanol (0.15 mg kg^–1; DexBut), meperidine (5 mg kg^–1; DexMep), methadone (0.5 mg kg^–1; DexMet), morphine (0.5 mg kg^–1; DexMor), nalbuphine (0.5 mg kg^–1; DexNal) or tramadol (5 mg kg^–1; DexTra). All drugs were administered intramuscularly. IOP was measured before drug injection (time 0, baseline) and every 15 minutes thereafter for 120 minutes (T15–T120).ResultsThere were significant reductions in IOP compared with baseline in treatments Dex and DexMep at times T30–T120, and in treatment DexMet at T15–T90. IOP decreased compared with baseline in treatments DexBut, DexNal and DexTra at all evaluation times. No changes in IOP were seen in treatment DexMor. The mean IOP values in treatment DexMet at T105–T120 were higher than those for other treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceDexmedetomidine alone or in combination with butorphanol, meperidine, methadone, nalbuphine or tramadol resulted in decreased IOP for 120 minutes in dogs. The magnitude of the reduction was small and lacked clinical significance.     

Cardiovascular effects of epidural administration of methadone, ropivacaine 0.75% and their combination in isoflurane anaesthetized dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the cardiovascular effects of four epidural treatments in isoflurane anaesthetised dogs.Study designProspective, randomized. experimental study.AnimalsSix female, neutered Beagle dogs (13.3 ± 1.0 kg), aged 3.6 ± 0.1 years.MethodsAnaesthesia was induced with propofol (8.3 ± 1.1 mg kg^?1) and maintained with isoflurane in a mixture of oxygen and air [inspiratory fraction of oxygen (FiO₂) = 40%], using intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Using a cross-over model, NaCl 0.9% (P); methadone 1% 0.1 mg kg^?1 (M); ropivacaine 0.75% 1.65 mg kg^?1 (R) or methadone 1% 0.1 mg kg^?1 + ropivacaine 0.75% 1.65 mg kg^?1 (RM) in equal volumes (0.23 mL kg^?1) using NaCl 0.9%, was administered epidurally at the level of the lumbosacral space. Treatment P was administered to five dogs only. Cardiovascular and respiratory variables, blood gases, and oesophageal temperature were recorded at T-15 and for 60 minutes after epidural injection (T0).ResultsMean overall heart rate (HR in beats minute^?1) was significantly lower after treatment M (119 ± 16) (p = 0.0019), R (110 ± 18) (p < 0.0001) and RM (109 ± 13) (p < 0.0001), compared to treatment P (135 ± 21). Additionally, a significant difference in HR between treatments RM and M was found (p = 0.04). After both ropivacaine treatments, systemic arterial pressures (sAP) were significantly lower compared to other treatments. No significant overall differences between treatments were present for central venous pressure, cardiac output, stroke volume, systemic vascular resistance, oxygen delivery and arterial oxygen content (CaO₂). Heart rate and sAP significantly increased after treatment P and M compared to baseline (T-15). With all treatments significant reductions from baseline were observed in oesophageal temperature, packed cell volume and CaO₂. A transient unilateral Horner’s syndrome occurred in one dog after treatment R.Conclusions and clinical relevanceClinically important low sAPs were observed after the ropivacaine epidural treatments in isoflurane anaesthetised dogs. Systemic arterial pressures were clinically acceptable when using epidural methadone.     

Retrospective clinical evaluation of ultrasound guided transverse abdominis plane block in dogs undergoing mastectomy

HistoryEleven female dogs of different breeds undergoing unilateral radical (n = 7) or regional abdominal mastectomy (n = 4) received an ultrasound guided transverse abdominis plane block (TAP-block).Physical examinationSubjects showed single or multiple mammary tumours. Serum biochemistry, CBC and electrocardiogram were unremarkable. Eight animals were classified as ASA physical status II and 3 as ASA III.ManagementDogs were premedicated with methadone [0.1 or 0.2 mg kg^?1 intravenously (IV) or intramuscularly respectively] or fentanyl (2.5 μgkg^?1 IV). Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane or sevoflurane. Unilateral ultrasound guided TAP blocks were performed in the caudal and cranial abdomen with bupivacaine 0.25% (0.3 to 0.35 mL kg^?1). Intercostal nerve blocks (T₄ to T₁₁) with bupivacaine 0.25% (0.013 to 0.04 mL kg^?1) completed the blocked area in dogs undergoing radical mastectomy.Follow upThe median (range) of end-expired isoflurane and sevoflurane necessary to maintain anaesthesia was 1.15 (1.07–1.22) and 2.07 (2.05–2.2) vol% respectively. A single administration of fentanyl (2.5 μg kg^?1, IV) was administered to control nociception (defined as an increased heart rate or mean arterial blood pressure above 20% of the pre-incisional value) in four of 11 dogs. All dogs received carprofen (2 mg kg^?1 subcutaneously) at the end of surgery. Post-operative pain, assessed for 120 minutes using the short form of Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (0–24), was always lower than 3. No rescue analgesia (allowed by the protocol) was required in this time.ConclusionTransverse abdominis plane block combined with intercostal nerve blocks may be useful to produce intraoperative anti-nociception and short term post-operative analgesia in dogs undergoing unilateral mastectomy.     

Caudal epidural anti‐nociception using lidocaine,bupivacaine or their combination in cows undergoing reproductive procedures

ObjectiveTo evaluate the anti-nociceptive effects of lidocaine, lidocaine-bupivacaine combination or bupivacaine following caudal epidural administration in cows undergoing reproductive procedures.Study designBlinded, randomized experimental study.AnimalsThirty seven healthy Holstein cows (mean weight ± SD, 633 ± 41 kg).MethodsAnimals were allocated randomly to receive one of four treatments: group LID, 0.2 mg kg^?1 lidocaine 2%; group LID-BUP, lidocaine-bupivacaine mixture in a 1:1 volume ratio (0.1 mg kg^?1 and 0.025 mg kg^?1, respectively); group BUP-LD, 0.05 mg kg^?1 bupivacaine 0.5%; and group BUP-HD, 0.06 mg kg^?1 bupivacaine 0.5%. The onset and duration of perineal anti-nociception were determined using superficial and deep pin pricks and the number of cows with complete perineal anti-nociception was recorded. Parameters were compared using anova followed by Duncan's test where relevant.ResultsMean ± SD time to onset of anti-nociception following epidural administration of BUP-LD was significantly longer than for LID-BUP (p < 0.05). The duration (in minutes) of perineal anti-nociception was significantly longer following epidural administration of BUP-HD (247 ± 31) versus LID-BUP (181 ± 33) and LID (127 ± 25) minutes respectively. The % of cows with complete anti-nociception was increased in the group treated with BUP-HD compared to BUP-LD. Severe ataxia or recumbency did not occur in any groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceEpidurally administered bupivacaine, at a dose of 0.06 mg kg^?1, may provide satisfactory caudal epidural anti-nociception for longer-duration obstetric and surgical procedures.     

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.     

Cardiovascular,respiratory, electrolyte and acid–base balance during continuous dexmedetomidine infusion in anesthetized dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cardiovascular, respiratory, electrolyte and acid–base effects of a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine during propofol–isoflurane anesthesia following premedication with dexmedetomidine.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsFive adult male Walker Hound dogs 1–2 years of age averaging 25.4 ± 3.6 kg.MethodsDogs were sedated with dexmedetomidine 10 μg kg^?1 IM, 78 ± 2.3 minutes (mean ± SD) before general anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with propofol (2.5 ± 0.5 mg kg^?1) IV and maintained with 1.5% isoflurane. Thirty minutes later dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg kg^?1 IV was administered over 5 minutes followed by an infusion of 0.5 μg kg^?1 hour^?1. Cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR), ECG, direct blood pressure, body temperature, respiratory parameters, acid–base and arterial blood gases and electrolytes were measured 30 and 60 minutes after the infusion started. Data were analyzed via multiple linear regression modeling of individual variables over time, compared to anesthetized baseline values. Data are presented as mean ± SD.ResultsNo statistical difference from baseline for any parameter was measured at any time point. Baseline CO, HR and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) before infusion were 3.11 ± 0.9 L minute^?1, 78 ± 18 beats minute^?1 and 96 ± 10 mmHg, respectively. During infusion CO, HR and MAP were 3.20 ± 0.83 L minute^?1, 78 ± 14 beats minute^?1 and 89 ± 16 mmHg, respectively. No differences were found in respiratory rates, PaO₂, PaCO₂, pH, base excess, bicarbonate, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium or lactate measurements before or during infusion.Conclusions and clinical relevanceDexmedetomidine infusion using a loading dose of 0.5 μg kg^?1 IV followed by a constant rate infusion of 0.5 μg kg^?1 hour^?1 does not cause any significant changes beyond those associated with an IM premedication dose of 10 μg kg^?1, in propofol–isoflurane anesthetized dogs. IM dexmedetomidine given 108 ± 2 minutes before onset of infusion showed typical significant effects on cardiovascular parameters.     

Comparison between dexmedetomidine and acepromazine in combination with methadone for premedication in brachycephalic dogs undergoing surgery for brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome

ObjectiveTo compare dexmedetomidine with acepromazine for premedication combined with methadone in dogs undergoing brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS) surgery.Study designRandomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsA group of 40 dogs weighing mean (± standard deviation) 10.5 ± 6 kg, aged 2.6 ± 1.9 years.MethodsDogs received either acepromazine 20 μg kg^–1 (group A) or dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg^–1 (group D) intramuscularly with methadone 0.3 mg kg^–1. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with sevoflurane. Sedation (0–18), induction (0–6) and recovery (0–5) qualities were scored. Propofol dose, hypotension incidence, mechanical ventilation requirement, extubation time, additional sedation, oxygen supplementation, regurgitation and emergency intubation following premedication or during recovery were recorded. Data were analysed using t tests, Mann-Whitney U or Chi-square tests.ResultsGroup A dogs were less sedated [median (range): 1.5 (0–12)] than group D [5 (1–18)] (p = 0.021) and required more propofol [3.5 (1–7) versus 2.4 (1–8) mg kg^–1; p = 0.018]. Induction scores [group A: 5 (4–5); group D 5 (3–5)] (p = 0.989), recovery scores [group A 5 (4–5); group D 5(3–5)](p = 0.738) and anaesthesia duration [group A:93 (50–170); group D 96 (54–263) minutes] (p = 0.758) were similar between groups. Time to extubation was longer in group A 12.5 (3-35) versus group D 5.5 (0–15) minutes; (p = 0.005). During recovery, two dogs required emergency intubation (p > 0.99) and five dogs required additional sedation (p > 0.99). Oxygen supplementation was required in 16 and 12 dogs in group A and D, respectively (p = 0.167); no dogs in group A and one dog in group D regurgitated (p = 0.311).Conclusions and clinical relevanceDexmedetomidine 2 μg kg^–1 produces more sedation but similar recovery quality to acepromazine 20 μg kg^–1 combined with methadone in dogs undergoing BOAS surgery.     

Sedative and analgesic effects of buprenorphine,combined with either acepromazine or dexmedetomidine,for premedication prior to elective surgery in cats and dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the sedative and analgesic effects of intramuscular buprenorphine with either dexmedetomidine or acepromazine, administered as premedication to cats and dogs undergoing elective surgery.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsForty dogs and 48 cats.MethodsAnimals were assigned to one of four groups, according to anaesthetic premedication and induction agent: buprenorphine 20 μg kg^?1 with either dexmedetomidine (dex) 250 μg m^?2 or acepromazine (acp) 0.03 mg kg^?1, followed by alfaxalone (ALF) or propofol (PRO). Meloxicam was administered preoperatively to all animals and anaesthesia was always maintained using isoflurane. Physiological measures and assessments of pain, sedation and mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) were made before and after premedication, intraoperatively, and for up to 24 hours after premedication. Data were analyzed with one-way, two-way and mixed between-within subjects anova, Kruskall–Wallis analyses and Chi squared tests. Results were deemed significant if p ≤ 0.05, except where multiple comparisons were performed (p ≤ 0.005).ResultsCats premedicated with dex were more sedated than cats premedicated with acp (p < 0.001) and ALF doses were lower in dex cats (1.2 ± 1.0 mg kg^?1) than acp cats (2.5 ± 1.9 mg kg^?1) (p = 0.041). There were no differences in sedation in dogs however PRO doses were lower in dex dogs (1.5 ± 0.8 mg kg^?1) compared to acp dogs (3.3 ± 1.1 mg kg^?1) (p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups with respect to pain scores or MNT for cats or dogs.ConclusionChoice of dex or acp, when given with buprenorphine, caused minor, clinically detectable, differences in various characteristics of anaesthesia, but not in the level of analgesia.Clinical relevanceA combination of buprenorphine with either acp or dex, followed by either PRO or ALF, and then isoflurane, accompanied by an NSAID, was suitable for anaesthesia in dogs and cats undergoing elective surgery. Choice of sedative agent may influence dose of anaesthetic induction agent.