The cardiopulmonary effects of anesthetic induction with isoflurane,ketamine‐diazepam or propofol‐diazepam in the hypovolemic dog

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the cardiopulmonary effects of induction of anesthesia with isoflurane (Iso), ketamine–diazepam (KD), or propofol–diazepam (PD) in hypovolemic dogs.Study designProspective randomized cross–over trial.AnimalsSix healthy intact, mixed breed, female dogs weighing 20.7 ± 4.2 kg and aged 22 ± 2 months.MethodsDogs had 30 mL kg^?1 of blood removed at a rate of 1.5 mL kg^?1 minute^?1 under isoflurane anesthesia. Following a 30–minute recovery period, anesthesia was reinduced. Dogs were assigned to one of three treatments: isoflurane via facemask using 0.5% incremental increases in the delivered concentration every 30 seconds, 1.25 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.0625 mg kg^?1 diazepam intravenously (IV) with doses repeated every 30 seconds as required, and 2 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam IV followed by 1 mg kg^?1 propofol increments IV every 30 seconds as required. Following endotracheal intubation all dogs received 1.7% end–tidal isoflurane in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded at baseline (before induction) and at 5 or 10 minute intervals following endotracheal intubation.ResultsInduction time was longer in Iso (4.98 ± 0.47 minutes) compared to KD (3.10 ± 0.47 minutes) or PD (3.22 ± 0.45 minutes). To produce anesthesia, KD received 4.9 ± 2.3 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.24 ± 0.1 mg kg^?1 diazepam, while PD received 2.2 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam. End–tidal isoflurane concentration immediately following intubation was 1.7 ± 0.4% in Iso. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were significantly higher in KD and PD compared to Iso and in KD compared to PD. Arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure was significantly higher in PD compared to KD and Iso immediately after induction.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn hypovolemic dogs, KD or PD, as used in this study to induce anesthesia, resulted in less hemodynamic depression compared to isoflurane.     

Comparison of isoflurane and propofol for maintenance of anesthesia in dogs with intracranial disease undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

ObjectiveTo compare isoflurane and propofol for maintenance of anesthesia and quality of recovery in client-owned dogs with intracranial disease undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Study designProspective, randomized, clinical trial.AnimalsTwenty-five client-owned dogs with intracranial pathology, 13 females and 12 males, ages 11 months to 13 years, weighing between 3.0 and 48.0 kg.MethodsEach dog was randomly assigned to receive propofol or isoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia. All dogs were not premedicated, were administered propofol intravenously to effect for induction, intubated and mechanically ventilated to maintain an end-tidal carbon dioxide tension 30–35 mmHg (4.0–4.7 kPa). Temperature and cardiac output were measured pre- and post-MRI. Scores for mentation, neurological status, ease of maintenance, and recovery were obtained pre- and post-anesthesia. Pulse oximetry, end-tidal gases, arterial blood pressure, heart rate (HR) and requirements for dopamine administration to maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) >60 mmHg were recorded throughout anesthesia.ResultsEnd-tidal isoflurane concentration was 0.73 ± 0.35% and propofol infusion rate was 292 ± 119 μg kg^?1 minute^?1. Cardiac index was higher, while HR was lower, with propofol than isoflurane in dogs younger than 5 years, but not in older dogs. Dogs maintained with isoflurane were 14.7 times more likely to require dopamine than propofol dogs. Mentation and maintenance scores and temperature were not different. MAP and diastolic arterial pressure were higher in the propofol group. Recovery scores were better with propofol, although times to extubation were similar. Change in neurological score from pre- to post-anesthesia was not different between treatments.ConclusionsDogs maintained with propofol during MRI had higher arterial pressures, decreased requirements for dopamine, and better recovery scores, compared to dogs maintained with isoflurane.Clinical relevancePropofol anesthesia offered cardiovascular and recovery advantages over isoflurane during MRI in dogs with intracranial disease in this study.     

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.     

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.     

Cardiovascular Effects of a Continuous Two-Hour Propofol Infusion in Dogs Comparison With Isoflurane Anesthesia

The cardiovascular effects during 2 hours of anesthesia with either a continuous propofol infusion or isoflurane were compared in the same six healthy dogs. Dogs were randomly assigned to be anesthetized with either propofol (5 mg/kg, IV administered over 30 seconds, immediately followed by a propofol infusion beginning at 0.4 mg/kg/min), or isoflurane (2.0% end-tidal concentration). The propofol infusion was adjusted to maintain a light plane of anesthesia. Dogs anesthetized with propofol had higher values for systemic arterial pressure due to higher systemic vascular resistance. Dogs anesthetized with isoflurane had higher values for heart rate and mean pulmonary artery pressure. Cardiac index was not different between the two groups. Apnea and cyanosis were observed during induction of anesthesia with propofol. At the end of anesthesia the mean time to extubation for dogs anesthetized with either propofol or isoflurane was 13.5 min and 12.7 min, respectively. A continuous infusion of propofol (0.44 mg/kg/min) provided a light plane of anesthesia. Ventilatory support during continuous propofol infusion is recommended.     

Effects of a constant rate infusion of magnesium sulphate in healthy dogs anaesthetized with isoflurane and undergoing ovariohysterectomy

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of intravenous (IV) magnesium sulphate (MgSO₄) as a bolus followed by a constant rate infusion (CRI) on anaesthetic requirements, neuroendocrine stress response to surgery, haemostasis and postoperative analgesia in healthy dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designBlinded randomized clinical trial.AnimalsSixteen female dogs.MethodsAfter intramuscular premedication with acepromazine (0.05 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.3 mg kg^?1), anaesthesia was induced with diazepam (0.2 mg kg^?1) and propofol (2 mg kg^?1) intravenously and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen in all dogs. Dogs were randomly assigned to two groups, M and C. Group M received MgSO₄ (50 mg kg^?1 over 15 minutes, followed by a 15 mg kg^?1 hour^?1 CRI). Group C received an equivalent bolus and CRI of lactated Ringer's solution. In addition, all dogs received lactated Ringer's solution (10 mL kg^?1 over 15 minutes followed by 10 mL kg^?1 hour^?1). End-tidal isoflurane and carbon dioxide tensions, cardio-respiratory variables, arterial blood gases, electrolytes, ACTH and cortisol concentrations were measured at different time points. Thromboelastography (TEG) was performed pre- and post-anaesthesia. Postoperative pain was evaluated using the short form of the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale. Data were analysed with repeated measures anova and Mann–Whitney U tests (p< 0.05).ResultsNo statistically significant differences between groups were found in any of the measured variables. However, the alpha angle and maximal amplitude recorded by TEG in group M were significantly increased post-anaesthesia, but remained within the reference interval. One dog in Group M and two in Group C received rescue analgesia during recovery.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAs used in this study, MgSO₄ failed to decrease isoflurane requirements, postoperative pain and stress hormone concentrations; however, it did not produce any cardio-respiratory or major haemostatic side effects. Administration of intravenous MgSO₄ together with an opioid during ovariohysterectomy in dogs does not seem to provide any clinical advantage.     

Minimum infusion rate and hemodynamic effects of propofol, propofol-lidocaine and propofol-lidocaine-ketamine in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of a constant rate infusion (CRI) of lidocaine alone or in combination with ketamine on the minimum infusion rate (MIR) of propofol in dogs and to compare the hemodynamic effects produced by propofol, propofol-lidocaine or propofol-lidocaine-ketamine anesthesia.Study designProspective, randomized cross-over experimental design.AnimalsFourteen adult mixed-breed dogs weighing 15.8 ± 3.5 kg.MethodsEight dogs were anesthetized on different occasions to determine the MIR of propofol alone and propofol in combination with lidocaine (loading dose [LD] 1.5 mg kg^?1, CRI 0.25 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) or lidocaine (LD 1.5 mg kg^?1, CRI 0.25 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) and ketamine (LD 1 mg kg^?1, CRI 0.1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1). In six other dogs, the hemodynamic effects and bispectral index (BIS) were investigated. Each animal received each treatment (propofol, propofol-lidocaine or propofol-lidocaine-ketamine) on the basis of the MIR of propofol determined in the first set of experiments.ResultsMean ± SD MIR of propofol was 0.51 ± 0.08 mg kg^?1 minute^?1. Lidocaine-ketamine significantly decreased the MIR of propofol to 0.31 ± 0.07 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (37 ± 18% reduction), although lidocaine alone did not (0.42 ± 0.08 mg kg^?1 minute^?1, 18 ± 7% reduction). Hemodynamic effects were similar in all treatments. Compared with the conscious state, in all treatments, heart rate, cardiac index, mean arterial blood pressure, stroke index and oxygen delivery index decreased significantly, whereas systemic vascular resistance index increased. Stroke index was lower in dogs treated with propofol-lidocaine-ketamine at 30 minutes compared with propofol alone. The BIS was lower during anesthesia with propofol-lidocaine-ketamine compared to propofol alone.Conclusions and clinical relevanceLidocaine-ketamine, but not lidocaine alone, reduced the MIR of propofol in dogs. Neither lidocaine nor lidocaine in combination with ketamine attenuated cardiovascular depression produced by a continuous rate infusion of propofol.     

Effects of propofol on isoflurane minimum alveolar concentration and cardiovascular function in mechanically ventilated goats

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of propofol, on isoflurane minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) and cardiovascular function in mechanically ventilated goats.Study designProspective, randomized, crossover experimental study.AnimalsSix goats, three does and three wethers.MethodsGeneral anaesthesia was induced with isoflurane in oxygen. Following endotracheal intubation, anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Intermittent positive pressure ventilation was applied. Baseline isoflurane MAC was determined, the noxious stimulus used being clamping a claw. The goats then received, on separate occasions, three propofol treatments intravenously: bolus of 0.5 mg kg^?1 followed by a constant rate infusion (CRI) of 0.05 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (treatment LPROP); bolus of 1.0 mg kg^?1 followed by a CRI of 0.1 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (treatment MPROP), bolus of 2.0 mg kg^?1 followed by a CRI of 0.2 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 (treatment HPROP). Isoflurane MAC was re-determined following propofol treatments. Plasma propofol concentrations at the time of MAC confirmation were measured. Cardiopulmonary parameters were monitored throughout the anaesthetic period. Quality of recovery was scored. The Friedman test was used to test for differences between isoflurane MACs. Medians of repeatedly measured cardiovascular parameters were tested for differences between and within treatments using repeated anova by ranks (p < 0.05 for statistical significance).ResultsIsoflurane MAC [median (interquartile range)] was 1.37 (1.36–1.37) vol%. Propofol CRI significantly reduced the isoflurane MAC, to 1.15 (1.08–1.15), 0.90 (0.87–0.93) and 0.55 (0.49–0.58) vol% following LPROP, MPROP and HPROP treatment, respectively. Increasing plasma propofol concentrations strongly correlated (Spearman rank correlation) with decrease in MAC (Rho = 0.91). Cardiovascular function was not affected significantly by propofol treatment. Quality of recovery was satisfactory.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn goats, propofol reduces isoflurane MAC in a dose-dependent manner with minimal cardiovascular effects.     

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 altering the sequence of midazolam and propofol during co‐induction of anaesthesia

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of varying the sequence of midazolam and propofol administration on the quality of induction, cardiorespiratory parameters and propofol requirements in dogs.Study designRandomized, controlled, clinical study.AnimalsThirty‐three client owned dogs (ASA I‐III, 0.5–10 years, 5–30 kg).MethodsDogs were premedicated with acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.4 mg kg^?1) intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, group midazolam‐propofol (MP) received midazolam (0.25 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV) before propofol (1 mg kg^?1) IV, group propofol‐midazolam (PM) received propofol before midazolam IV at the same doses, and control group (CP) received saline IV, instead of midazolam, before propofol. Supplementary boluses of propofol (0.5 mg kg^?1) were administered to effect to all groups until orotracheal intubation was completed. Behaviour after midazolam administration, quality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were scored. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, and systolic arterial blood pressure were recorded before premedication, post‐premedication, after midazolam or saline administration, and at 0, 2, 5, and 10 minutes post‐intubation. End‐tidal CO₂ and arterial oxygen haemoglobin saturation were recorded at 2, 5 and 10 minutes post‐intubation.ResultsQuality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were similar in all groups. Incidence of excitement was higher in the MP compared to CP (p = 0.014) and PM (p = 0.026) groups. Propofol requirements were decreased in MP and PM groups with respect to CP (p < 0.001), and in PM compared to MP (p = 0.022). The HR decreased after premedication in all groups, and increased after midazolam and subsequent times in MP (p = 0.019) and PM (p = 0.001) groups. Incidence of apnoea and paddling was higher in CP (p = 0.005) and MP (p = 0.031) groups than in PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAdministration of midazolam before propofol reduced propofol requirements although caused mild excitement in some dogs. Administration of propofol before midazolam resulted in less excitatory phenomena and greater reduction of propofol requirements.     

Influence of a preload of hydroxyethylstarch 6% on the cardiovascular effects of epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.75% in anaesthetized dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cardiovascular effects of a preload of hydroxyethylstarch 6% (HES), preceding an epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.75% in isoflurane anaesthetized dogs.AnimalsSix female, neutered Beagle dogs (mean 13.3 ± SD 1.0 kg; 3.6 ± 0.1 years).Study designRandomized experimental cross-over study (washout of 1 month).MethodsAnaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen/air. All dogs were anaesthetized twice to receive either treatment HESR (continuous rate infusion [CRI] of 7 mL kg^?1 HES started 30 minutes [T-30] prior to epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.75% 1.65 mg kg^?1 at T0) or treatment R (no HES preload and similar dose and timing of epidural ropivacaine administration). Baseline measurements were obtained at T-5. Heart rate (HR), mean (MAP), diastolic (DAP) and systolic (SAP) invasive arterial pressures, cardiac output (Lithium dilution and pulse contour analysis) and derived parameters were recorded every 5 minutes for 60 minutes. Statistical analysis was performed on five dogs, due to the death of one dog.ResultsClinically relevant decreases in MAP (<60 mmHg) were observed for 20 and 40 minutes following epidural administration in treatments HESR and R respectively. Significant decreases in MAP and DAP were present after treatment HESR for up to 20 minutes following epidural administration. No significant within-treatment and overall differences were observed for other cardiovascular parameters. A transient unilateral Horner's syndrome occurred in two dogs (one in each treatment). One dog died after severe hypotension, associated with epidural anaesthesia.Conclusions and clinical relevanceA CRI of 7 mL kg^?1 HES administered over 30 minutes before epidural treatment did not prevent hypotension induced by epidural ropivacaine 0.75%. Epidural administration of ropivacaine 0.75% in isoflurane anaesthetized dogs was associated with a high incidence of adverse effects in this study.     

The effects of propofol, isoflurane and sevoflurane on vecuronium infusion rates for surgical muscle relaxation in dogs

OBJECTIVE: To compare the constant rate infusion (CRI) of vecuronium required to maintain a level of neuromuscular blockade adequate for major surgeries, e.g. thoracotomy or laparotomy, in dogs anaesthetized with a CRI of fentanyl and either propofol, isoflurane or sevoflurane. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, cross-over study. ANIMALS: Thirteen male beagles (age, 9-22 months; body mass 6.3-11.3 kg). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dogs were anaesthetized with propofol (24 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) IV CRI; group P), isoflurane (1.3% end-tidal concentration; group I) or sevoflurane (2.3% end-tidal concentration; group S) with fentanyl (5 microg kg(-1) hour(-1) IV, CRI). Sixty to seventy minutes after induction of anaesthesia, vecuronium was administered at a rate of 0.4, 0.3 and 0.2 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) in groups P, I and S respectively. To determine the degree of neuromuscular block, a peripheral nerve was stimulated electrically using the train-of-four (TO4) stimulus pattern. Evoked muscle contractions were evaluated using a neuromuscular monitoring device. Once the TO4 ratio reached 0, the continuous infusion rate was decreased and adjusted to maintain a TO4 count of 1. Continuous infusion was continued for 2 hours. The infusion rate of vecuronium was recorded 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 120 minutes after the start of infusion. RESULTS: The mean continuous infusion rates of vecuronium during stable infusion were 0.22 +/- 0.04 (mean +/- SD), 0.10 +/- 0.02 and 0.09 +/- 0.02 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) in groups P, I and S respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the rates in groups P and I and between the rates in groups P and S. Conclusions and clinical relevance In healthy dogs, the recommended maintenance infusion rate of vecuronium is 0.2 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) under CRI propofol-fentanyl anaesthesia and 0.1 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) during CRI fentanyl-isoflurane or sevoflurane anaesthesia.     

A comparison of the duration and quality of recovery from isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane anaesthesia in dogs undergoing magnetic resonance imaging

ObjectiveTo compare the recovery after anaesthesia with isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane in dogs undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain.Study designProspective, randomized clinical trial.AnimalsThirty‐eight dogs weighing 23.7 ± 12.6 kg.MethodsFollowing pre‐medication with meperidine, 3 mg kg^?1 administered intramuscularly, anaesthesia was induced intravenously with propofol (mean dose 4.26 ± 1.3 mg kg^?1), the trachea was intubated, and an inhalational anaesthetic agent was administered in oxygen. The dogs were randomly allocated to one of three groups: group I (n = 13) received isoflurane, group S (n = 12) received sevoflurane and group D (n = 13) received desflurane. Parameters recorded included cardiopulmonary data, body temperature, end‐tidal anaesthetic concentration, duration of anaesthesia, and recovery times and quality. Qualitative data were compared using chi‐squared and Fisher's exact tests and quantitative data with anova and Kruskal–Wallis test. Post‐hoc comparisons for quantitative data were undertaken with the Mann–Whitney U‐test.ResultsThe duration of anaesthesia [mean and standard deviation (SD)] in group I was: 105.3 (27.48) minutes, group S: 120.67 (19.4) minutes, and group D: 113.69 (26.68) minutes (p = 0.32). Times to extubation [group I: 8 minutes, (interquartile range 6–9.5), group S: 7 minutes (IQR 5–7), group D: 5 minutes (IQR 3.5–7), p = 0.017] and to sternal recumbency [group I: 11 minutes (IQR 9.5–13.5), group S: 9.5 minutes (IQR 7.25–11.75), group D: 7 minutes (range 3.5–11.5), p = 0.048] were significantly different, as were times to standing. One dog, following sevoflurane, had an unacceptable quality of recovery, but most other recoveries were calm, with no significant difference between groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAll three agents appeared suitable for use. Dogs’ tracheas were extubated and the dogs recovered to sternal recumbency most rapidly after desflurane. This may be advantageous for animals with some neurological diseases and for day case procedures.     

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.     

Anaesthetic and cardiorespiratory effects of a constant rate infusion of fentanyl in isoflurane‐anaesthetized sheep

ObjectiveTo determine the anaesthetic and cardiorespiratory effects of a constant rate infusion of fentanyl in sheep anaesthetized with isoflurane and undergoing orthopaedic surgery.Study designProspective, randomised, ‘blinded’ controlled study.AnimalsTwenty healthy sheep (weight mean 41.1 ± SD 4.5 kg).MethodsSheep were sedated with intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine (4 μg kg⁻¹) and morphine (0.2 mg kg⁻¹). Anaesthesia was induced with propofol (1 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ to effect IV) and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen and a continuous rate infusion (CRI) of fentanyl 10 μg kg⁻¹ hour⁻¹ (group F) or saline (group P) for 100 minutes. The anaesthetic induction dose of propofol, isoflurane expiratory fraction (Fe’iso) required for maintenance and cardiorespiratory measurements were recorded and blood gases analyzed at predetermined intervals. The quality of recovery was assessed. Results were compared between groups using t-tests or Mann–Whitney as relevant.ResultsThe propofol induction dose was 4.7 ± 2.4 mg kg⁻¹. Fe’iso was significantly lower (by 22.6%) in group F sheep than group P (p = 0). Cardiac index (mean ± SD mL kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹) was significantly (p = 0.012) lower in group F (90 ± 15) than group P (102 ± 35). Other measured cardiorespiratory parameters did not differ statistically significantly between groups. Recovery times and recovery quality were statistically similar in both groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceFentanyl reduced isoflurane requirements without clinically affecting the cardiorespiratory stability or post-operative recovery in anaesthetized sheep undergoing orthopaedic surgery.     

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.     

Evaluation of a constant rate infusion of lidocaine for balanced anesthesia in dogs undergoing surgery

This study assessed the intraoperative analgesic effects of intravenous lidocaine administered by a constant rate infusion (CRI) in surgical canine patients. A prospective, blinded, randomized study was designed with 2 treatment groups: A (lidocaine) and B (placebo), involving 41 dogs. All patients were premedicated with acepromazine and buprenorphine, induced with propofol and midazolam; anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Group A received 2 mg/kg IV lidocaine immediately after induction, followed within 5 min by a CRI at 50 μg/kg/min. Group B received an equivalent volume of saline instead of lidocaine. Changes in heart rate and blood pressure during maintenance were treated by increasing CRI. Fentanyl was used as a supplemental analgesic when intraoperative nociceptive response was not controlled with the maximum dose of lidocaine infusion. There was a significantly lower use of supplemental intraoperative analgesia in the lidocaine than in the placebo group. Group B dogs had almost twice as high a risk of intraoperative nociceptive response as group A dogs.     

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.     

A comparison of cardiopulmonary and anesthetic effects of an induction dose of alfaxalone or propofol in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the physiological parameters, arterial blood gas values, induction quality, and recovery quality after IV injection of alfaxalone or propofol in dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded crossover.AnimalsEight random-source adult female mixed-breed dogs weighing 18.7 ± 4.5 kg.MethodsDogs were assigned to receive up to 8 mg kg^?1 propofol or 4 mg kg^?1 alfaxalone, administered to effect, at 10% of the calculated dose every 10 seconds. They then received the alternate drug after a 6-day washout. Temperature, pulse rate, respiratory rate, direct blood pressure, and arterial blood gases were measured before induction, immediately post-induction, and at 5-minute intervals until extubation. Quality of induction, recovery, and ataxia were scored by a single blinded investigator. Duration of anesthesia and recovery, and adverse events were recorded.ResultsThe mean doses required for induction were 2.6 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1 alfaxalone and 5.2 ± 0.8 mg kg^?1 propofol. After alfaxalone, temperature, respiration, and pH were significantly lower, and PaCO₂ significantly higher post-induction compared to baseline (p < 0.03). After propofol, pH, PaO₂, and SaO₂ were significantly lower, and PaCO₂, HCO₃, and PA-aO₂ gradient significantly higher post-induction compared to baseline (p < 0.03). Post-induction and 5-minute physiologic and blood gas values were not significantly different between alfaxalone and propofol. Alfaxalone resulted in significantly longer times to achieve sternal recumbency (p = 0.0003) and standing (p = 0.0004) compared to propofol. Subjective scores for induction, recovery, and ataxia were not significantly different between treatments; however, dogs undergoing alfaxalone anesthesia were more likely to have ≥1 adverse event (p = 0.041). There were no serious adverse events in either treatment.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThere were no clinically significant differences in cardiopulmonary effects between propofol and alfaxalone. A single bolus of propofol resulted in shorter recovery times and fewer adverse events than a single bolus of alfaxalone.     

Effect of anaesthetic maintenance with isoflurane or propofol on ease of endoscopic duodenal intubation in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the ease of endoscopic duodenal intubation (EDI) in dogs during maintenance of general anaesthesia with isoflurane or propofol infusion.Study designProspective, randomized, partially blinded clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 22 dogs undergoing upper gastrointestinal tract endoscopy to include EDI were recruited.MethodsDogs were randomly assigned isoflurane (ISO; n = 10) or propofol (PROP; n = 11) for maintenance of general anaesthesia. Following anaesthetic premedication with intramuscular medetomidine (0.005 mg kg^–1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^–1), general anaesthesia was induced with propofol, to effect, maintained with 1.5% (vaporizer setting) isoflurane in 100% oxygen or 0.2 mg kg^–1 minute^–1 propofol. The dose of both agents was adjusted to maintain general anaesthesia adequate for the procedure. Degree of sedation 20 minutes post-anaesthetic premedication, propofol induction dose, anaesthetist and endoscopist training grade, animal’s response to endoscopy, presence of gastro-oesophageal and duodenal-gastric reflux, spontaneous opening of the lower oesophageal and pyloric sphincters, antral movement and time to achieve EDI were recorded. EDI was scored 1 (immediate entry with minimal manoeuvring) to 4 (no entry after 120 seconds) by the endoscopist, blinded to the agent in use. Data were tested for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and differences between groups analysed using independent t test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test as appropriate.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups for EDI score [median (interquartile range): 2 (3) ISO, 2 (3) PROP] or time to achieve EDI [mean ± standard deviation: 52.50 ± 107.00 seconds (ISO), 70.00 ± 196.00 seconds (PROP)]. Significantly more dogs responded to passage of the endoscope into the oesophagus in group PROP compared with group ISO (p = 0.01).Conclusions and clinical relevanceMaintenance of general anaesthesia with either isoflurane or propofol did not affect EDI score or time to achieve EDI.