Comparison of the effects of alfaxalone and propofol with acepromazine,butorphanol and/or doxapram on laryngeal motion and quality of examination in dogs

Objective

To compare the effects of alfaxalone and propofol, with and without acepromazine and butorphanol followed by doxapram, on laryngeal motion and quality of laryngeal examination in dogs.

Two doses of dexmedetomidine in combination with buprenorphine for premedication in dogs; a comparison with acepromazine and buprenorphine

ObjectiveTo assess as premedicants, the sedative, cardiorespiratory and propofol-sparing effects in dogs of dexmedetomidine and buprenorphine compared to acepromazine and buprenorphine.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded clinical studyAnimalsSixty healthy dogs (ASA grades I/II). Mean (SD) body mass 28.0 ± 9.1 kg, and mean age 3.4 ± 2.3 years.MethodsDogs were allocated randomly to receive 15 μg kg^?1 buprenorphine combined with either 30 μg kg^?1 acepromazine (group 1), 62.5 μg m^?2 dexmedetomidine (group 2), or 125 μg m^?2 dexmedetomidine (group 3) intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, anaesthesia was induced using a propofol target controlled infusion. Heart rate, respiratory rate, and oscillometric arterial blood pressure were recorded prior to induction, at endotracheal intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. Induction quality and pre-induction sedation were scored on 4 point scales. Propofol target required for endotracheal intubation was recorded. Data were analysed using Chi-squared tests, Kruskal-Wallis, one way and general linear model anova (p < 0.05).ResultsAge was significantly lower in group 1 (1.0 (1.0–3.8) years) than group 2 (5.0 (2.0–7.0) years), (median, (IQR)). There were no significant differences in sedation or quality of induction between groups. After premedication, heart rate was significantly lower and arterial blood pressures higher in groups 2 and 3 than group 1, but there was no significant difference between groups 2 and 3. Propofol targets were significantly lower in group 3 (1.5 (1.0–2.5) μg mL^?1) than group 1 (2.5 (2.0–3.0) μg mL^?1); no significant differences existed between group 2 (2.0 (1.5–2.5) μg mL^?1) and the other groups (median, (interquartile range)).Conclusions and Clinical relevanceWhen administered with buprenorphine, at these doses, dexmedetomidine had no advantages in terms of sedation and induction quality over acepromazine. Both doses of dexmedetomidine produced characteristic cardiovascular and respiratory effects of a similar magnitude.     

A comparison of the immunological effects of propofol and isoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia in healthy dogs

Most anesthetics have an immuno-suppressive effect on cellular and neurohumoral immunity, and research shows that total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol has a greater immuno-protective effect than inhalational anesthesia in human medicine. However, in veterinary clinics, these effects remain ambiguous. To clarify the details, we focused on propofol and isoflurane, investigating clinical blood hematology and immunological profiles drawn from healthy dogs under and after two anesthesia techniques. Twelve healthy adult beagles were included in this study, randomly assigned to the propofol anesthesia group (group P: n=6) or the isoflurane anesthesia group (group I: n=6). In both groups, the number of lymphocytes in peripheral blood decreased after 2 hr of anesthesia (2 hr), but group P showed significantly less decrease than group I. For T-lymphocyte subsets examined by flowcytometry, the ratio of CD3+, CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytes in the peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) of group P at 2 hr also exhibited a high level compared to group I. Moreover, for mRNA expression of cytokines measured by real-time PCR, the IL2 (pro-inflammatory cytokine) of group P showed no decrease like group I. The IL10 (anti-inflammatory cytokine) of group P also showed no increase like group I, while both cytokines maintained nearly the same level until 2 hr. These results suggest that, compared to propofol, isoflurane had more strongly immuno-suppression caused by anesthesia, and propofol itself might have some immuno-protective effects. Thus, TIVA with propofol might benefit immunological support in the perioperative period of dogs.     

Comparison of the effects of methadone and butorphanol combined with acepromazine for canine gastroduodenoscopy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of gastroduodenoscopy in dogs premedicated with acepromazine in combination with butorphanol or methadone.Study designProspective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.AnimalsA group of 40 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were randomly allocated to one of two groups and give intramuscular acepromazine 0.02 mg kg^–1 combined with either butorphanol 0.3 mg kg^–1 (group ACEBUT) or methadone 0.2 mg kg^–1 (group ACEMET). General anaesthesia was induced with propofol and ketamine and maintained with sevoflurane (2.3%) in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded at 5 minute intervals during anaesthesia. Feasibility of the entire gastroduodenoscopy was evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) (primary outcome of the study). Lower oesophageal sphincter dilatation and duodenal intubation were scored. Pylorus diameter was measured with standard endoscopic inflatable balloons. Overall cardiovascular stability was assessed during anaesthesia, using a VAS (0-100), as was the presence of fluid in the oesophagus, regurgitation, need for mechanical ventilation, and intraoperative and postoperative rescue analgesia (secondary outcomes of the study). Differences between treatments were analysed with Mann–Whitney U, Student t test, Fisher exact test or mixed model analysis of variance as appropriate. Subsequently, feasibility VAS of the gastroduodenoscopy was assessed for noninferiority between groups. The noninferiority margin was set as –10.ResultsAll gastroduodenoscopies were successfully completed in both groups using an endoscope tip diameter of 12.8 mm in all but one dog. Feasibility of gastroduodenoscopy was evaluated as 2.9 ± 5.6 in group ACEBUT and 5.1 ± 5.8 in group ACEMET. No significant differences between groups were detected in any measured or assessed variables, and noninferiority was confirmed.Conclusion and clinical relevanceIn our study population, the effects of methadone and butorphanol when combined with acepromazine were comparable.     

A comparison of cardiopulmonary function,recovery quality,and total dosages required for induction and total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus a propofol‐ketamine combination in healthy Beagle dogs

ObjectiveTo compare cardiopulmonary function, recovery quality, and total dosages required for induction and 60 minutes of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol (P) or a 1:1 mg mL⁻¹ combination of propofol and ketamine (KP).Study designRandomized crossover study.AnimalsTen female Beagles weighing 9.4 ± 1.8 kg.MethodsDogs were randomized for administration of P or KP in a 1:1 mg mL⁻¹ ratio for induction and maintenance of TIVA. Baseline temperature, pulse, respiratory rate (f_R), noninvasive mean blood pressure (MAP), and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were recorded. Dogs were intubated and spontaneously breathed room air. Heart rate (HR), f_R, MAP, SpO₂, end tidal carbon dioxide tension (Pe’CO₂), temperature, and salivation score were recorded every 5 minutes. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed at 10, 30, and 60 minutes, and after recovery. At 60 minutes the infusion was discontinued and total drug administered, time to extubation, and recovery score were recorded. The other treatment was performed 1 week later.ResultsKP required significantly less propofol for induction (4.0 ± 1.0 mg kg⁻¹ KP versus 5.3 ±1.1 mg kg⁻¹ P, p = 0.0285) and maintenance (0.3 ± 0.1 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ KP versus 0.6 ±0.1 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ P, p = 0.0018). Significantly higher HR occurred with KP. Both P and KP caused significantly lower MAP compared to baseline. MAP was significantly higher with KP at several time points. P had minimal effects on respiratory variables, while KP resulted in significant respiratory depression. There were no significant differences in salivation scores, time to extubation, or recovery scores.Conclusions and clinical relevanceTotal intravenous anesthesia in healthy dogs with ketamine and propofol in a 1:1 mg mL⁻¹ combination resulted in significant propofol dose reduction, higher HR, improved MAP, no difference in recovery quality, but more significant respiratory depression compared to propofol alone.     

Comparative study on the sedative effects of morphine, methadone, butorphanol or tramadol, in combination with acepromazine, in dogs

Objective  To compare the effects of morphine (MOR), methadone (MET), butorphanol (BUT) and tramadol (TRA), in combination with acepromazine, on sedation, cardiorespiratory variables, body temperature and incidence of emesis in dogs.
Study design  Prospective randomized, blinded, experimental trial.
Animals  Six adult mixed-breed male dogs weighing 12.0 ± 4.3 kg.
Methods  Dogs received intravenous administration (IV) of acepromazine (0.05 mg kg⁻¹) and 15 minutes later, one of four opioids was randomly administered IV in a cross-over design, with at least 1-week intervals. Dogs then received MOR 0.5 mg kg⁻¹; MET 0.5 mg kg⁻¹; BUT 0.15 mg kg⁻¹; or TRA 2.0 mg kg⁻¹. Indirect systolic arterial pressure (SAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate ( f _R), rectal temperature, pedal withdrawal reflex and sedation were evaluated at regular intervals for 90 minutes.
Results  Acepromazine administration decreased SAP, HR and temperature and produced mild sedation. All opioids further decreased temperature and MOR, BUT and TRA were associated with further decreases in HR. Tramadol decreased SAP whereas BUT decreased f _R compared with values before opioid administration. Retching was observed in five of six dogs and vomiting occurred in one dog in MOR, but not in any dog in the remaining treatments. Sedation scores were greater in MET followed by MOR and BUT. Tramadol was associated with minor changes in sedation produced by acepromazine alone.
Conclusions and clinical relevance  When used with acepromazine, MET appears to provide better sedation than MOR, BUT and TRA. If vomiting is to be avoided, MET, BUT and TRA may be better options than MOR.     

Effect of intravenous propofol and remifentanil on heart rate, blood pressure and nociceptive response in acepromazine premedicated dogs

ObjectiveTo investigate the cardiorespiratory, nociceptive and endocrine effects of the combination of propofol and remifentanil, in dogs sedated with acepromazine.Study designProspective randomized, blinded, cross-over experimental trial.AnimalsTwelve healthy adult female cross-breed dogs, mean weight 18.4 ± 2.3 kg.MethodsDogs were sedated with intravenous (IV) acepromazine (0.05 mg kg^?1) followed by induction of anesthesia with IV propofol (5 mg kg^?1). Anesthesia was maintained with IV propofol (0.2 mg kg^?1 minute^?1) and remifentanil, infused as follows: R1, 0.125 μg kg^?1 minute^?1; R2, 0.25 μg kg^?1 minute^?1; and R3, 0.5 μg kg^?1 minute^?1. The same dogs were administered each dose of remifentanil at 1-week intervals. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (f_R), end tidal CO₂ (Pe′CO₂), arterial hemoglobin O₂ saturation, blood gases, and rectal temperature were measured before induction, and 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 120 minutes after beginning the infusion. Nociceptive response was investigated by electrical stimulus (50 V, 5 Hz and 10 ms). Blood samples were collected for plasma cortisol measurements. Statistical analysis was performed by anova (p < 0.05).ResultsIn all treatments, HR decreased during anesthesia with increasing doses of remifentanil, and increased significantly immediately after the end of infusion. MAP remained stable during anesthesia (72–98 mmHg). Antinociception was proportional to the remifentanil infusion dose, and was considered satisfactory only with R2 and R3. Plasma cortisol concentration decreased during anesthesia in all treatments. Recovery was smooth and fast in all dogs.Conclusions and clinical relevanceInfusion of 0.25–0.5 μg kg^?1 minute^?1 remifentanil combined with 0.2 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 propofol produced little effect on arterial blood pressure and led to a good recovery. The analgesia produced was sufficient to control the nociceptive response applied by electrical stimulation, suggesting that it may be appropriate for performing surgery.     

Postinduction apnoea in dogs premedicated with acepromazine or dexmedetomidine and anaesthetized with alfaxalone or propofol

Objective

To compare incidence and duration of postinduction apnoea in dogs after premedication with methadone and acepromazine (MA) or methadone and dexmedetomidine (MD) followed by induction with propofol (P) or alfaxalone (A).

The influence of butorphanol dose on characteristics of xylazine-butorphanol-propofol anesthesia in horses at altitude

OBJECTIVE: To characterize behavioral and physiological responses to short-term, unsupplemented intravenous (IV) anesthesia in healthy horses at high altitude (2240 m), and to test the hypothesis that the dose of butorphanol modifies the response of the horse to propofol anesthesia following xylazine pre-medication. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized prospective butorphanol dose cross-over experimental design. Animals Eight healthy horses, 13 +/- 6 (mean +/- SD) years of age, and weighing 523 +/- 26 kg. METHODS: Each horse was anesthetized three times with at least 3 weeks between each anesthesia. After collecting pre-drug data, xylazine (0.5 mg kg(-1)) was given IV. Five minutes later butorphanol was given IV according to a randomized order of three doses: 0.025, 0.05 and 0.075 mg kg(-1). Five minutes later, anesthesia was induced with propofol, 2 mg kg(-1) IV. Data on heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (f(r)), mean arterial blood pressure, P(a)O(2), P(a)CO(2) and pH(a) were collected before, during and for 60 minutes following anesthesia, and quality of induction and recovery was scored. RESULTS: The pre-drug values for the three butorphanol groups did not differ. The combined pre-drug values from the 24 studies were HR, 33 +/- 7 beats minute(-1); f(r), 11 +/- 3 breaths minute(-1); P(a)O(2), 67 +/- 7 mmHg; P(a)CO(2), 36 +/- 4 mmHg; and pH(a), 7.42 +/- 0.04. Five minutes after anesthetic induction P(a)O(2) decreased and P(a)CO(2) increased 14.5 +/- 7.7 and 5.1 +/- 4.9 mmHg, respectively, but returned to pre-drug levels within 15 minutes of anesthetic recovery. There were no significant butorphanol dose-related differences in physiological results, anesthetic induction and recovery quality scores or recovery time. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dose of butorphanol did not markedly influence study results. Notably, low P(a)O(2) values related to geographic location of study and general anesthesia indicates a narrow margin of error for hypoxemia-related complications in anesthetized horses breathing unsupplemented air at high altitude.     

Cardiopulmonary and anesthetic effects of the combination of butorphanol,midazolam and alfaxalone in Beagle dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the physiological variables, arterial blood gas values, induction of anesthesia quality, and recovery quality using the combination of butorphanol, midazolam and alfaxalone in dogs.AnimalsTen healthy adult Beagle dogs weighing 8.3 ± 3.1 kg.MethodsRectal temperature (T), pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (f_R), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and arterial blood gases were measured and recorded prior to intravenous (IV) administration of butorphanol, prior to administration of both midazolam and alfaxalone IV 10 minutes later, then every 5 minutes for 20 minutes. M-mode echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) indices were measured before and 5 minutes after administration of alfaxalone. Qualitative scores for induction of anesthesia and recovery were allocated, duration of anesthesia and recovery were calculated, and adverse events were recorded.ResultsScores for induction and recovery quality were excellent. No significant adverse events were observed. Mean ± SD time from induction to extubation and to standing (full recovery) was 29 ± 6 and 36 ± 8 minutes, respectively. There were statistically significant changes in PR, f_R and MAP after drug administration. Transient hypercarbia developed after alfaxalone injection. The echocardiographic LV indices were reduced after alfaxalone injection, although those changes were not statistically significant.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe combination of butorphanol, midazolam and alfaxalone provided excellent quality of induction of anesthesia and exerted minimal cardiopulmonary effects in healthy dogs.     

Effects of intravenous butorphanol on cardiopulmonary function in isoflurane-anesthetized alpacas

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of intravenous (IV) butorphanol on the cardiopulmonary system and on the bispectral index (BIS) in isoflurane-anesthetized alpacas. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, blinded cross-over experimental trial. ANIMALS: Eight healthy, young (3 +/- 1 SD years) adult female alpacas weighing 64 +/- 9 SD kg. METHODS: Alpacas were anesthetized with isoflurane by mask followed by tracheal intubation and maintenance of anesthesia with isoflurane in oxygen and intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Animals were assigned to two treatments, butorphanol (0.1 mg kg(-1), IV) and saline (0.01 mL kg(-1), IV) in a randomized manner allowing a 2-week interval between treatments. Cardiovascular variables included systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate, pulmonary arterial pressure, pulmonary arterial occlusion pressure (PAOP), central venous pressure, cardiac output, and pulmonary temperature (TEMP). Cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) were calculated. Bispectral index was also measured. Arterial and mixed venous blood samples were collected for blood gas analysis. All variables were recorded at baseline (time 0) and at 5, 10, 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes following injection and were analyzed by using repeated-measures ANOVA (p < 0.05). PAOP, PVR, and BIS were analyzed by paired t-tests. RESULTS: Butorphanol decreased SVR at all times when compared with the baseline, but no difference was detected between treatments. TEMP decreased with time in both treatments, but they were not different from each other. Other cardiovascular, BIS, and blood gas variables were not different between groups. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We conclude that butorphanol had minimal effects on the cardiovascular system of the alpacas, causing a mild decrease in SVR.     

Cardiopulmonary effects during anaesthesia induced and maintained with propofol in acepromazine pre‐medicated donkeys

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cardiopulmonary effects of anaesthesia induced and maintained with propofol in acepromazine pre-medicated donkeys.Study designProspective experimental study.AnimalsSix healthy male donkeys weighing 78–144 kg.MethodsDonkeys were pre-medicated with intravenous (IV) acepromazine (0.04 mg kg⁻¹). Ten minutes later, anaesthesia was induced with IV propofol (2 mg kg⁻¹) and anaesthesia maintained by continuous IV infusion of the propofol (0.2 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹) for 30 minutes. Baseline measurements of physiological parameters, and arterial blood samples were taken before the acepromazine administration, then 5, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the induction of anaesthesia. Changes from baseline were analysed by anova for repeated measures.ResultsWhen compared with baseline (standing) values, during anaesthesia heart rate increased throughout: significant at 5 (p = 0.001) and 15 (p = 0.015) minutes. Mean arterial blood pressure increased significantly only at 15 minutes (p < 0.001). Respiratory rate and arterial pH did not change significantly. PaO₂ was lower throughout anaethesia, but this only reached significance at 15 minutes (p = 0.041). PaCO₂ was statistically (but not clinically) significantly reduced at the times of 30 (p = 0.02), 45 (p = 0.01) and 60 (p = 0.04). Rectal temperature decreased significantly at all times of the study.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAdministration of propofol by the continuous infusion rate for the maintenance of anaesthesia resulted in stable cardiopulmonary effects and could prove to be clinically useful in donkeys.     

Cardiorespiratory and anesthetic effects produced by the combination of butorphanol,medetomidine and alfaxalone administered intramuscularly in Beagle dogs

This study evaluated anesthesia quality, degree of analgesia and cardiorespiratory parameters after intramuscular (IM) injection of a combination of butorphanol (0.1 mg/kg), medetomidine (10 µg/kg) and alfaxalone (1.5 mg/kg) in ten healthy adult Beagle dogs. Rectal temperature (T), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), arterial pressure, arterial blood gases and M-mode echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) indices were measured before drug administration and every 10 min thereafter until extubation. Mean duration of anesthesia, recovery and analgesia were 89 ± 17, 6 ± 1 and 80 ± 12 min. HR, f_R, partial pressure of arterial CO₂ and O₂, arterial pressure, and LV contractility were significantly altered during anesthesia. IM administration of the drug combination provided acceptable anesthesia, but produced substantial cardiorespiratory suppression.     

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.     

Bispectral index in dogs at three intravenous infusion rates of propofol

ObjectiveTo establish the correlation between the bispectral index (BIS) and different rates of infusion of propofol in dogs.Study designProspective experimental trial.AnimalsEight adult dogs weighing 6–20 kg.MethodsEight animals underwent three treatments at intervals of 20 days. Propofol was used for induction of anesthesia (10 mg kg⁻¹ IV), followed by a continuous rate infusion (CRI) at 0.2 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ (P2), 0.4 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ (P4) or 0.8 mg kg⁻¹ minute⁻¹ (P8) for 55 minutes. The BIS values were measured at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes (T10, T20, T30, T40, and T50, respectively) after the CRI of propofol was started. Numeric data were submitted to analysis of variance followed by Tukey test (p < 0.05).ResultsThe BIS differed significantly among groups at T40, when P8 was lower than P2 and P4. At T50, P8 was lower than P2. The electromyographic activity (EMG) in P2 and P4 was higher than P8 at T40 and T50.ConclusionsAn increase in propofol infusion rates decreases the BIS values and EMG.     

The use of propofol for induction of anaesthesia in dogs premedicated with acepromazine, butorphanol and acepromazine-butorphanol

Cardiovascular, pulmonary and anaesthetic-analgesic responses were evaluated in 18 male and female dogs to determine the effect of the injectable anaesthetic propofol used in conjuction with acepromazine and butorphanol. The dogs were randomly divided into three groups. Dogs in Group A were premeditated with 0.1 mg/kg of intramuscular acepromazine followed by an induction dose of 4.4 mg/kg of intravenous propofol; Group B received 0.2 mg/kg of intramuscular butorphanol and 4.4 mg/kg of intravenous propofol; dogs in Group AB were administered a premeditation combination of 0.1 mg/kg of intramuscular acepromazine and 0.2 mg/kg of intramuscular butorphanol, followed by induction with 3.3 mg/kg of intravenous propofol. The induction dose of propofol was given over a period of 30-60 seconds to determine responses and duration of anaesthesia. Observations recorded in the dogs included heart and respiratory rates, indirect arterial blood pressures (systolic, diastolic and mean), cardiac rhythm, end-tidal CO, tension, oxygen saturation, induction time, duration of anaesthesia, recovery time and adverse reactions. The depth of anaesthesia was assessed by the response to mechanical noxious stimuli (tail clamping), the degree of muscle relaxation and the strength of reflexes. Significant respiratory depression was seen after propofol induction in both groups receiving butorphanol with or without acepromazine. The incidence of apnea was 4/6 dogs in Group B, and 5/6 dogs in Group AB. The incidence of apnea was also correlated to the rate of propofol administration. Propofol-mediated decreases in arterial blood pressure were observed in all three groups. Moderate bradycardia (minimum value > 55 beats/min) was observed in both Groups B and AB. There were no cardiac dysrhythmias noted in any of the 18 dogs. The anaesthetic duration and recovery times were longer in dogs premeditated with acepromazine/butorphanol.