Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol or propofol/ketamine in spontaneously breathing dogs premedicated with medetomidine

The cardiorespiratory parameters, the depth of anaesthesia and the quality of recovery were evaluated in six spontaneously breathing dogs that had been premedicated with medetomidine (40 microg/kg, supplemented with 20 microg/kg an hour later), administered with either propofol (1 mg/kg followed by 0.15 mg/kg/minute, intravenously), or with ketamine (1 mg/kg followed by 2 mg/kg/hour, intravenously) and propofol (0.5 mg/kg followed by 0.075 mg/kg/minute, intravenously). The dogs' heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure were higher and their minute volume of respiration and temperature were lower when they were anaesthetised with propofol plus ketamine, and a progressive hypercapnia leading to respiratory acidosis was more pronounced. When the dogs were anaesthetised with propofol/ketamine they recovered more quickly, but suffered some unwanted side effects. When the dogs were anaesthetised with propofol alone they recovered more slowly but uneventfully.     

A comparison of the effects of two different doses of ketamine used for co-induction of anaesthesia with a target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs

ObjectiveTo assess the cardiorespiratory and hypnotic-sparing effects of ketamine co-induction with target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsNinety healthy dogs (ASA grades I/II). Mean body mass 30.5 ± SD 8.6 kg and mean age 4.2 ± 2.6 years.MethodsAll dogs received pre-anaesthetic medication with acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.2 mg kg^?1) administered intramuscularly 30 minutes prior to induction of anaesthesia. Heart rate and respiratory rate were recorded prior to pre-medication. Animals were allocated into three different groups: Group 1 (control) received 0.9% NaCl, group 2, 0.25 mg kg^?1 ketamine and group 3, 0.5 mg kg^?1 ketamine, intravenously 1 minute prior to induction of anaesthesia, which was accomplished using a propofol target-controlled infusion system. The target propofol concentration was gradually increased until endotracheal intubation was possible and the target concentration at intubation was recorded. Heart rate, respiratory rate and noninvasive blood pressure were recorded immediately prior to induction, at successful intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. The quality of induction was graded according to the amount of muscle twitching and paddling observed. Data were analysed using a combination of chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, Kruskal–Wallis, and anova with significance assumed at p< 0.05.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups in the blood propofol targets required to achieve endotracheal intubation, nor with respect to heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure or quality of induction. Compared with the other groups, the incidence of post-induction apnoea was significantly higher in group 3, but despite this dogs in this group had higher respiratory rates overall.Conclusions and clinical relevanceUnder the conditions of this study, ketamine does not seem to be a useful agent for co-induction of anaesthesia with propofol in dogs.     

Comparison of quality of induction of anaesthesia between intramuscularly administered ketamine, intravenously administered ketamine and intravenously administered propofol in xylazine premedicated cats

The quality of induction of general anesthesia produced by ketamine and propofol, 2 of the most commonly used anaesthetic agents in cats, was assessed. Eighteen cats admitted for elective procedures were randomly assigned to 3 groups and then premedicated with xylazine 0.75 mg/kg intramuscularly before anaesthesia was induced with ketamine 15 mg/kg intramuscularly (KetIM group), ketamine 10 mg/kg intravenously (KetIV group) or propofol 4 mg/kg intravenously (PropIV group). Quality of induction of general anaesthesia was determined by scoring ease of intubation, degree of struggling, and vocalisation during the induction period. The quality of induction of anaesthesia of intramuscularly administered ketamine was inferior to that of intravenously administered ketamine, while intravenously administered propofol showed little difference in quality of induction from ketamine administered by both the intramuscular and intravenous routes. There were no significant differences between groups in the ease of intubation scores, while vocalisation and struggling were more common in cats that received ketamine intramuscularly than in those that received intravenously administered ketamine or propofol for induction of anaesthesia. Laryngospasms occurred in 2 cats that received propofol. The heart rates and respiratory rates decreased after xylazine premedication and either remained the same or decreased further after induction for all 3 groups, but remained within normal acceptable limits. This study indicates that the 3 regimens are associated with acceptable induction characteristics, but administration of ketamine intravenously is superior to its administration intramuscularly and laryngeal desensitisation is recommended to avoid laryngospasms.     

Effects of thiopentone and propofol on lower oesophageal sphincter and barrier pressure in the dog

The effects of thiopentone and propofol on oesophageal pressures were examined in 39 bitches. The dogs were premedicated with either atropine (n = 13), acepromazine maleate (n = 13) or a combination of atropine and acepromazine. Anaesthesia was induced with either thiopentone (15 dogs) or propofol (24 dogs), both given intravenously. Immediately following the induction of anaesthesia, gastric pressure and lower oesophageal sphincter pressure (LOSP) were measured and oesophageal barrier pressure determined. There were no significant differences attributable to the premedication regimens used but both LOSP and barrier pressure were significantly lower in the dogs anaesthetised with propofol compared to the animals given thiopentone (LOSP 12-2 ± 4-2 cm H₂O propofol group versus 26-8 ± 6-5 cm H₂O thiopentone group).     

Propofol compared with propofoVguaiphenesin after detornidine premedication for equine surgery

Anaesthesia using propofol alone and in combination with guaiphenesin, after detomidine premedication, was evaluated for performance of minor surgical procedures (castration and tenotomy) in horses. Twelve male horses were premedicated with 0.015 mg/kg of detomidine intravenously (iv) and divided into two groups of six. One group of horses received 2 mg/kg of propofol iv and the other group received 0.5 mg/kg of propofol mixed with 100 mg/kg of a 7.5% solution of guaiphenesin in saline iv. Induction of anaesthesia was fast and smooth in both groups. All horses were easily intubated immediately afterwards but intubation was easier in the horses which received propofol and guaiphenesin. Heart rate fell by 20% in both groups after detomidine injection, stabilising between 45 and 53 beats/minute during anaesthesia with no difference between the groups. Respiratory depression developed after detomidine injection and was slightly intensified after induction of anaesthesia. Respiratory rate was significantly lower in the propofol group (14 ± 3 breaths/minute) than with propofol/guaiphenesin (19 ± 4 breaths/minute) at five minutes after induction. Anaesthesia induced respiratory acidosis in both groups and hypoxaemia also occurred, but once the horses stood up the arterial blood oxygen partial pressure returned to basal values. Surgical time ranged between 8 and 16 minutes and with the exception of one horse in the propofol/guaiphenesin group the horses did not show signs of pain or discomfort during surgery. Recovery to standing was fast and took 26 ± 2 minutes in the propofol and 29 ± 5 minutes in the propofol/ guaiphenesin group. Most horses stood up at the first attempt with minimal ataxia. These two anaesthetic techniques appear to be useful for minor surgical procedures performed within 16 minutes of induction of anaesthesia.     

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

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

The effect of preanaesthetic oral trazodone hydrochloride on the induction dose of propofol: a preliminary retrospective study

ObjectiveTo determine whether the administration of trazodone to dogs 2 hours prior to radiotherapy treatment reduced the dose of propofol required to induce anaesthesia.Study designRetrospective, crossover, case-matched study.AnimalsRecords of 30 client-owned dogs.MethodsAnaesthetic records from all dogs undergoing weekly radiotherapy treatment between January 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively assessed. All dogs were premedicated with 10 μg kg^–1 alfentanil and 12 μg kg^–1 atropine intravenously (IV) and anaesthesia was induced with IV propofol. In part 1, the propofol induction dose was compared between anaesthetics when trazodone was administered prior to the anaesthetic (T) versus not (NT). For part 2, control dogs not administered trazodone during the treatment course were case-matched based on bodyweight and tumour location and type. The propofol induction dose was compared between the first (C1) and last (C2) anaesthetic to identify the effects of confounding factors. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test for repeated measurements was performed to identify any significant differences in the propofol induction dose between NT and T in the study dogs and between C1 and C2 in the control dogs.ResultsIn part 1, 15 study dogs that were administered trazodone prior to at least one anaesthetic were identified. A significant difference in propofol induction dose between groups NT and T was identified [3.3 (2.1–7.4) and 2.0 (1.5–5.0) mg kg^–1, respectively; p = 0.003]. In part 2, 15 dogs were case-matched to the study cohort. The dose of propofol administered did not differ between the first and last anaesthetic [2.5 (1.6–6.4) and 2.6 (1.9–8.9) mg kg^–1, respectively; p = 0.638].Conclusions and clinical relevancePreanaesthetic trazodone administration reduced the induction dose of propofol compared to when it was not administered to dogs following premedication with IV atropine and alfentanil.     

Pharmacokinetics of propofol infusions, either alone or with ketamine, in sheep premedicated with acepromazine and papaveretum

The pharmacokinetics of propofol were investigated in two groups of five Scottish blackface sheep undergoing surgery for the implantation of subcutaneous tissue pouches. After premedication with acepromazine and papaveretum, anaesthesia was induced with either propofol at 4 mg kg⁻¹ intravenously (group 1) or with a mixture of propofol at 3 mg kg⁻¹ and ketamine at 1 mg kg ⁻¹ intravenously (group 2). Anaesthesia was maintained with a variable infusion rate of either propofol alone (group 1) or propofol and ketamine (group 2). Both regimens produced satisfactory conditions for superficial surgery of the body surface. The mean (SD) duration of anaesthesia was 64·8 (3·1) minutes for group 1 and 60 (0) minutes for group 2; the mean total dose of propofol given to the sheep in group 1 was 801 (84) mg, and the sheep in group 2 received 470 (46) mg of propofol and 267 (30) mg of ketamine. The mean elimination half-life of propofol was 56·6 (13·1) minutes in group 1 and 50·3 (21·4) minutes in group 2; the mean volume of distribution at steady state was 1037 (0480) litre kg⁻¹ in group 1 and 1·515 (0939) litre kg⁻¹ in group 2; the mean body clearance was 85·4 (28·0) ml kg⁻¹ min⁻¹ in group 1 and 1280 (35·0) ml kg⁻¹ min⁻¹ in group 2; the mean residence time corrected for a bolus injection was 12·1 (4·2) minutes in group 1 and 11·9 (6·6) minutes in group 2; for the infusion, the mean residence time was 72·1 (4·2) minutes in group 1 and 69·9 (7·9) minutes in group 2. There were wide variations in the blood propofol concentrations reached in individual sheep by using this standard dosing regimen. All the sheep recovered quickly from anaesthesia; the mean times to extubation, sternal recumbency and standing for the animals in group 1 were 2·8 (0·4) 6·3 (1·2) and 10·9 (1·6) minutes from the end of the infusion, and the times for group 2 were 5·3 (0·9), 11·2 (1·7) and 15·1 (2·2) minutes.     

Evaluation of different doses of propofol in xylazine pre-medicated horses

Objective To characterize responses to different doses of propofol in horses pre‐medicated with xylazine. Animals Six adult horses (five females and one male). Methods Each horse was anaesthetized four times with either ketamine or propofol in random order at 1‐week intervals. Horses were pre‐medicated with xylazine (1.1 mg kg^?1 IV over a minute), and 5 minutes later anaesthesia was induced with either ketamine (2.2 mg kg^?1 IV) or propofol (1, 2 and 4 mg kg^?1 IV; low, medium and high doses, respectively). Data were collected continuously (electrocardiogram) or after xylazine administration and at 5, 10 and 15 minutes after anaesthetic induction (arterial pressure, respiratory rate, pH, PaO₂, PaCO₂ and O₂ saturation). Anaesthetic induction and recovery were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Results Differences in the quality of anaesthesia were observed; the low dose of propofol resulted in a poorer anaesthetic induction that was insufficient to allow intubation, whereas the high dose produced an excellent quality of induction, free of excitement. Recorded anaesthesia times were similar between propofol at 2 mg kg^?1 and ketamine with prolonged and shorter recovery times after the high and low dose of propofol, respectively (p < 0.05; ketamine, 38 ± 7 minutes; propofol 1 mg kg^?1, 29 ± 4 minutes; propofol 2 mg kg^?1, 37 ± 5 minutes; propofol 4 mg kg^?1, 50 ± 7 minutes). Times to regain sternal and standing position were longest with the highest dose of propofol (32 ± 5 and 39 ± 7 minutes, respectively). Both ketamine and propofol reversed bradycardia, sinoatrial, and atrioventricular blocks produced by xylazine. There were no significant alterations in blood pressure but respiratory rate, and PaO₂ and O₂ saturation were significantly decreased in all groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion The anaesthetic quality produced by the three propofol doses varied; the most desirable effects, which were comparable to those of ketamine, were produced by 2 mg kg^?1 propofol.     

Romifidine as a premedicant to propofol induction and infusion anaesthesia in the dog

The effects of premedication with four different intravenous doses of romifidine (20, 40, 80 and 120 (μg/kg body weight) and a saline placebo were compared in a group of 20 adult beagles of both sexes, undergoing anaesthesia with propofol for a clinical dental procedure. Anaesthesia was induced 10 minutes after premedication and maintained by intravenous infusion of propofol for a period of 30 minutes. Romifidine had a marked synergistic effect with propofol and reduced the required induction and infusion doses by more than 60 per cent for a standard level of anaesthesia; the synergistic effect was dose related. Following premedication, propofol produced no significant alteration of respiratory rate, heart rate or rectal temperature. Anaesthesia was found to be more stable following romifidine premedication at all doses studied. The quality of induction was unaltered by the dose of the romifidine. Recovery from anaesthesia was smooth and of a similar quality in all cases. There were no differences in the recovery times between the unpremedicated group and the dogs premedicated with any dose of romifidine studied. There were no adverse effects noted following this anaesthetic regimen. The marked dose-related synergism with propofol induction and infusion anaesthesia is relevant should romifidine be used in the dog in clinical veterinary practice.     

Total intravenous anaesthesia in the horse with propofol

The use of propofol, solubilised in a non-ionic emulsifying agent, for the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia in experimental ponies was assessed. Pilot studies revealed that premedication with xylazine (0.5 mg/kg bodyweight [bwt]) intravenously (iv) followed by propofol (2.0 mg/kg bwt) iv provided a satisfactory smooth induction. Two infusion rates (0.15 mg/kg bwt/min and 0.2 mg/kg bwt/min) were compared for maintenance of anaesthesia. An infusion rate of 0.2 mg/kg/min produced adequate anaesthesia in these ponies. Cardiovascular changes included a decrease in arterial pressure and cardiac output during maintenance. Respiratory depression was manifested by a decrease in rate and an increase in arterial carbon dioxide tension. Recovery after 1 h anaesthesia was rapid and smooth. In conclusion, induction and maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol in premedicated ponies proved a satisfactory technique.     

Speed of induction of anaesthesia in dogs administered halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane or propofol in a clinical setting

OBJECTIVE: To compare the speed and quality of induction of general anaesthesia using three different inhalant agents and one intravenous agent, in healthy dogs undergoing desexing surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Less excitable dogs were not premedicated; others were premedicated with intramuscular acepromazine and morphine. Anaesthesia induction protocol was randomly assigned, with halothane, isoflurane or sevoflurane delivered by mask, or propofol delivered intravenously. Maximum vaporiser settings were used for inhalant inductions. Induction of anaesthesia was considered complete at the time of endotracheal intubation. Quality of induction was scored by the administering veterinarian. RESULTS: Seventy-one dogs were enrolled. Twenty-four received no premedication and 47 received premedication. Isoflurane inductions were significantly faster than halothane inductions (2.86 +/- 0.25 vs 3.71 +/- 0.22 min; mean +/- SE, P = 0.013). Sevoflurane inductions (3.29 +/- 0.24 min) were not significantly different from either halothane (3.71 +/- 0.22 min, P = 0.202) or isoflurane inductions (2.86 +/- 0.25 min, P = 0.217). Induction with propofol (1.43 +/- 0.13 min) was significantly faster than inhalant induction (P < 0.001 in each case). Premedication decreased the dose requirement and time to induction for dogs induced with propofol, but did not significantly change the time to intubation for inhalant inductions. Dogs administered propofol and/or premedication were significantly more likely to have an excellent quality of induction, but there was no difference between inhalant agents in terms of induction quality. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane possesses chemical properties that should produce a more rapid induction of anaesthesia in comparison to halothane or isoflurane. However, in clinical practice patient related factors outweigh this improvement.     

Some cardiopulmonary effects of midazolam premedication in clenbuterol-treated bitches during surgical endoscopic examination of the uterus and ovariohysterectomy

Midazolam was administered intravenously to 8 bitches in a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial before propofol induction of surgical anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane-in-oxygen during surgical endoscopic examination of the uterus and ovariohysterectomy. Clenbuterol was administered at the start of surgery to improve uterine muscle relaxation, and to facilitate endoscopic examination of the uterus. Ventilation was controlled. Induction of anaesthesia with propofol to obtain loss of the pedal reflex resulted in a statistically significant (P < 0.05) decrease in minute volume and arterial oxygen partial pressure in the midazolam group. Apnoea also occurred in 50% of dogs in the midazolam group. The dose for propofol in the midazolam group was 7.4 mg/kg compared to 9.5 mg/kg in the control. Minute volume was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in both groups during isoflurane maintenance, compared to the value after incremental propofol to obtain loss of the pedal reflex. Propofol induction resulted in a 25-26% reduction in the mean arterial blood pressure in both groups, and the administration of clenbuterol at the start of surgery resulted in a transient, but statistically significant (P < 0.05), decrease in mean arterial blood pressure in the midazolam group during isoflurane anaesthesia. It is concluded that intravenous midazolam premedication did not adversely affect cardiovascular function during propofol induction, but intra-operative clenbuterol during isoflurane maintenance of anaesthesia may result in transient hypotension. Midazolam premedication may increase adverse respiratory effects when administered before propofol induction of anaesthesia.     

Evaluation of an anaesthetic technique used in dogs undergoing craniectomy for tumour resection

ObjeCTIVE: To evaluate a total intravenous anaesthetic technique in dogs undergoing craniectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study. ANIMALS: Ten dogs admitted for elective surgical resection of rostro-tentorial tumours. METHODS: All dogs were premedicated with methadone, 0.2 mg kg(-1) intramuscularly 30 minutes prior to induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol administered intravenously (IV) to effect, following administration of lidocaine 1 mg kg(-1) IV and maintained with a continuous infusion of propofol at < or =0.4 mg kg(-1) minute(-1) during instrumentation and preparation and during movement of the animals to recovery. During surgery, anaesthesia was maintained using a continuous infusion of propofol at 相似文献   

Comparison of propofol with ketofol,a propofol‐ketamine admixture,for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo compare anaesthetic induction in healthy dogs using propofol or ketofol (a propofol-ketamine mixture).Study designProspective, randomized, controlled, ‘blinded’ study.AnimalsSeventy healthy dogs (33 males and 37 females), aged 6–157 months and weighing 4–48 kg.MethodsFollowing premedication, either propofol (10 mg mL^?1) or ketofol (9 mg propofol and 9 mg ketamine mL^?1) was titrated intravenously until laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation were possible. Pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (f_R) and arterial blood pressure (ABP) were compared to post-premedication values and time to first breath (TTFB) recorded. Sedation quality, tracheal intubation and anaesthetic induction were scored by an observer who was unaware of treatment group. Mann–Whitney or t-tests were performed and significance set at p = 0.05.ResultsInduction mixture volume (mean ± SD) was lower for ketofol (0.2 ± 0.1 mL kg^?1) than propofol (0.4 ± 0.1 mL kg^?1) (p < 0.001). PR increased following ketofol (by 35 ± 20 beats minute^?1) but not consistently following propofol (4 ± 16 beats minute^?1) (p < 0.001). Ketofol administration was associated with a higher mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (82 ± 10 mmHg) than propofol (77 ± 11) (p = 0.05). TTFB was similar, but ketofol use resulted in a greater decrease in f_R (median (range): ketofol -32 (-158 to 0) propofol -24 (-187 to 2) breaths minute^?1) (p < 0.001). Sedation was similar between groups. Tracheal intubation and induction qualities were better with ketofol than propofol (p = 0.04 and 0.02 respectively).Conclusion and clinical relevanceInduction of anaesthesia with ketofol resulted in higher PR and MAP than when propofol was used, but lower f_R. Quality of induction and tracheal intubation were consistently good with ketofol, but more variable when using propofol.     

Medetomidine-ketamine anaesthesia induction followed by medetomidine-propofol in ponies: infusion rates and cardiopulmonary side effects

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: To search for long-term total i.v. anaesthesia techniques as a potential alternative to inhalation anaesthesia. OBJECTIVES: To determine cardiopulmonary effects and anaesthesia quality of medetomidine-ketamine anaesthesia induction followed by 4 h of medetomidine-propofol anaesthesia in 6 ponies. METHODS: Sedation consisted of 7 microg/kg bwt medetomidine i.v. followed after 10 min by 2 mg/kg bwt i.v. ketamine. Anaesthesia was maintained for 4 h with 3.5 microg/kg bwt/h medetomidine and propofol at minimum infusion dose rates determined by application of supramaximal electrical pain stimuli. Ventilation was spontaneous (F(I)O2 > 0.9). Cardiopulmonary measurements were always taken before electrical stimulation, 15 mins after anaesthesia induction and at 25 min intervals. RESULTS: Anaesthesia induction was excellent and movements after pain stimuli were subsequently gentle. Mean propofol infusion rates were 0.89-0.1 mg/kg bwt/min. No changes in cardiopulmonary variables occured over time. Range of mean values recorded was: respiratory rate 13.0-15.8 breaths/min; PaO2 29.1-37.9 kPa; PaCO2 6.2-6.9 kPa; heart rate 31.2-40.8 beats/min; mean arterial pressure 90.0-120.8 mmHg; cardiac index 44.1-59.8 ml/kg bwt/min; mean pulmonary arterial pressure 11.8-16.4 mmHg. Recovery to standing was an average of 31.1 mins and ponies stood within one or 2 attempts. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper, ketamine anaesthesia induction avoided the problems encountered previously with propofol. Cardiovascular function was remarkably stable. Hypoxaemia did not occur but, despite F(I)O2 of > 0.9, minimal PaO2 in one pony after 4 h anaesthesia was 8.5 kPa. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The described regime might offer a good, practicable alternative to inhalation anaesthesia and has potential for reducing the fatality rate in horses.     

The effects of halothane and nitrous oxide on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in dogs

The pharmacokinetics of propofol, 6.5 mg/kg, administered as a bolus dose intravenously (i.v.) were studied in six dogs (group 1). The effect of maintaining anaesthesia with halothane and nitrous oxide in oxygen on propofol pharmacokinetics was also investigated in six dogs undergoing routine anaesthesia (group 2). Induction of anaesthesia was rapid in all animals. Post-induction apnoea was a feature in three of the 12 dogs. The blood propofol concentration-time profile was best described by a bi-exponential decline in two dogs in group 1 and in 3 dogs in group 2, and by a tri-exponential decline in four dogs in group 1 and 3 dogs in group 2. The elimination half-life was long in both groups (90.9 min and 75.2 min, respectively), the volume of distribution at steady state large (4889 and 4863 ml/kg) and the clearance rapid (58.6 and 56.3 ml/kg.min). There were no significant differences between the groups, thus indicating that maintenance of anaesthesia with halothane and nitrous oxide had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in the dog.     

The effect of medetomidine premedication upon propofol induction and infusion anaesthesia in the dog

The effect of premedication with four different intramuscular doses of medetomidine (5.0,10.0, 20.0 and 40.0 μg.kg-¹) and a saline placebo were compared in a group of six adult beagle dogs anaesthetised with propofol on five separate occasions. Anaesthesia was induced 30 minutes after premedication and maintained by intravenous injection and continuous infusion of propofol. The effects of medetomidine were reversed with atipamezole 30 minutes after anaesthetic induction. The marked synergistic effects of medetomidine with propofol were demonstrated by a dose related reduction in the induction and infusion requirements for a similar degree of anaesthesia. The effect appeared exponential in nature; lower medetomidine doses produced a disproportionately greater effect.
The maintenance of anaesthesia with propofol following a saline placebo or low doses of medetomidine proved to be difficult. Higher doses of medetomidine required less propofol for induction and infusion and allowed a more stable anaesthesia to be maintained. Propofol produced no statistically significant change in heart rate during infusion. Changes in respiratory rate were markedly group specific. A significant reduction in respiratory rate was seen in dogs given either 5 μg.kg- or 10 μ-g.kg-¹ medetomidine. No change was recorded in dogs given 20 /μg.kg-¹ medetomidine and a significant increase was seen in dogs given 40 μg.kg-¹ medetomidine. Recovery was monitored following the termination of propofol infusion after the reversal of medetomidine using atipamezole at five times the medetomidine dose. Recovery was slower for dogs given lower doses of medetomidine and consequently higher doses of propofol.     

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

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