Effect of propofol and ketamine-diazepam on intraocular pressure in healthy premedicated dogs

Objective

To compare the effect of propofol and ketamine/diazepam for induction following premedication on intraocular pressure (IOP) in healthy dogs.

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.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison between continuous rate infusion and target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs: a randomized clinical trial

ObjectiveTo compare a propofol continuous rate infusion (CRI) with a target-controlled infusion (TCI) in dogs.Study designRandomized prospective double-blinded clinical study.AnimalsA total of 38 healthy client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs premedicated intramuscularly with acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^–1) and an opioid (pethidine 3 mg kg^–1, morphine 0.2 mg kg^–1 or methadone 0.2 mg kg^–1) were allocated to P-CRI group (propofol 4 mg kg^–1 intravenously followed by CRI at 0.2 mg kg^–1 minute^–1), or P-TCI group [propofol predicted plasma concentration (Cp) of 3.5 μg mL^–1 for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia via TCI]. Plane of anaesthesia, heart rate, respiratory rate, invasive blood pressure, oxygen haemoglobin saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide and body temperature were monitored by an anaesthetist blinded to the group. Numerical data were analysed by unpaired t test or Mann–Whitney U test, one-way analysis of variance and Dunnett’s post hoc test. Categorical data were analysed with Fisher’s exact test. Significance was set for p < 0.005.ResultsOverall, propofol induced a significant incidence of relative hypotension (mean arterial pressure 20% below baseline, 45%), apnoea (71%) and haemoglobin desaturation (65%) at induction of anaesthesia, with a higher incidence of hypotension and apnoea in the P-CRI than P-TCI group (68% versus 21%, p = 0.008; 84% versus 58%, p = 0.0151, respectively). Propofol Cp was significantly higher at intubation in the P-CRI than P-TCI group (4.83 versus 3.5 μg mL^–1, p < 0.0001), but decreased during infusion, while Cp remained steady in the P-TCI group. Total propofol administered was similar between groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceBoth techniques provided a smooth induction of anaesthesia but caused a high incidence of side effects. Titration of anaesthesia with TCI caused fewer fluctuations in Cp and lower risk of hypotension compared with CRI.     

The effect of body condition on propofol requirement in dogs

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

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.     

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).

A comparison of propofol infusion and propofol/isoflurane anaesthesia in dexmedetomidine premedicated dogs

The effects of propofol infusion were compared with propofol/isoflurane anaesthesia in six beagles premedicated with 10 microg/kg intramuscular (i.m.) dexmedetomidine. The suitability of a cold pressor test (CPT) as a stress stimulus in dogs was also studied. Each dog received isoflurane (end tidal 1.0%, induction with propofol) with and without CPT; propofol (200 microg/kg/min, induction with propofol) with and without CPT; premedication alone with and without CPT in a randomized block study in six separate sessions. Heart rate and arterial blood pressures and gases were monitored. Plasma catecholamine, beta-endorphin and cortisol concentrations were measured. Recovery profile was observed. Blood pressures stayed within normal reference range but the dogs were bradycardic (mean heart rate < 70 bpm). PaCO2 concentration during anaesthesia was higher in the propofol group (mean > 57 mmHg) when compared with isoflurane (mean < 52 mmHg). Recovery times were longer with propofol than when compared with the other treatments. The mean extubation times were 8 +/- 3.4 and 23 +/- 6.3 min after propofol/isoflurane and propofol anaesthesia, respectively. The endocrine stress response was similar in all treatments except for lower adrenaline level after propofol infusion at the end of the recovery period. Cold pressor test produced variable responses and was not a reliable stress stimulus in the present study. Propofol/isoflurane anaesthesia was considered more useful than propofol infusion because of milder degree of respiratory depression and faster recovery.     

Effect of fentanyl on the induction dose and minimum infusion rate of propofol preventing movement in dogs

Objective

To determine the effect of fentanyl on the induction dose of propofol and minimum infusion rate required to prevent movement in response to noxious stimulation (MIR_NM) in dogs.

Dexmedetomidine constant rate infusion for 24 hours during and after propofol or isoflurane anaesthesia in dogs

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiovascular and respiratory effects and pharmacokinetics of a 24-hour intravenous constant rate infusion (CRI) of dexmedetomidine (DMED) during and after propofol (PRO) or isoflurane (ISO) anaesthesia in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, cross-over study. ANIMALS: Ten healthy adult Beagles. METHODS: Instrumented dogs received a DMED-loading bolus (25 microg m(-2)) at time 0 followed by a 24-hour CRI (25 microg m(-2) hour(-1)), with PRO or ISO induction/maintenance of anaesthesia during the first 2 hours (PRO and ISO treatment groups, respectively). Cardiovascular, respiratory, blood gas, airway gas, serum chemistry variables and DMED plasma concentration data were collected at -15, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes. A number of cardiorespiratory and tissue oxygenation variables were calculated from the above data. After the 2-hours of anaesthesia, heart and respiratory rates and electrocardiograms were recorded and DMED plasma concentrations were determined for up to 26 hours. RESULTS: Vasopressor effects and the decrease in heart rate (HR) and cardiac index induced by DMED were greater for PRO than ISO, but were within clinically acceptable ranges. Adequate oxygenation was maintained above the critical O(2) delivery level. The overall incidence of unfavourable arrhythmias was low and tended to vary inversely with HR. Mean DMED plasma concentration ranged from 0.23 to 0.47 ng mL(-1) for both groups during the 24-hour CRI with a mean elimination half-life of approximately 0.46 hour. CONCLUSION AND/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DMED CRI resulted in typical alpha(2)-agonist induced haemodynamic changes with minimal respiratory effects, and appeared to be an efficacious adjunct during and after PRO or ISO anaesthesia in healthy 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.     

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

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

Determining an optimum propofol infusion rate for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs: a randomized clinical trial

ObjectiveTo determine an optimum infusion rate of propofol that permitted rapid tracheal intubation while minimizing the duration of postinduction apnoea.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 60 client-owned dogs presented for elective neutering and radiography.MethodsDogs were randomly allocated to one of five groups (groups A–E) to have propofol at an infusion rate of 0.5, 1, 2, 3, or 4 mg kg^–1 minute^–1, respectively, following intramuscular premedication with methadone 0.5 mg kg^–1 and dexmedetomidine 5 μg kg^–1. Propofol administration was stopped when adequate conditions for tracheal intubation were identified. Time to tracheal intubation and duration of apnoea were recorded. If oxygen haemoglobin saturation decreased to < 90%, manual ventilation was initiated. A one-way analysis of covariance was conducted to compare the effect of propofol infusion rate on duration of apnoea and intubation time whilst controlling for covariates, followed by post hoc tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.ResultsPropofol infusion rate had a significant effect on duration of apnoea (p = 0.004) and intubation time (p < 0.001) after controlling for bodyweight and sedation scores, respectively. The adjusted means (± standard error) of duration of apnoea were significantly shorter in groups A and B (49 ± 39 and 67 ± 37 seconds, respectively) than in groups C, D and E (207 ± 34, 192 ± 36 and 196 ± 34 seconds, respectively). Group B (115 ± 10 seconds) had a significantly shorter intubation time than group A (201 ± 10 seconds, p < 0.001).Conclusions and clinical relevanceAn infusion rate of 1.0 mg kg^–1 minute^–1 (group B) appears to offer the optimal compromise between speed of induction and duration of postinduction apnoea.     

Target-controlled infusion of propofol combined with variable rate infusion of remifentanil for anaesthesia of a dog with patent ductus arteriosus

An 18-month-old Lurcher was anaesthetized for surgical ligation of a patent ductus arteriosus using a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol and a variable rate infusion of remifentanil. Before anaesthesia, radiographic and echocardiographic examination indicated that the dog had left-sided congestive heart failure and impaired left ventricular systolic function. Ramipril and furosemide were administered pre-operatively. Following pre-anaesthetic medication with morphine, 0.5 mg kg(-1), by intramuscular injection, and pre-oxygenation, remifentanil was infused for 5 minutes at 0.2 microg kg(-1) minute(-1), followed by induction of anaesthesia using intravenous propofol administered by TCI, set at a target concentration of 3.5 microg mL(-1) of propofol in blood. Tracheal intubation was performed and 100% oxygen delivered through a non-rebreathing (Bain) system and then a circle system in the operating theatre. Anaesthesia was maintained with propofol and remifentanil, adjusted according to clinical requirements. Peri-operative analgesia consisted of intercostal bupivacaine nerve block, with meloxicam, morphine and remifentanil.     

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.     

Continuous infusion of ketamine in hypovolemic dogs anesthetized with desflurane

Objective: To evaluate the cardiorespiratory effects of continuous infusion of ketamine in hypovolemic dogs anesthetized with desflurane. Design: A prospective experimental study. Animals: Twelve mixed breed dogs allocated into 2 groups: saline (n=6) and ketamine (n=6). Interventions: After obtaining baseline measurements (time [T] 0) in awake dogs, hypovolemia was induced by the removal of 40 mL of blood/kg over 30 minutes. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with desflurane (1.5 minimal alveolar concentration) and 30 minutes later (T75) a continuous intravenous (IV) infusion of saline or ketamine (100 μg/kg/min) was initiated. Cardiorespiratory evaluations were obtained 15 minutes after hemorrhage (T45), 30 minutes after desflurane anesthesia, and immediately before initiating the infusion (T75), and 5 (T80), 15 (T90), 30 (T105) and 45 (T120) minutes after beginning the infusion. Measurements and main results: Hypovolemia (T45) reduced the arterial blood pressures (systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure [DAP] and mean arterial pressure [MAP]), cardiac (CI) and systolic (SI) indexes, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) in both groups. After 30 minutes of desflurane anesthesia (T75), an additional decrease of MAP in both groups was observed, heart rate was higher than T0 at T75, T80, T90 and T105 in saline‐treated dogs only, and the CI was higher in the ketamine group than in the saline group at T75. Five minutes after starting the infusion (T80), respiratory rate (RR) was lower and the end‐tidal CO₂ (ETCO₂) was higher compared with values at T45 in ketamine‐treated dogs. Mean values of ETCO₂ were higher in ketamine than in saline dogs between T75 and T120. The systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) was decreased between T80 and T120 in ketamine when compared with T45. Conclusions: Continuous IV infusion of ketamine in hypovolemic dogs anesthetized with desflurane induced an increase in ETCO₂, but other cardiorespiratory alterations did not differ from those observed when the same concentration of desflurane was used as the sole anesthetic agent. However, this study did not evaluate the effectiveness of ketamine infusion in reducing desflurane dose requirements in hypovolemic dogs or the cardiorespiratory effects of ketamine–desflurane balanced anesthesia.