Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous romifidine and propranolol administered alone or in combination for equine sedation

Objective

Propranolol has been suggested for anxiolysis in horses, but its sedation efficacy and side effects, both when administered alone and in combination with α₂-adrenoceptor agonists, remain undetermined. This study aimed to document the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propranolol, romifidine and their combination.

Cardiopulmonary and sedative effects of intravenous or epidural methadone in conscious dogs

Cardiopulmonary and sedative effects of intravenous or epidural methadone were compared. Six beagles were randomly assigned to group MIV (methadone 0.5 mg/kg IV + NaCl 0.9% epidurally) or MEP (methadone 0.5 mg/kg epidurally + NaCl 0.9% IV). Cardiopulmonary, blood gas and sedation were assessed at time (T) 0, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240 and 480 min after drug administration. Compared to T0, heart rate decreased at T15–T120 in MIV (p < .001) and T15–T240 in MEP (p < .05); mean arterial pressure was reduced at T15–T60 in MEP (p < .01); respiratory rate was higher at T15 and T30 in both groups (p < .05); pH was lower at T15–T120 in MIV (p < .01) and T15, T30 and T120 in MEP (p < .05); PaCO₂ was higher at T15–T60 in MIV (p < .01) and T15, T30 and T120 in MEP (p < .01); sedation scores were higher at T15 and T30 in MIV and T15–T60 in MEP (p < .05). At T120 and T240, sedation score was higher in group MEP compared with group MIV (p < .01) In conclusion, cardiopulmonary and sedative effects of identical methadone doses are similar when administered IV or epidurally to conscious healthy dogs.     

A systematic review of the effects of injectable sedative and anesthetic drugs and inhalant anesthetics on intraocular pressure in the dog

ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the results of studies that have determined the effect of injectable and inhalant drugs used in anesthesia on intraocular pressure (IOP) in dogs.Databases usedA comprehensive search of research literature was performed without language restriction. The search utilized the PubMed, CAB Abstracts and the University of Georgia’s Galileo electronic databases using a combination of free text terms ‘Ophthalmology’, ‘Intraocular Pressure’, ‘Anesthetic’, ‘Anesthesia’, ‘Canine’ or ‘Dog’. The time frame searched was from 1970 to October 2018. Any published research paper that dealt with sedatives or anesthetics administered systemically and the canine eye was evaluated.ConclusionsThe effects of many anesthetic drugs in dogs with ocular pathology are largely unknown. Many anesthetic drugs do not induce clinically relevant changes in IOP in dogs with normal eyes, although some studies demonstrated results with statistically significant changes. The dose, route of administration, experimental conditions, drug combinations, timing of measurements, measurement technology and setting or individual animal characteristics may all produce some heterogeneity in results from multiple studies.     

Comparative evaluation of sedative and clinical effects of dexmedetomidine and xylazine in dromedary calves (Camelus dromedarius)

ObjectiveTo compare the sedative and clinical effects of intravenous (IV) administration of dexmedetomidine and xylazine in dromedary calves.Study designExperimental, crossover, randomized, blinded study.AnimalsA total of seven healthy male dromedary calves aged 14 ± 2 weeks and weighing 95 ± 5.5 kg.MethodsCalves were assigned three IV treatments: treatment XYL, xylazine (0.2 mg kg⁻¹); treatment DEX, dexmedetomidine (5 μg kg⁻¹); and control treatment, normal saline (0.01 mL kg⁻¹). Sedation scores, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), rectal temperature (RT) and ruminal motility were recorded before (baseline) and after drug administration. Sedation signs were scored using a 4-point scale. One-way anova and Mann–Whitney U tests were used for data analysis.ResultsCalves in treatments XYL and DEX were sedated at 5–60 minutes. Sedation had waned in XYL calves, but not DEX calves, at 60 minutes (p = 0.037). Sedation was not present in calves of any treatment at 90 minutes. HR decreased from baseline in XYL and DEX at 5–90 minutes after drug administration and was lower in DEX than XYL at 5 minutes (p = 0.017). HR was lower in DEX (p = 0.001) and XYL (p = 0.013) than in control treatment at 90 minutes. f_R decreased from baseline in XYL and DEX at 5–60 minutes after drug administration and was lower in DEX than XYL at 5 minutes (p = 0.013). RT was unchanged in any treatment over 120 minutes. Ruminal motility was decreased in XYL at 5, 90 and 120 minutes and absent at 10–60 minutes. Motility was decreased in DEX at 5, 10 and 120 minutes and was absent at 15–90 minutes.Conclusion and clinical relevanceThe duration of sedation from dexmedetomidine (5 μg kg^–1) and xylazine (0.2 mg kg^–1) was similar in dromedary calves.     

Anaesthesia and analgesia of the donkey and the mule

The number of donkeys and mules throughout the world is stable, and awareness of their use and concern for welfare, pain recognition and treatment are receiving increasing veterinary interest. Therefore, accurate information about anaesthesia and analgesia in donkeys and mules is important to ever more equine practitioners. Since donkeys are physiologically and pharmacologically different from horses, knowledge on species specific aspects of anaesthesia and analgesia are very important. Mules combine elements from both donkey and horse backgrounds, leading to great diversity in size, temperament and body type. Physiologically, they seem to resemble horses more than donkeys. This review highlights the current knowledge on various anaesthetic and analgesic approaches in donkeys and mules. There is still much information that is not available about donkeys; in many circumstances, the clinician must use available equine information to treat the patient, while monitoring carefully to observe for differences in response to therapy compared to the horse.     

Effects of methadone, alone or in combination with acepromazine or xylazine, on sedation and physiologic values in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of methadone, administered alone or in combination with acepromazine or xylazine, on sedation and on physiologic values in dogs.Study designRandomized cross-over design.AnimalsSix adult healthy mixed-breed dogs weighing 13.5 ± 4.9 kg.MethodsDogs were injected intramuscularly with physiologic saline (Control), or methadone (0.5mg kg⁻¹) or acepromazine (0.1 mg kg⁻¹) or xylazine (1.0 mg kg⁻¹), or acepromazine (0.05 mg kg⁻¹) plus methadone (0.5 mg kg⁻¹) or xylazine (0.5 mg kg⁻¹) plus methadone (0.5 mg kg⁻¹) in a randomized cross-over design, with at least 1-week intervals. Sedation, pulse rate, indirect systolic arterial pressure, respiratory rate (RR), body temperature and pedal withdrawal reflex were evaluated before and at 15-minute intervals for 90 minutes after treatment.ResultsSedation was greater in dogs receiving xylazine alone, xylazine plus methadone and acepromazine plus methadone. Peak sedative effect occurred within 30 minutes of treatment administration. Pulse rate was lower in dogs that received xylazine either alone or with methadone during most of the study. Systolic arterial pressure decreased only in dogs receiving acepromazine alone. When methadone was administered alone, RR was higher than in other treatments during most of the study and a high prevalence of panting was observed. In all treatments body temperature decreased, this effect being more pronounced in dogs receiving methadone alone or in combination with acepromazine. Pedal withdrawal reflex was absent in four dogs receiving methadone plus xylazine but not in any dog in the remaining treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMethadone alone produces mild sedation and a high prevalence of panting. Greater sedation was achieved when methadone was used in combination with acepromazine or xylazine. The combination xylazine–methadone appears to result in better analgesia than xylazine administered alone. Both combinations of methadone/sedative were considered effective for premedication in dogs.     

Administration of certain sedative drugs is associated with variation in sonographic and radiographic splenic size in healthy cats

Ultrasonography and radiography are standard diagnostic tests for cats with suspected splenic disease, however published information on outside sources of variation are currently lacking. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, crossover group study was to evaluate effects of common sedative drugs on the sonographic and radiographic characteristics of the spleen in healthy cats. Fifteen healthy adult research cats were randomly assigned into one of three groups corresponding to different sequences of administration of five sedative drugs/drug combinations (acepromazine; butorphanol; dexmedetomidine; midazolam and butorphanol (MB); and dexmedetomidine, butorphanol, and ketamine (DBK)), administered at 1‐week intervals. At each visit, three‐view abdominal radiographic and ultrasonographic examinations were performed prior to sedation and repeated 15‐30 min and 2‐3 h post sedation. Two board‐certified radiologists (one ACVR and one ACVR/ECVDI) evaluated the anonymized and randomized images. Acepromazine resulted in significantly increased sonographic and radiographic splenic measurements from baseline, which remained significantly increased 2‐3 h post sedation. The mean magnitude of this change ranged from 0.9 mm (tail height, SD 1.4 mm) to 1.8 mm (body height, SD 1.7 mm) for ultrasound, and was 2.2 mm (ventrodorsal width, SD 2.3 mm) for radiographs. With butorphanol, there was no significant change in splenic size. For dexmedetomidine, MB, and DBK, there was a trend toward increased splenic size from baseline to the first post‐sedation timepoint, which was statistically significant for radiographic measurements, although not for ultrasound. Findings indicated that acepromazine should be avoided prior to imaging while butorphanol may be used when sedation is needed in cats presenting for potential splenic disease.     

PILOT STUDY TO ASSESS MEAL PROGRESSION THROUGH THE GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT OF HABITUATED DOGS DETERMINED BY FLUOROSCOPIC IMAGING WITHOUT SEDATION OR PHYSICAL RESTRAINT

A limiting factor of radiographic contrast studies is the requirement for restraint of the animal in order to reduce movement artifacts. To demonstrate that gastrointestinal transit can be analyzed by a barium meal in nonsedated and unrestrained dogs, a pilot study of six adult Labrador retriever dogs was undertaken. Study subjects were selected by convenience sampling from an available population of Labrador dogs and were trained to stand motionless during radiographic fluoroscopy. Following a meal containing 7% w/w powdered barium sulfate, radiographic images were generated using a digital fluoroscope C‐arm, at intervals of 5, 15, and 30 min, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 h. A qualitative assessment of fill density using a 5‐point scale was made for the stomach, small intestine, and ascending, transverse, and descending regions of the colon at each timepoint. Gastric emptying half‐time occurred between 1 and 2 h postmeal. Mean fill density of the small intestine increased from 15 min postmeal and reached a peak at 3 h postmeal. Mean fill density of the proximal large intestine mirrored that of the small intestine. The distal large intestine remained empty for the first 2 h postmeal, then increased between hours 2 and 5 postmeal, and was subsequently at maximum fill density from hour 6 postmeal onwards. Fluoroscopic observation of a barium contrast meal provided an effective indication of the amount and progression of ingested food through the various regions of the gastrointestinal tract in habituated, fully conscious dogs.     

Clinical evaluation of medetomidine, a novel sedative and analgesic drug for dogs and cats

Medetomidine, a potent alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonist, was investigated in open, multicenter clinical trials with patients of various canine and feline breeds (1736 dogs and 678 cats). The purpose of the study was to find an optimal dose of medetomidine for sedation and analgesia in clinical practice and to study how well the intended procedure could be performed under the influence of the drug. The mean dose (i.m.) of medetomidine used for examinations, clinical procedures and minor surgical interventions was 40 micrograms/kg, and for radiography 30 micrograms/kg. In cats the dose was 80-110 micrograms/kg. On the doses chosen, almost all animals were recumbent and 72% of the dogs and 85% of the cats were in a slight anaesthetic stage, unable to rise. The evaluation of the overall suitability of medetomidine (% of cases) in different indications was "very satisfactory" or "satisfactory" in 95% of dogs and 81-96% of cats. Side effects reported were limited almost exclusively to vomiting and muscle jerking in dogs (12% and 0.5% of the cases) and to vomiting in cats (65%). Medetomidine seems to suffice for pharmacological restraint of dogs and cats. The concomitant use of medetomidine (80-100 micrograms/kg) and ketamine (7 mg/kg) in cats (n = 295) provided a good anaesthesia (20-40 min). The recovery was smooth. The present study shows that medetomidine provides an effective level of sedation and analgesia for clinical use.