OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol and fentanyl, with propofol and midazolam for total intravenous anaesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover experimental study. ANIMALS: Six goats; three does and three wethers. METHODS: Goats received either fentanyl 0.02 mg kg(-1) (treatment FP) or midazolam 0.3 mg kg(-1) (treatment MP) intravenously. One minute later anaesthesia was induced with propofol, then maintained by constant rate infusion of propofol 12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) and fentanyl 0.02 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) (treatment FP) or propofol 12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) and midazolam 0.3 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) (treatment MP) for 90 minutes. Response to noxious stimulus was tested every 10 minutes and propofol dose adjusted to prevent purposeful movement. Cardiopulmonary parameters were measured continuously, and arterial blood-gas analysis performed intermittently. Recovery was timed and quality scored. Results are presented as median (IQR). RESULTS: Differences in the propofol induction dose [4.00 (3.96-4.01) and 3.97 (3.91-4.00) mg kg(-1) for treatments FP and MP, respectively] were not significant. Quality of induction in both groups was smooth. The median propofol dose for maintenance was less (p = 0.004) with treatment FP (12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) than MP (18.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1). Cardiopulmonary function was well maintained with both treatments. Recovery times in minutes from the end of anaesthetic infusion for treatments FP and MP respectively were; to extubation 3.0 (3.0-3.0) and 4.5 (3.3-5.0); to sternal position, 4.5 (3.3-5.0) and 5.0 (5.0-6.5) and to standing 13.0 (10.3-15.0) and 15.0 (11.3-17.3). Quality of recovery was acceptable in both groups, but abnormal behavioural signs were observed after treatment FP. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl or propofol and midazolam, at the doses studied, in spontaneously-breathing, oxygen-supplemented goats is practicable. Recovery from the fentanyl-propofol combination is not always smooth.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol and fentanyl, with propofol and midazolam for total intravenous anaesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, crossover experimental study. ANIMALS: Six goats; three does and three wethers. METHODS:Goats received either fentanyl 0.02 mg kg(-1) (treatment FP) or midazolam 0.3 mg kg(-1) (treatment MP) intravenously. One minute later anaesthesia was induced with propofol, then maintained by constant rate infusion of propofol 12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) and fentanyl 0.02 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) (treatment FP) or propofol 12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) and midazolam 0.3 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) (treatment MP) for 90 minutes. Response to noxious stimulus was tested every 10 minutes and propofol dose adjusted to prevent purposeful movement. Cardiopulmonary parameters were measured continuously, and arterial blood-gas analysis performed intermittently. Recovery was timed and quality scored. Results are presented as median (IQR). RESULTS: Differences in the propofol induction dose [4.00 (3.96-4.01) and 3.97 (3.91-4.00) mg kg(-1) for treatments FP and MP, respectively] were not significant. Quality of induction in both groups was smooth. The median propofol dose for maintenance was less (p = 0.004) with treatment FP (12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) than MP (18.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1). Cardiopulmonary function was well maintained with both treatments. Recovery times in minutes from the end of anaesthetic infusion for treatments FP and MP respectively were; to extubation 3.0 (3.0-3.0) and 4.5 (3.3-5.0); to sternal position, 4.5 (3.3-5.0) and 5.0 (5.0-6.5) and to standing 13.0 (10.3-15.0) and 15.0 (11.3-17.3). Quality of recovery was acceptable in both groups, but abnormal behavioural signs were observed after treatment FP. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl or propofol and midazolam, at the doses studied, in spontaneously-breathing, oxygen-supplemented goats is practicable. Recovery from the fentanyl-propofol combination is not always smooth.
Authors: Urshulaa Dholakia; Reza Seddighi; Adesola Odunayo; Sherry K Cox; Elizabeth H Jones; Bruno H Pypendop Journal: Comp Med Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Verónica Vieitez; Ignacio Álvarez Gómez de Segura; Víctor López Rámis; Massimo Santella; Luis Javier Ezquerra Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 2.741