| Literature DB >> 27277424 |
Henri G M J Bertrand1,2, Yvette C Ellen3,4, Stevie O'Keefe3, Paul A Flecknell3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the effects of sedation using a combination of fentanyl, midazolam and medetomidine in comparison to ketamine. Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta), (n = 16, 5 males and 3 females randomly allocated to each treatment group) received either ketamine (KET) (10 mg.kg(-1)) or fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine (FMM) (10 μg/kg(-1); 0.5 mg.kg(-1); 20 μg.kg(-1)) both IM. Oxygen (100%) was provided by mask and heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, EtCO2 and depth of sedation were assessed every 5 min for 20 min. After the last time point, FMM monkeys were reversed with atipamezole-naloxone (0.2 mg.kg(-1); 10 μg.kg(-1)). Recovery was scored using clinical scoring scheme. Differences in physiological parameters and quality of sedation were compared using Area Under the Curve (AUC) method and either Mann-Witney or t-student tests.Entities:
Keywords: Fentanyl; Ketamine; Medetomidine; Midazolam; Recovery macaque; Sedation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27277424 PMCID: PMC4898395 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-016-0721-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Onset of sedation and Recovery times in Rhesus macaques receiving ketamine (n = 8) or fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine (n = 8) Induction times: Ketamine (KET) 2.9 ± 1.4 min; Fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine (FMM) 7.9 ± 1.2 min. Recovery times: Ketamine (KET) 21.4 ± 13.4 min; Fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine (FMM) 9.1 ± 3.6 min. An asterisk next to a p-value(*p) indicates a significantly differences
Physiological parameters recorded over 20 min for each treatment group
| Treatment groups |
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ketamine | Fentanyl-Midazolam-Fentanyl | ||||||||||
| Time | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | |
| HR | 134 ± 17 | 121 ± 18 | 117 ± 17 | 110 ± 14 | 112 ± 18 | 97 ± 17 | 90 ± 17 | 87 ± 18 | 86 ± 18 | 85 ± 17 | 0.0066* |
| SpO2
| 98.2 ± 1.0 | 99.8 ± 0.7 | 100 ± 0 | 99.9 ± 0.4 | 100 ± 0 | 96.1 ± 7.8 | 99.6 ± 0.7 | 99.8 ± 0.5 | 99.8 ± 0.7 | 99.6 ± 0.7 | 0.7254 |
| RR | 36 ± 8 | 41 ± 8 | 36 ± 6 | 40 ± 11 | 43 ± 11 | 30 ± 10 | 28 ± 12 | 28 ± 11 | 29 ± 11 | 29 ± 10 | 0.0416* |
| EtCO2
| 36 ± 8 | 32 ± 9 | 32 ± 9 | 34 ± 9 | 32 ± 8 | 39 ± 12 | 44 ± 11 | 43 ± 11 | 44 ± 10 | 42 ± 10 | 0.0462* |
| BPsyst | 111 ± 10 | 111 ± 9 | 107 ± 9 | 107 ± 11 | 108 ± 13 | 101 ± 9 | 102 ± 10 | 97 ± 10 | 93 ± 9 | 90 ± 8 | 0.0313* |
| SD | 12 ± 3 | 12 ± 2 | 11 ± 3 | 11 ± 3 | 11 ± 4 | 17 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 | 0.0009* |
Data are shown as mean ± 1 SD. n represents the number of animals that provide data at the each time point. In the ketamine group one of the primates started to recover after 10 min of sedation and so recording session was stopped. Areas Under the Curve (AUCs) were calculated for each parameter. The Shapiro-wilk test showed a normal distribution for Heart Rate (HR), the Respiration Rate (RR), the Systolic Blood Pressure (BPsyst) and the end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2). These AUCs parameters were compared with Student t test. The oxygen saturation (SpO2) and the sedation depth (SD) were compared with the Mann–Whitney U test. An asterisk next to the p-value indicates a significant statistical difference at α threshold of 5 %
Fig. 2Recovery quality results in Rhesus macaques receiving ketamine (n = 8) or fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine (n = 8). The histograms represent the mean ± 95 % of confidence interval. The results are expressed as mean ± 1 SD. RCS: Ketamine 7 ± 2; Fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine 1 ± 1. VAS: Ketamine 6.2 ± 0.8; Fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine 2.2 ± 0.5. An asterisk next to a p-value(*p) indicates a significantly differences
Fig. 3Bland-Altman plots comparing the quality of recovery in Rhesus macaques receiving ketamine (n = 8) or fentanyl-midazolam-medetomidine (n = 8). The differences between the scores for each method are plotted against the mean of the two methods. (b) = bias; (b + 1.96 s; b – 1.96 s) = Agreement limits. The shaded lines represent the 95 % confidence intervals of the agreement limits
Fig. 4Respiration monitoring. A soft lubricated tube was inserted in the ventral meatus of one of the nostril. The tube was linked to a side-stream capnograph providing the visualization of a waveform and end-tidal CO2 value
Sedation Depth Scoring System. A higher score indicates a deeper sedation
| Score | Movement | Palpebral reflex | Jaw tone | Withdrawal reflex |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whole body | Blinking + others movement | increased | Normal |
| 2 | Limb/foot/Hand | Blinking | Normal | Weakly |
| 3 | Facial | Weak blinking | Decreased | Delayed |
| 4 | Twitching fingers | Delayed blinking | Minimal | Only digits movements |
| 5 | No | No | No | No |
Recovery Clinical Scoring Scheme. System based on 15 points with the principle that a higher score indicates a poorer recovery
| •Eyes | |||||
| Score | 2 | 1 | 0 | +1 | +1 |
| Close | Semi-close | Open | Nystagmus | Rubbing its eyes | |
| •Mouth | |||||
| Score | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| Vomitting | Lips smacking/Nausea sign | Hypersalivation | Nothing | ||
| •Body position | |||||
| Score | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| Lateral/ventral recumbency | Unsuccessful attempt to sit | Successful attempt to sit/Sit but wobbly | Sit and stable | ||
| •Ataxia | |||||
| Score | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| Strong | Mild | Slight | Absence | ||
| •Environment awareness | |||||
| Score | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||
| No | Partially | Yes | |||
| Total: /15 | |||||
Recovery quality category
| Category | VAS | RCS |
|---|---|---|
| Good | 0–3.33 | 0–5 |
| Moderate | 3.34–6.67 | 6–10 |
| Bad | 6.68–10 | 11–15 |
VAS visual analogue scale, the range are expressed in cm. RCS recovery clinical scoring, the ranges are expressed in arbitrary units