PenTing Liao1, Melissa Sinclair2, Alexander Valverde1, Cornelia Mosley3, Heather Chalmers1, Shawn Mackenzie4, Brad Hanna5. 1. Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. Electronic address: msinclai@uoguelph.ca. 3. 404 Veterinary Emergency and Referral Hospital, Newmarket, ON, Canada. 4. Toronto Veterinary Emergency Hospital, Scarborough, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare propofol and alfaxalone, with or without midazolam, for induction of anesthesia in fentanyl-sedated dogs, and to assess recovery from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, incomplete, Latin-square study. ANIMALS: Ten dogs weighing 24.5 ± 3.1 kg (mean ± standard deviation). METHODS: Dogs were randomly assigned to four treatments: treatment P-M, propofol (1 mg kg-1) and midazolam (0.3 mg kg-1); treatment P-S, propofol and saline; treatment A-M, alfaxalone (0.5 mg kg-1) and midazolam; treatment A-S, alfaxalone and saline, administered intravenously (IV) 10 minutes after fentanyl (7 μg kg-1) IV. Additional propofol or alfaxalone were administered as necessary for endotracheal intubation. TIVA was maintained for 35-55 minutes by infusions of propofol or alfaxalone. Scores were assigned for quality of sedation, induction, extubation and recovery. The drug doses required for intubation and TIVA, times from sedation to end of TIVA, end anesthesia to extubation and to standing were recorded. Analysis included a general linear mixed model with post hoc analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were detected in the quality of induction, better in A-M than A-S and P-S, and in P-M than P-S; in total intubation dose, lower in P-M (1.5 mg kg-1) than P-S (2.1 mg kg-1), and A-M (0.62 mg kg-1) than A-S (0.98 mg kg-1); and lower TIVA rate in P-M (268 μg kg-1 minute-1) than P-S (310 μg kg-1 minute-1). TIVA rate was similar in A-M and A-S (83 and 87 μg kg-1 minute-1, respectively). Time to standing was longer after alfaxalone than propofol, but was not influenced by midazolam. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Addition of midazolam reduced the induction doses of propofol and alfaxalone and improved the quality of induction in fentanyl-sedated dogs. The dose rate of propofol for TIVA was decreased.
OBJECTIVES: To compare propofol and alfaxalone, with or without midazolam, for induction of anesthesia in fentanyl-sedated dogs, and to assess recovery from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, incomplete, Latin-square study. ANIMALS: Ten dogs weighing 24.5 ± 3.1 kg (mean ± standard deviation). METHODS:Dogs were randomly assigned to four treatments: treatment P-M, propofol (1 mg kg-1) and midazolam (0.3 mg kg-1); treatment P-S, propofol and saline; treatment A-M, alfaxalone (0.5 mg kg-1) and midazolam; treatment A-S, alfaxalone and saline, administered intravenously (IV) 10 minutes after fentanyl (7 μg kg-1) IV. Additional propofol or alfaxalone were administered as necessary for endotracheal intubation. TIVA was maintained for 35-55 minutes by infusions of propofol or alfaxalone. Scores were assigned for quality of sedation, induction, extubation and recovery. The drug doses required for intubation and TIVA, times from sedation to end of TIVA, end anesthesia to extubation and to standing were recorded. Analysis included a general linear mixed model with post hoc analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were detected in the quality of induction, better in A-M than A-S and P-S, and in P-M than P-S; in total intubation dose, lower in P-M (1.5 mg kg-1) than P-S (2.1 mg kg-1), and A-M (0.62 mg kg-1) than A-S (0.98 mg kg-1); and lower TIVA rate in P-M (268 μg kg-1 minute-1) than P-S (310 μg kg-1 minute-1). TIVA rate was similar in A-M and A-S (83 and 87 μg kg-1 minute-1, respectively). Time to standing was longer after alfaxalone than propofol, but was not influenced by midazolam. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Addition of midazolam reduced the induction doses of propofol and alfaxalone and improved the quality of induction in fentanyl-sedated dogs. The dose rate of propofol for TIVA was decreased.
Authors: Rebecca L Erickson; Caroline E Blevins; Cecilia De Souza Dyer; James O Marx Journal: J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 1.232