Effects of altering the sequence of midazolam and propofol during co‐induction of anaesthesia

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of varying the sequence of midazolam and propofol administration on the quality of induction, cardiorespiratory parameters and propofol requirements in dogs.Study designRandomized, controlled, clinical study.AnimalsThirty‐three client owned dogs (ASA I‐III, 0.5–10 years, 5–30 kg).MethodsDogs were premedicated with acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.4 mg kg^?1) intramuscularly. After 30 minutes, group midazolam‐propofol (MP) received midazolam (0.25 mg kg^?1) intravenously (IV) before propofol (1 mg kg^?1) IV, group propofol‐midazolam (PM) received propofol before midazolam IV at the same doses, and control group (CP) received saline IV, instead of midazolam, before propofol. Supplementary boluses of propofol (0.5 mg kg^?1) were administered to effect to all groups until orotracheal intubation was completed. Behaviour after midazolam administration, quality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were scored. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, and systolic arterial blood pressure were recorded before premedication, post‐premedication, after midazolam or saline administration, and at 0, 2, 5, and 10 minutes post‐intubation. End‐tidal CO₂ and arterial oxygen haemoglobin saturation were recorded at 2, 5 and 10 minutes post‐intubation.ResultsQuality of sedation and induction, and ease of intubation were similar in all groups. Incidence of excitement was higher in the MP compared to CP (p = 0.014) and PM (p = 0.026) groups. Propofol requirements were decreased in MP and PM groups with respect to CP (p < 0.001), and in PM compared to MP (p = 0.022). The HR decreased after premedication in all groups, and increased after midazolam and subsequent times in MP (p = 0.019) and PM (p = 0.001) groups. Incidence of apnoea and paddling was higher in CP (p = 0.005) and MP (p = 0.031) groups than in PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceAdministration of midazolam before propofol reduced propofol requirements although caused mild excitement in some dogs. Administration of propofol before midazolam resulted in less excitatory phenomena and greater reduction of propofol requirements.     

The cardiopulmonary effects of anesthetic induction with isoflurane,ketamine‐diazepam or propofol‐diazepam in the hypovolemic dog

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the cardiopulmonary effects of induction of anesthesia with isoflurane (Iso), ketamine–diazepam (KD), or propofol–diazepam (PD) in hypovolemic dogs.Study designProspective randomized cross–over trial.AnimalsSix healthy intact, mixed breed, female dogs weighing 20.7 ± 4.2 kg and aged 22 ± 2 months.MethodsDogs had 30 mL kg^?1 of blood removed at a rate of 1.5 mL kg^?1 minute^?1 under isoflurane anesthesia. Following a 30–minute recovery period, anesthesia was reinduced. Dogs were assigned to one of three treatments: isoflurane via facemask using 0.5% incremental increases in the delivered concentration every 30 seconds, 1.25 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.0625 mg kg^?1 diazepam intravenously (IV) with doses repeated every 30 seconds as required, and 2 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam IV followed by 1 mg kg^?1 propofol increments IV every 30 seconds as required. Following endotracheal intubation all dogs received 1.7% end–tidal isoflurane in oxygen. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded at baseline (before induction) and at 5 or 10 minute intervals following endotracheal intubation.ResultsInduction time was longer in Iso (4.98 ± 0.47 minutes) compared to KD (3.10 ± 0.47 minutes) or PD (3.22 ± 0.45 minutes). To produce anesthesia, KD received 4.9 ± 2.3 mg kg^?1 ketamine and 0.24 ± 0.1 mg kg^?1 diazepam, while PD received 2.2 ± 0.4 mg kg^?1 propofol and 0.2 mg kg^?1 diazepam. End–tidal isoflurane concentration immediately following intubation was 1.7 ± 0.4% in Iso. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were significantly higher in KD and PD compared to Iso and in KD compared to PD. Arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure was significantly higher in PD compared to KD and Iso immediately after induction.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn hypovolemic dogs, KD or PD, as used in this study to induce anesthesia, resulted in less hemodynamic depression compared to isoflurane.     

Heart rate,arterial pressure and propofol-sparing effects of guaifenesin in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the heart rate (HR) and systemic arterial pressure (sAP) effects, and propofol induction dose requirements in healthy dogs administered propofol with or without guaifenesin for the induction of anesthesia.Study designProspective blinded crossover experimental study.AnimalsA total of 10 healthy adult female Beagle dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with intravenous (IV) butorphanol (0.4 mg kg^–1) and administered guaifenesin 5% at 50 mg kg^–1 (treatment G50), 100 mg kg^–1 (treatment G100) or saline (treatment saline) IV prior to anesthetic induction with propofol. HR, invasive sAP and respiratory rate (f_R) were recorded after butorphanol administration, after guaifenesin administration and after propofol and endotracheal intubation. Propofol doses for intubation were recorded. Repeated measures analysis of variance (anova) was used to determine differences in propofol dose requirements among treatments, and differences in cardiopulmonary values over time and among treatments with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.ResultsPropofol doses (mean ± standard deviation) for treatments saline, G50 and G100 were 3.3 ± 1.0, 2.7 ± 0.7 and 2.1 ± 0.8 mg kg^–1, respectively. Propofol administered was significantly lower in treatment G100 than in treatment saline (p = 0.04). In treatments G50 and G100, HR increased following induction of anesthesia and intubation compared with baseline measurements. HR was higher in treatment G100 than in treatments G50 and saline following induction of anesthesia. In all treatments, sAP decreased following intubation compared with baseline values. There were no significant differences in sAP among treatments. f_R was lower following intubation than baseline and post co-induction values and did not differ significantly among treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceWhen administered as a co-induction agent in dogs, guaifenesin reduced propofol requirements for tracheal intubation. HR increased and sAP and f_R decreased, but mean values remained clinically acceptable.     

Midazolam,as a co‐induction agent,has propofol sparing effects but also decreases systolic blood pressure in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of the co-administration of midazolam on the dose requirement for propofol anesthesia induction, heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and the incidence of excitement.Study designProspective, randomized, controlled and blinded clinical study, with owner consent.AnimalsSeventeen healthy, client owned dogs weighing 28 ± 18 kg and aged 4.9 ± 3.9 years old.MethodsDogs were sedated with acepromazine 0.025 mg kg^?1 and morphine 0.25 mg kg^?1 intramuscularly (IM), 30 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to receive midazolam (MP; 0.2 mg kg^?1) or sterile normal saline (CP; 0.04 mL kg^?1) intravenously (IV) over 15 seconds. Propofol was administered IV immediately following test drug and delivered at 3 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 until intubation was possible. Scoring of pre-induction sedation, ease of intubation, quality of induction, and presence or absence of excitement following co-induction agent, was recorded. HR, SAP and respiratory rate (f_R) were obtained immediately prior to, immediately following, and 5 minutes following induction of anesthesia.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with regard to weight, age, gender, or sedation. Excitement occurred in 5/9 dogs following midazolam administration, with none noted in the control group. The dose of propofol administered to the midazolam group was significantly less than in the control group. Differences in HR were not significant between groups. SAP was significantly lower in the midazolam group compared with baseline values 5 minutes after its administration. However, values remained clinically acceptable.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThe co-administration of midazolam with propofol decreased the total dose of propofol needed for induction of anesthesia in sedated healthy dogs, caused some excitement and a clinically unimportant decrease in SAP.     

Dose requirement and cardiopulmonary effects of diluted and undiluted propofol for induction of anaesthesia in dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the dose, cardiopulmonary effects and quality of anaesthetic induction in dogs using propofol (10 mg mL^–1) and diluted propofol (5 mg mL^–1).Study designRandomized, blinded, clinical study.AnimalsA total of 28 client-owned dogs (12 males/16 females).MethodsFollowing intramuscular acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^–1) and methadone (0.2 mg kg^–1), propofol (UP, 10 mg mL^–1) or diluted propofol (DP, 5 mg mL^–1) was administered intravenously (0.2 mL kg^–1 minute^–1) by an anaesthetist unaware of the allocated group to achieve tracheal intubation. Sedation, intubation and induction quality were scored from 0 to 3. Pre- and post-induction pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (f_R) and systolic (SAP), mean (MAP) and diastolic (DAP) arterial blood pressure were compared. Time to first breath and induction dose were recorded. Data were analysed for normality and Mann–Whitney U or Student t tests were performed where appropriate. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (range).ResultsThe propofol dose administered to achieve induction was lower in the DP group (2.62 ± 0.48 mg kg^–1) than in the UP group (3.48 ± 1.17 mg kg^–1) (p = 0.021). No difference was observed in pre- and post-induction PR, SAP, MAP, DAP and f_R between groups. The differences between post-induction and pre-induction values of these variables were also similar between groups. Time to first breath did not differ between groups. Sedation scores were similar between groups. Quality of tracheal intubation was marginally better with UP 0 (0–1) than with DP 1 (0–2) (p = 0.036), but overall quality of induction was similar between groups [UP 0 (0–1) and DP 0 (0–1), p = 0.549].Conclusion and clinical relevanceDiluting propofol reduced the dose to induce anaesthesia without significantly altering the cardiopulmonary variables.     

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.     

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.     

Assessment of cardiac troponin I and C-reactive protein concentrations associated with anesthetic protocols using sevoflurane or a combination of fentanyl, midazolam, and sevoflurane in dogs

ObjectiveTo report serum cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations in dogs anesthetized for elective surgery using two anesthetic protocols.Study designProspective, randomized clinical study.AnimalsTwenty client-owned dogs presenting for elective ovariohysterectomy or castration.MethodsThe dogs were randomized into two groups. All dogs were premedicated with glycopyrrolate (0.011 mg kg^?1) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg kg^?1) IM approximately 30 minutes prior to induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia in dogs in group 1 was induced with propofol (6 mg kg^?1) IV to effect and in dogs in group 2 with diazepam (0.2 mg kg^?1) IV followed by etomidate (2 mg kg^?1) IV to effect. For maintenance of anesthesia, group 1 received sevoflurane (adjustable vaporizer setting 0.5–4%) and group 2 received a combination of fentanyl (0.8 μg kg^?1 minute^?1) and midazolam (8.0 μg kg^?1 minute^?1) IV plus sevoflurane (adjustable vaporizer setting 0.5–4%) to maintain anesthesia. Serum cTnI and CRP concentrations were measured at baseline and 6, 18, and 24 hours post-anesthetic induction. Biochemical analysis was performed at baseline. Lactate was obtained at baseline and 6 hours post-anesthetic induction. Heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure were measured intra-operatively.ResultsBaseline serum cTnI and CRP concentrations were comparable between groups. A significant difference in serum cTnI or CRP concentrations was not detected post-operatively between groups at any time point. Serum CRP concentrations were significantly increased post-anesthetic induction in both groups, which was attributed to surgical trauma.Conclusions and clinical relevanceThere was no significant difference in serum cTnI and CRP concentrations between anesthetic protocols. Further investigation in a larger number of dogs is necessary to confirm the current findings.     

Effects of intravenous acepromazine and butorphanol on propofol dosage for induction of anesthesia in healthy Beagle dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of intravenous (IV) premedication with acepromazine, butorphanol or their combination, on the propofol anesthetic induction dosage in dogs.Study designProspective, blinded, Latin square design.AnimalsA total of three male and three female, healthy Beagle dogs, aged 3.79 ± 0.02 years, weighing 10.6 ± 1.1 kg, mean ± standard deviation.MethodsEach dog was assigned to one of six IV treatments weekly: 0.9% saline (treatment SAL), low-dose acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^–1; treatment LDA), high-dose acepromazine (0.04 mg kg^–1; treatment HDA), low-dose butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^–1; treatment LDB), high-dose butorphanol (0.4 mg kg^–1; treatment HDB); and a combination of acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^–1) with butorphanol (0.2 mg kg^–1; treatment ABC). Physiologic variables and sedation scores were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after premedication. Then propofol was administered at 1 mg kg^–1 IV over 15 seconds, followed by boluses (0.5 mg kg^–1 over 5 seconds) every 15 seconds until intubation. Propofol dose, physiologic variables, recovery time, recovery score and adverse effects were monitored and recorded. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects anova (p < 0.05).ResultsPropofol dosage was lower in all treatments than in treatment SAL (4.4 ± 0.5 mg kg^–1); the largest decrease was recorded in treatment ABC (1.7 ± 0.3 mg kg^–1). Post induction mean arterial pressures (MAPs) were lower than baseline values of treatments LDA, HDA and ABC. Apnea and hypotension (MAP < 60 mmHg) developed in some dogs in all treatments with the greatest incidence of hypotension in treatment ABC (4/6 dogs).Conclusions and clinical relevanceAlthough the largest decrease in propofol dosage required for intubation was after IV premedication with acepromazine and butorphanol, hypotension and apnea still occurred.     

Propofol versus thiopental: effects on peri-induction intraocular pressures in normal dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of propofol or thiopental induction on intraocular pressures (IOP) in normal dogs.Study designProspective randomized experimental study.AnimalsTwenty-two random-source dogs weighing 19.5 ± 5.3 kg.MethodsDogs were randomly assigned to receive propofol 8 mg kg⁻¹ IV (group P) or thiopental 18 mg kg⁻¹ IV (group T) until loss of jaw tone. Direct arterial blood pressure, arterial blood gasses, and IOP were measured at baseline, after pre-oxygenation but before induction, before endotracheal intubation, and after intubation.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with regard to weight, body condition score, breed group, or baseline or before-induction IOP, arterial blood pressure, or blood gases. The baseline IOP was 12.9 mmHg. Before endotracheal intubation, IOP was significantly higher compared to baseline and before induction in dogs receiving propofol. After intubation with propofol, IOP was significantly higher compared to thiopental and was significantly higher compared to before induction. After intubation, IOP was significantly lower compared to before intubation in dogs receiving thiopental. Propofol increased IOP before intubation by 26% over the before-induction score and thiopental increased IOP by 6% at the same interval. The IOP in group P remained 24% over the before induction score whereas thiopental ultimately decreased IOP 9% below baseline after intubation. There was no significant relationship between any cardiovascular or blood gas parameter and IOP at any time. There was no significant relationship between the changes in any cardiovascular or blood gas parameter and the changes in IOP between time points.Conclusions and clinical relevancePropofol caused a significant increase in IOP compared to baseline and thiopental. Thiopental caused an insignificant increase in IOP which decreased after intubation. Propofol should be avoided when possible in induction of anesthesia in animals where a moderate increase in IOP could be harmful.     

Total intravenous anesthesia in domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) with propofol alone or in combination with methadone,nalbuphine or fentanyl for ulna osteotomy

ObjectiveTo compare the propofol infusion rate and cardiopulmonary effects during total intravenous anesthesia with propofol alone and propofol combined with methadone, fentanyl or nalbuphine in domestic chickens undergoing ulna osteotomy.Study designProspective, randomized, experiment trial.AnimalsA total of 59 healthy Hissex Brown chickens weighing 1.5 ± 0.2 kg.MethodsAnesthesia was induced with propofol (9 mg kg^–1) administered intravenously (IV) and maintained with propofol (1.2 mg kg^–1 minute^–1) for 30 minutes. Birds were intubated and supplemented with 100% oxygen through a nonrebreathing circuit under spontaneous ventilation. Thereafter, each animal was randomly assigned to one of four groups: group P, no treatment; group PM, methadone (6 mg kg^–1) intramuscularly (IM); group PN, nalbuphine IM (12.5 mg kg^–1); and group PF, fentanyl IV (30 μg kg^–1 loading dose, 30 μg kg^–1 hour^–1 constant rate infusion). During the osteotomy surgery, the propofol infusion rate was adjusted to avoid movement of birds and provide adequate anesthesia. Pulse rate, invasive blood pressure, respiratory frequency, end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (Pe′CO₂) and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were recorded.ResultsData were available from 58 chickens. The mean ± standard deviation propofol infusion rate (mg kg^–1 minute^–1) for the duration of anesthesia was: group P, 0.81 ± 0.15; group PM, 0.66 ± 0.11; group PN, 0.60 ± 0.14; and group PF, 0.80 ± 0.07. Significant differences were P versus PM (p = 0.042), P versus PN (p = 0.002) and PF versus PN (p = 0.004). Pulse rate, blood pressure and SpO₂ remained acceptable for anesthetized birds with minor differences among groups. Values of Pe′CO₂ >60 mmHg (8 kPa) were observed in all groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMethadone and nalbuphine, but not fentanyl, decreased the propofol infusion rate required for anesthesia maintenance, but resulted in no obvious benefit in physiological variables.     

Effects of graded doses of propofol for anesthesia induction on cardiovascular parameters and intraocular pressures in normal dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the effects of graded doses of propofol on cardiovascular parameters and intraocular pressures (IOP) in normal dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, modified Latin square, cross-over experimental study.AnimalsEleven adult random-source dogs weighing 20.2 ± 5.7 kg.MethodsThere were three treatment groups: propofol 8 mg kg^?1 intravenous (IV) until loss of jaw tone (Group P), propofol until loss of jaw tone +20% (Group P20), and propofol until loss of jaw tone +50% (Group P50). Atracurium 0.1 mg kg^?1 IV was administered in all treatments immediately after the propofol. All dogs received the three treatments in a randomized order, with at least a one week interval between treatments. Direct arterial blood pressure and IOP by applanation tonometry were obtained at baseline, after 5 minutes of pre-oxygenation (before induction), before, and after intubation. Blood gas samples were obtained at baseline, after pre-oxygenation, and before intubation.ResultsThere was no significant difference in IOP readings at any time point among groups. The IOP was significantly higher before intubation versus before induction in all three groups. There was a significantly smaller change in systolic, mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures in the P50 group compared with the P group after intubation. There was a significantly smaller change in MAP and DAP in the P50 group compared with the P20 group after intubation. The increase in CO₂ from before induction to before intubation was significantly greater in the P50 group than in the P or P20 groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceGraded doses of propofol did not affect the increase in IOP observed with propofol induction in normal dogs. Higher doses of propofol are of no apparent additional benefit in animals who cannot tolerate an abrupt increase in IOP but may be of benefit in dogs who cannot tolerate an abrupt increase in blood pressure accompanying orotracheal intubation.     

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.     

An evaluation of anaesthetic induction in healthy dogs using rapid intravenous injection of propofol or alfaxalone

ObjectiveTo evaluate quality of anaesthetic induction and cardiorespiratory effects following rapid intravenous (IV) injection of propofol or alfaxalone.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded clinical study.AnimalsSixty healthy dogs (ASA I/II) anaesthetized for elective surgery or diagnostic procedures.MethodsPremedication was intramuscular acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1) and meperidine (pethidine) (3 mg kg^?1). For anaesthetic induction dogs received either 3 mg kg^?1 propofol (Group P) or 1.5 mg kg^?1 alfaxalone (Group A) by rapid IV injection. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R) and oscillometric arterial pressures were recorded prior to induction, at endotracheal intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. The occurrence of post-induction apnoea or hypotension was recorded. Pre-induction sedation and aspects of induction quality were scored using 4 point scales. Data were analysed using Chi-squared tests, two sample t-tests and general linear model mixed effect anova (p < 0.05).ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with respect to sex, age, body weight, f_R, post-induction apnoea, arterial pressures, hypotension, SpO₂, sedation score or quality of induction scores. Groups behaved differently over time with respect to HR. On induction HR decreased in Group P (?2 ± 28 beats minute^?1) but increased in Group A (14 ± 33 beats minute^?1) the difference being significant (p = 0.047). However HR change following premedication also differed between groups (p = 0.006). Arterial pressures decreased significantly over time in both groups and transient hypotension occurred in eight dogs (five in Group P, three in Group A). Post-induction apnoea occurred in 31 dogs (17 in Group P, 14 in Group A). Additional drug was required to achieve endotracheal intubation in two dogs.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceRapid IV injection of propofol or alfaxalone provided suitable conditions for endotracheal intubation in healthy dogs but post-induction apnoea was observed commonly.     

A comparison of the effects of two different doses of ketamine used for co-induction of anaesthesia with a target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs

ObjectiveTo assess the cardiorespiratory and hypnotic-sparing effects of ketamine co-induction with target-controlled infusion of propofol in dogs.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsNinety healthy dogs (ASA grades I/II). Mean body mass 30.5 ± SD 8.6 kg and mean age 4.2 ± 2.6 years.MethodsAll dogs received pre-anaesthetic medication with acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1) and morphine (0.2 mg kg^?1) administered intramuscularly 30 minutes prior to induction of anaesthesia. Heart rate and respiratory rate were recorded prior to pre-medication. Animals were allocated into three different groups: Group 1 (control) received 0.9% NaCl, group 2, 0.25 mg kg^?1 ketamine and group 3, 0.5 mg kg^?1 ketamine, intravenously 1 minute prior to induction of anaesthesia, which was accomplished using a propofol target-controlled infusion system. The target propofol concentration was gradually increased until endotracheal intubation was possible and the target concentration at intubation was recorded. Heart rate, respiratory rate and noninvasive blood pressure were recorded immediately prior to induction, at successful intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. The quality of induction was graded according to the amount of muscle twitching and paddling observed. Data were analysed using a combination of chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, Kruskal–Wallis, and anova with significance assumed at p< 0.05.ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups in the blood propofol targets required to achieve endotracheal intubation, nor with respect to heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure or quality of induction. Compared with the other groups, the incidence of post-induction apnoea was significantly higher in group 3, but despite this dogs in this group had higher respiratory rates overall.Conclusions and clinical relevanceUnder the conditions of this study, ketamine does not seem to be a useful agent for co-induction of anaesthesia with propofol in dogs.     

Continuous infusion of propofol in dogs premedicated with methotrimeprazine

Objective To evaluate the cardiopulmonary and clinical effects of three different infusion rates of propofol in dogs premedicated with methotrimeprazine. Study design Randomized experimental trial. Animals Ten healthy adult mixed‐breed male and female dogs, weighing from 14 to 20 kg. Methods Dogs were premedicated with methotrimeprazine [1 mg kg^?1 intravenously (IV)] followed by induction of anesthesia with 4.5 mg kg^?1 of propofol IV and maintenance with propofol for 60 minutes as follows: T1, 0.2 mg kg^?1 minute^?1; T2, 0.3 mg kg^?1minute^?1; and T3, 0.4 mg kg^?1minute^?1. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), end‐tidal CO₂ (P_ETCO₂), arterial hemoglobin O₂ saturation, arterial blood gases, and pedal and cutaneous reflexes were measured before and 5, 10, 20, 30, 45 and 60 minutes after the beginning of the propofol infusion. Statistical analysis was performed using an anova . Results Heart rate increased during anesthesia in all cases and arterial blood pressure decreased only in dogs in the T3 category. Respiratory depression was proportional to the infusion rate of propofol. Muscle relaxation was satisfactory, but analgesia was inadequate in the three treatments. Conclusions The infusion of 0.2–0.4 mg kg^?1 minute^?1 of propofol produced a dose‐dependent respiratory depression. The presence of a pedal withdrawal reflex and marked cardiovascular responses to this noxious stimulus suggests that anesthesia may not be of sufficient depth for surgery to be carried out. Clinical relevance Although several studies have been performed using propofol in animals, few studies have investigated the cardiopulmonary and analgesic effects with different doses. The determination of an adequate propofol infusion rate is necessary for the routine use of this intravenous anesthetic for the maintenance of anesthesia during major surgical procedures in dogs.     

The effect of midazolam or lidocaine administration prior to etomidate induction of anesthesia on heart rate,arterial pressure,intraocular pressure and serum cortisol concentration in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate selected effects of midazolam or lidocaine administered prior to etomidate for co-induction of anesthesia in healthy dogs.Study designProspective crossover experimental study.AnimalsA group of 12 healthy adult female Beagle dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with intravenous (IV) butorphanol (0.3 mg kg^–1), and anesthesia was induced with etomidate following midazolam (0.3 mg kg^–1), lidocaine (2 mg kg^–1) or physiologic saline (1 mL) IV. Heart rate (HR), arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate (f_R) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded following butorphanol, after co-induction administration, after etomidate administration and immediately following intubation. Baseline IOP values were also obtained prior to sedation. Etomidate dose requirements and the presence of myoclonus, as well as coughing or gagging during intubation were recorded. Serum cortisol concentrations were measured prior to premedication and 6 hours following etomidate administration.ResultsBlood pressure, f_R and IOP were similar among treatments. Blood pressure decreased in all treatments following etomidate administration and generally returned to sedated values following intubation. HR increased following intubation with midazolam and lidocaine but remained stable in the saline treatment. The dose of etomidate (median, interquartile range, range) required for intubation was lower following midazolam (2.2, 2.1–2.6, 1.7–4.1 mg kg⁻¹) compared with lidocaine (2.7, 2.4–3.6, 2.2–5.1 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.012) or saline (3.0, 2.8–3.8, 1.9–5.1 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.015). Coughing or gagging was less frequent with midazolam compared with saline. Myoclonus was not observed. Changes in serum cortisol concentrations were not different among treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam administration reduced etomidate dose requirements and improved intubation conditions compared with lidocaine or saline treatments. Neither co-induction agent caused clinically relevant differences in measured cardiopulmonary function, IOP or cortisol concentrations compared with saline in healthy dogs. Apnea was noted in all treatments following the induction of anesthesia and preoxygenation is recommended.     

The effect of preanaesthetic oral trazodone hydrochloride on the induction dose of propofol: a preliminary retrospective study

ObjectiveTo determine whether the administration of trazodone to dogs 2 hours prior to radiotherapy treatment reduced the dose of propofol required to induce anaesthesia.Study designRetrospective, crossover, case-matched study.AnimalsRecords of 30 client-owned dogs.MethodsAnaesthetic records from all dogs undergoing weekly radiotherapy treatment between January 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively assessed. All dogs were premedicated with 10 μg kg^–1 alfentanil and 12 μg kg^–1 atropine intravenously (IV) and anaesthesia was induced with IV propofol. In part 1, the propofol induction dose was compared between anaesthetics when trazodone was administered prior to the anaesthetic (T) versus not (NT). For part 2, control dogs not administered trazodone during the treatment course were case-matched based on bodyweight and tumour location and type. The propofol induction dose was compared between the first (C1) and last (C2) anaesthetic to identify the effects of confounding factors. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test for repeated measurements was performed to identify any significant differences in the propofol induction dose between NT and T in the study dogs and between C1 and C2 in the control dogs.ResultsIn part 1, 15 study dogs that were administered trazodone prior to at least one anaesthetic were identified. A significant difference in propofol induction dose between groups NT and T was identified [3.3 (2.1–7.4) and 2.0 (1.5–5.0) mg kg^–1, respectively; p = 0.003]. In part 2, 15 dogs were case-matched to the study cohort. The dose of propofol administered did not differ between the first and last anaesthetic [2.5 (1.6–6.4) and 2.6 (1.9–8.9) mg kg^–1, respectively; p = 0.638].Conclusions and clinical relevancePreanaesthetic trazodone administration reduced the induction dose of propofol compared to when it was not administered to dogs following premedication with IV atropine and alfentanil.     

Echocardiographic evaluation of dogs receiving 1:1 thiopental/propofol in a clinical setting

The purpose of this study was to compare the echocardiographic Doppler blood pressure and heart rate effects of 1:1 thiopental/propofol with thiopental and propofol, when used as anesthesia‐induction agents. Seven healthy dogs (six Beagles and one Pembroke Welsh Corgi), ranging in age from 1 to 9 years and weighing 14.2 ± 2.4 kg (mean ± SD), were used during the study. In a cross‐over study design with a minimum drug interval of 3 days, each dog received propofol, thiopental, or a mixture of propofol–thiopental IV until each dog received all the three anesthetic agents. An initial dose (propofol 4.9 ± 0.8 mg kg^?1; thiopental 12.9 ± 2.4 mg kg^?1; propofol–thiopental 2.3 ± 0.3 mg kg^?1 (P)?5.7 ± 0.8 mg kg^?1 (T)) of each anesthetic agent was titrated IV until intubation was accomplished. Echocardiographic Doppler blood pressure and heart rate variables were recorded prior to anesthesia and at 1, 5, and 10 minutes after induction of anesthesia. anova and the Bonferroni's t‐test were used to evaluate the groups for differences. Alpha was <0.05. There was no significant effect of treatment on systolic or diastolic ventricular wall thickness, septal thickness, left atrial diameter, or systolic left ventricular diameter. There was a tendency for diastolic left ventricular diameter to decrease over time. There was a tendency for heart rate to increase with a significant difference at the 10‐minute time period between propofol (109 ± 26 beats minute^?1) and thiopental (129 ± 23 beats minute^?1). At the 10‐minute recording period, heart rate following the propofol/thiopental mixture (110 ± 34 beats minute^?1) was closer to that following propofol than to that following thiopental. With all induction agents, indirect blood pressure tended to decrease over time (p = 0.005); however, there was no difference between the groups. The changes observed were not considered to be of clinical significance. The propofol/thiopental mixture produces similar changes in echocardiographic variables when compared to propofol or thiopental, and could be substituted for propofol for induction of anesthesia in dogs.