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

Effects of intranasal and intramuscular dexmedetomidine in cats receiving total intravenous propofol anesthesia

Background and Aim:

The efficacy of intranasal (IN) dexmedetomidine in cats as a premedication remains elusive. Thus, this study aimed to compare the perioperative and sparing effects of IN and intramuscular (IM) dexmedetomidine administration on propofol requirements for anesthetic induction in cats.

Materials and Methods:

This study randomly assigned 16 cats into two groups of IN or IM dexmedetomidine at 20 μg/kg. Sedation scores and side effects were recorded at time points of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min after the dexmedetomidine administration. Anesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) 1% propofol by titrating a bolus of 2 mg every 45 s and the total dose of the administered IV propofol to achieve endotracheal intubation was recorded.

Results:

Cats receiving IM dexmedetomidine were significantly associated with higher sedation scores. All cats were sedated at 20 min after premedication; however, the average composite sedation scores in the IN group were significantly lower than those in the IM group during premedication. Pre-operative side effects, including vomiting, were more frequently observed in the IN group (5 cats, 62.5%) than in the IM group (3 cats, 37.5%; p < 0.05). Higher body temperature (>1°F compared to baseline) was more frequently observed in the IN group (6 cats, 75.0%) than in the IM group (1 cat, 12.5%; p < 0.05). The dosage of required propofol in the IN group was significantly higher (1.1 ± 0.3 mg/kg) than that in the IM group (0.7 ± 0.2 mg/kg; p < 0.05). The duration of general anesthesia was comparable between the groups.

Conclusion:

IN dexmedetomidine produces moderate sedation and cats may have side effects, including vomiting and higher body temperature. Higher sparing effects of propofol were identified in the IM group compared with the IN group. Nonetheless, IN administration of dexmedetomidine provides a noninvasive alternative to the IM route.

Effects of a priming dose of alfaxalone on the total anesthetic induction dose for and cardiorespiratory function of sedated healthy cats

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of a priming dose of alfaxalone on the total anesthetic induction dose for and cardiorespiratory function of sedated healthy cats.

ANIMALS

8 healthy adult cats.

PROCEDURES

For this crossover study, cats were sedated with dexmedetomidine and methadone administered IM. Cats next received a priming induction dose of alfaxalone (0.25 mg/kg, IV) or saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (0.025 mL/kg, IV) over 60 seconds and then an induction dose of alfaxalone (0.5 mg/kg/min, IV) until orotracheal intubation was achieved. Cardiorespiratory variables were recorded at baseline (immediately prior to priming agent administration), immediately after priming agent administration, after orotracheal intubation, and every 2 minutes until extubation. The total induction dose of alfaxalone was compared between the 2 priming agents.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD total anesthetic induction dose of alfaxalone was significantly lower when cats received a priming dose of alfaxalone (0.98 ± 0.28 mg/kg), compared with when cats received a priming dose of saline solution (1.41 ± 0.17 mg/kg). Mean arterial blood pressure was significantly higher when alfaxalone was used as the priming dose. No cats became apneic or had a hemoglobin oxygen saturation of < 90%. Expired volume per minute was not significantly different between the 2 priming agents.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Administration of a priming dose of alfaxalone to healthy sedated cats reduced the total dose of alfaxalone needed to achieve orotracheal intubation, maintained mean arterial blood pressure, and did not adversely impact the measured respiratory variables.

Effects of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of lidocaine as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate and anesthetized with isoflurane.

ANIMALS

40 client-owned dogs (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification I or II and age ≥ 6 months) scheduled to undergo anesthesia for elective procedures.

PROCEDURES

In a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial, dogs received 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution (2.0 mg/kg [0.9 mg/lb], IV; n = 20) or buffered crystalloid solution (0.1 mL/kg [0.05 mL/lb], IV; 20; control treatment) after premedication with acepromazine (0.005 mg/kg [0.002 mg/lb], IM) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg, IM). Anesthesia was induced with propofol (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb], IV, with additional doses administered as needed) and maintained with isoflurane. Sedation was assessed, and anesthetic and cardiopulmonary variables were measured at various points; values were compared between treatment groups.

RESULTS

Propofol doses, total sedation scores, and anesthetic and most cardiopulmonary measurements did not differ significantly between treatment groups over the monitoring period; only oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry differed significantly (lower in the lidocaine group). Mean ± SD propofol dose required for endotracheal intubation was 1.30 ± 0.68 mg/kg (0.59 ± 0.31 mg/lb) and 1.41 ± 0.40 mg/kg (0.64 ± 0.18 mg/lb) for the lidocaine and control groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

No propofol-sparing effect was observed with administration of lidocaine as a coinduction agent for the premedicated dogs of this study. Mean propofol doses required for endotracheal intubation were considerably lower than currently recommended doses for premedicated dogs. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2020;256:93-101).

Dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in critically ill dogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥III dogs requiring emergency abdominal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.

ANIMALS

A total of 19 client-owned dogs.

METHODS

Dogs were sedated with fentanyl (2 μg kg^-1) intravenously (IV) for instrumentation for measurement of heart rate, arterial blood pressure, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate and rectal temperature. After additional IV fentanyl (3 μg kg^-1), the quality of sedation was scored and cardiopulmonary variables recorded. Induction of anesthesia was with IV propofol (1 mg kg^-1) and saline (0.06 mL kg^-1; group PS; nine dogs) or midazolam (0.3 mg kg^-1; group PM; 10 dogs), with additional propofol (0.25 mg kg^-1) IV every 6 seconds until endotracheal intubation. Induction/intubation quality was scored, and anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane. Variables were recorded for 5 minutes with the dog in lateral recumbency, breathing spontaneously, and then in dorsal recumbency with mechanical ventilation for the next 15 minutes. A general linear mixed model was used with post hoc analysis for multiple comparisons between groups (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

There were no differences in group demographics, temperature and cardiopulmonary variables between groups or within groups before or after induction. The propofol doses for induction of anesthesia were significantly different between groups, 1.9 ± 0.5 and 1.1 ± 0.5 mg kg^-1 for groups PS and PM, respectively, and the induction/intubation score was significantly better for group PM.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Midazolam co-induction reduced the propofol induction dose and improved the quality of induction in critically ill dogs without an improvement in cardiopulmonary variables, when compared with a higher dose of propofol alone.

Co-induction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone and midazolam in dogs: a randomized, blinded clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To qualitatively assess the co-induction of anaesthesia with midazolam and alfaxalone and to determine cardiovascular or respiratory alterations compared with alfaxalone alone.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, blinded, clinical trial.

ANIMALS

A total of 29 American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I or II, client-owned dogs undergoing elective orthopaedic or soft tissue surgery.

METHODS

All dogs received 0.02 mg kg^-1 acepromazine and 0.3 mg kg^-1 methadone intramuscularly 30 minutes prior to anaesthesia. Measurements of heart rate (HR), respiratory frequency and blood pressure (BP) were assessed pre-induction and at 0, 2 and 5 minutes post-induction. Anaesthesia was induced with 0.5 mg kg^-1 alfaxalone followed by either 0.4 mg kg^-1 midazolam intravenously (group M) or an equal volume of saline (group S). Conditions were assessed for intubation and further boluses of 0.25 mg kg^-1 alfaxalone were given as required. Response to co-induction, ease of intubation and quality of induction were scored, and total dose of alfaxalone required for intubation was recorded. Repeated measures one-way analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey's test was used to assess within group changes over time and Student t tests were used to compare between groups. Incidence of apnoea was assessed using a Fisher's exact test. Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

Group M included 14 dogs and group S 15 dogs. There was a significant difference in the total dose of alfaxalone required for intubation, 0.65 ± 0.20 mg kg^-1 group M and 0.94 ± 0.26 mg kg^-1 group S (p = 0.002). Apnoea occurred significantly more frequently in group M (p = 0.007). There were no clinically significant differences in HR or BP at the measured time points between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Co-induction with midazolam had significant alfaxalone-sparing effects with no clinically detectable cardiovascular changes. Apnoea is common after co-induction.

Determination of midazolam dose for co-induction with alfaxalone in sedated cats

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the median effective dose 50 (ED₅₀) of midazolam required for endotracheal intubation when used for co-induction of anesthesia with a low dose of alfaxalone in sedated cats.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized up-and-down study.

ANIMALS

A group of 14 mixed-breed cats (eight males, six females), aged 5-12 years and weighing 4.4-6.8 kg.

METHODS

The cats were randomly assigned in a sequential allocation numbers from one to 14. Cats were sedated with dexmedetomidine (3 μg kg^-1) and methadone (0.3 mg kg^-1) intramuscularly. After 15 minutes, the quality of sedation was subjectively evaluated. Anesthesia induction was performed by intravenous (IV) administration of alfaxalone (0.25 mg kg^-1) over a 60 second interval, followed by another 60 second interval, and then an IV dose of midazolam was administered over a 5 second interval. The initial midazolam dose was 0.3 mg kg^-1; then, the midazolam dose was adjusted by ±0.1 mg kg^-1 for each consecutive cat based on successful or unsuccessful endotracheal intubation of the previous animal following an up-and-down method. This sequence was followed until six nonsequential crossovers were observed. Crossover was defined as two opposite outcomes in two sequential animals. Data were analyzed using isotonic regression with bootstrapping for determination of midazolam ED₅₀ and logistic regression for correlations (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Overall, six independent crossovers were found, and ED₅₀ of midazolam was 0.08 ± 0.04 mg kg^-1. Sedation score and successful tracheal intubation had a strong positive correlation (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study determined that 0.08 ± 0.04 mg kg^-1 of midazolam co-administered with 0.25 mg kg^-1 of alfaxalone IV allowed smooth endotracheal intubation in half of the cats sedated with methadone and dexmedetomidine at the doses used in this study.

Comparison of fentanyl and hydromorphone constant rate infusions for pain management in dogs in an intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and quality of analgesia provided by constant rate infusions (CRIs) of hydromorphone and fentanyl in dogs in the intensive care unit (ICU).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.

ANIMALS

A total of 29 client-owned dogs.

METHODS

Dogs prescribed a μ-opioid agonist infusion for postsurgical or medical pain were randomized to be administered either hydromorphone (0.025 or 0.05 mg kg^-1 bolus, followed by a 0.03 mg kg^-1 hour^-1 infusion) or fentanyl (2.5 or 5 μg kg^-1 bolus, followed by a 3 μg kg^-1 hour^-1 infusion). The technical staff and clinicians were blinded as to which drug was administered. Pain scores, using the Colorado State University Canine Acute Pain Scale, sedation scores and nausea scores were assigned at regular intervals and compared between groups. Dose escalation and de-escalation of the study drug were performed according to set protocols. Adverse clinical signs and all other medications administered were recorded and compared between groups. The study drug was discontinued if the animal remained painful despite dose escalations, or if adverse effects were noted.

RESULTS

The pain scores were of low magnitude and were not significantly different between groups. The use of concurrent analgesia, sedation/anxiolytic medications and antacid/antiemetic medications was not different between groups. Sedation and nausea scores were not statistically different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Hydromorphone and fentanyl CRIs appear to be equally effective for adequate pain relief in dogs, with no significant differences in adverse effects. Therefore, either drug may be chosen for control of postsurgical or medical pain in an ICU setting.

Head Trauma

Head trauma is a common cause of significant morbidity and mortality in dogs and cats. Traumatic brain injury may occur after head trauma. Understanding the pathophysiology of primary and secondary injury after head trauma is essential for management. This article reviews the pathophysiology of head trauma, patient assessment and diagnostics, and treatment recommendations.

Evaluation of the use of midazolam as a co-induction agent with ketamine for anaesthesia in sedated ponies undergoing field castration

BACKGROUND

There are limited investigations comparing ketamine to a ketamine-midazolam co-induction.

OBJECTIVES

To compare quality and safety of general anaesthesia induced using ketamine alone with anaesthesia co-induced using ketamine and midazolam.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised, double blinded, placebo controlled trial.

METHODS

After i.v. detomidine (20 μg/kg) thirty-eight ponies undergoing field castration received either 0.06 mg/kg (0.6 mL/50 kg) midazolam (group M) or 0.6 mL/50 kg placebo (group P) with 2.2 mg/kg ketamine i.v. for anaesthetic induction. Quality of anaesthetic induction, endotracheal intubation, surgical relaxation and recovery were scored using combinations of simple descriptive and visual analogue scales. Time of sedation, induction, start of endotracheal intubation, first movement, sternal recumbency and standing were recorded, as were time, number and total quantity of additional i.v. detomidine and ketamine injections. Cardiorespiratory variables were assessed every 5 min. Adverse effects were documented. Data were tested for normality and analysed with a mixed model ANOVA, Fisher's exact test, unpaired Students' t test and Wilcoxon Rank-sum as appropriate; P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Group M had better scores for induction (P = 0.005), intubation (P<0.001) and surgical relaxation (P<0.001) and required fewer additional injections of detomidine and ketamine (P = 0.04). Time (minutes) from induction to first movement (P<0.001), sternal recumbency (P =< 0.001) and standing was longer (P = 0.05) in group M. Recoveries were uneventful with no difference in quality between groups (P = 0.78).

MAIN LIMITATIONS

Clinical study with noninvasive monitoring undertaken in field conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine-midazolam co-induction compared to ketamine alone improved quality of induction, ease of intubation and muscle relaxation without impacting recovery quality.

Clinico-anesthetic changes following administration of propofol alone and in combination of meperidine and pentazocine lactate in dogs

Aim:

The aim of this study is to find out the effect of propofol and its combination with meperidine and pentazocine lactate on certain clinico-anesthetic profiles in dogs.

Materials and Methods:

15 apparently healthy mongrel dogs of either sex of about 1 year of age were randomly divided into three groups of five dogs each. The animals of Group I were administered propofol intravenously alone “to effect,” whereas meperidine at 2 mg/kgb.wt. and pentazocine lactate at 2 mg/kg b.wt. were injected intramuscularly 15 min before propofol “to effect” in Groups II and III, respectively. Atropine sulfate at 0.04 mg/kgb.wt. was injected intramuscularly 20 min before each treatment. Rectal temperature, heart rate, respiration rate, and anesthetic indices were recorded before and at 5, 10, 20, 30, and 60 min of induction.

Results:

As compared to Group I, the animals of Groups II and III exhibited a significant decrease (p<0.05) in the level of rectal temperature, respiration rate, and heart rate. Duration of recumbency, time of standing, time of recovery as well as the duration of analgesia were longer in pentazocine lactate (Group III) followed by meperidine (Group II) as compared to propofol alone (Group I). Meperidine treated dogs showed defecation and muscle twitching during anesthesia.

Conclusion:

Meperidine and pentazocine are suitable opioids used in combination with propofol for achieving surgical anesthesia and helpful in reduction of propofol dose.

Anaesthetic management of a unilateral adrenalectomy of an adrenocortical tumour in a dog

Adrenalectomies in dogs are being more commonly performed, however anaesthetic management of such cases can be challenging due to the multiple aetiologies of adrenal tumours and the physiological role of adrenal glands. This case report describes the anaesthetic management of a dog with clinical signs of hyperadrenocorticism that underwent unilateral adrenalectomy via laparotomy and discusses anaesthetic preparedness, protocol selection and management of complications for dogs undergoing adrenalectomy.

Clinical effects of midazolam or lidocaine co-induction with a propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the propofol requirement, cardiovascular and respiratory variables using midazolam or lidocaine with a propofol target-controlled infusion (PTCI) for induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled blinded clinical trial.

ANIMALS

Sixty client-owned dogs [American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II] undergoing surgical procedures.

METHODS

Thirty minutes after premedication with acepromazine (0.03 mg kg(-1) ) and morphine (0.2 mg kg(-1) ), PTCI was started and maintained at a plasma target concentration of 1 μg mL(-1) . Three minutes later, dogs (n = 20 per group) received either 5 mL 0.9% sodium chloride (SG), 2 mg kg(-1) of lidocaine (LG) or 0.2 mg kg(-1) of midazolam (MG) intravenously (IV) as a co-induction agent. Two minutes later, suitability for endotracheal intubation was assessed. If intubation was not possible, the propofol target was increased by 0.5 μg mL(-1) every 60 seconds until it was successfully achieved. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (fR ), and oscillometric systolic arterial pressure (SAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) were recorded immediately prior to commencing PTCI (B0), prior to intubation (BI), immediately after (T0), and at 3 (T3) and 5 (T5) minutes post-intubation. End-tidal partial pressures of carbon dioxide (PE(') CO2 ) were recorded at T0, T3 and T5. The occurrence of excitement at any time point was noted.

RESULTS

The median (range) propofol target concentration for endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in MG, 1.5 (1.0-4.0) μg mL(-1) compared with LG, 2.5 (1.5-4.5) μg mL(-1) or SG, 3.0 (2.0-5.0) μg mL(-1) . Heart rate, MAP, fR and PE(') CO2 were similar in the three groups at all time points. No excitement was reported in any dog.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Midazolam, but not lidocaine, provided a significant reduction in PTCI requirement for induction of anaesthesia thereby allowing successful intubation. However, cardiovascular and respiratory effects were not different between the groups.

Anaesthetic induction and recovery characteristics of a diazepam-ketamine combination compared with propofol in dogs

Induction of anaesthesia occasionally has been associated with undesirable behaviour in dogs. High quality of induction of anaesthesia with propofol has been well described while in contrast variable induction and recovery quality has been associated with diazepam-ketamine. In this study, anaesthetic induction and recovery characteristics of diazepam-ketamine combination with propofol alone were compared in dogs undergoing elective orchidectomy. Thirty-six healthy adult male dogs were used. After habitus scoring (simple descriptive scale [SDS]), the dogs were sedated with morphine and acepromazine. Forty minutes later a premedication score (SDS) was allocated and general anaesthesia was induced using a combination of diazepam-ketamine (Group D/K) or propofol (Group P) and maintained with isoflurane. Scores for the quality of induction, intubation and degree of myoclonus were allocated (SDS). Orchidectomy was performed after which recovery from anaesthesia was scored (SDS) and times to extubation and standing were recorded. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Kappa Reliability and Kendall Tau B tests. Both groups were associated with acceptable quality of induction and recovery from anaesthesia. Group P, however, was associated with a poorer quality of induction (p = 0.014), prolonged induction period (p = 0.0018) and more pronounced myoclonus (p = 0.003), but had better quality of recovery (p = 0.000002) and shorter recovery times (p = 0.035) compared with Group D/K. Diazepam-ketamine and propofol are associated with acceptable induction and recovery from anaesthesia. Propofol had inferior anaesthetic induction characteristics, but superior and quicker recovery from anaesthesia compared with diazepam-ketamine.