Macrocirculatory Parameters and Oxygen Debt Indices in Pigs During Propofol Or Alfaxalone Anesthesia When Subjected to Experimental Stepwise Hemorrhage

Background: Pigs are anesthetized when used for emergency procedures live tissue training (LTT) of civilian and military medical personnel or for experimental purposes, but there is a paucity in the literature regarding anesthesia of pigs for this purpose. Objective(s): The main goals of the study were to compare oxygen debt, macrocirculatory parameters, and time to cardiac arrest between pigs in hemorrhagic shock and anesthetized with propofol-ketamine-dexmedetomidine or alfaxalone-ketamine-dexmedetomidine. Design: A prospective, non-blinded randomized study design was used. Sixteen pigs were randomized in blocks of four to be anesthetized with either propofol-ketamine-dexmedetomidine (n = 8) or alfaxalone-ketamine-dexmedetomidine (n = 8) as a continuous infusion. Interventions: Premedication with ketamine 15 mg kg^-1 and midazolam 1 mg kg^-1 was given i.m. Anesthesia was maintained with propofol 8 mg kg^-1 h^-1 or alfaxalone 5 mg kg^-1 h^-1 combined with ketamine 5 mg kg^-1 h^-1 and dexmedetomidine 4 μg kg^-1 h^-1 i.v. A stepwise, volume-controlled model for hemorrhage was created by exsanguination. Main Outcome Measures: Indices of oxygen debt (lactate, base excess, and oxygen extraction), macrocirculatory (PR, SAP, DAP, MAP, and CI, SVI, and TPR) variables, and time to death was compared between groups. Results: Pigs in the alfaxalone group had significantly higher SAP than pigs given propofol. No difference in other macrocirculatory variables or indices of oxygen debt could be found. A blood loss of 50% of the total blood volume or more was possible in most pigs with both anesthetic regimes. Conclusions: Pigs anesthetized with propofol or alfaxalone combined with ketamine and dexmedetomidine tolerated substantial blood loss.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2011

This paper is the thirty-fourth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2011 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).