Evaluation of the effect of different sedative doses of dexmedetomidine on the intestinal motility in clinically healthy donkeys (Equus asinus)

AIM

Gastrointestinal effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine in donkeys are still unidentified. The current study aimed to evaluate the impact of different doses of dexmedetomidine on the motility of selected parts of the gastrointestinal tracts in donkeys using transabdominal ultrasonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An experimental crossover study was conducted on 30 healthy donkeys of both sexes (15 males and 15 females; 160 ± 60 kg). With a two-week washout period, each donkey received an injection of either a normal saline solution or three different doses of dexmedetomidine (3, 5, and 7 μg/kg, respectively). All medications were administered intravenously in equal volumes. The contractility of selected intestinal segments (duodenum, jejunum, left colon, right colon, and cecum) was measured 3 min before administration (zero time) and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after administration.

RESULTS

Small and large intestinal motility was within the normal ranges before IV injection of normal isotonic saline or dexmedetomidine at a dose of 3, 5, and 7 μg/kg. Two Way Repeated Measures ANOVA output of the data displayed a statistically significant the between time and treatments for the contractility of each of the duodenum (P = 0.0029), jejunum (P = 0.0033), left colon (P = 0.0073), right colon (P = 0.0035), and cecum (P = 0.0026), implying that the impact of treatment on the gastric motility varied among different time points. The simple main effect analysis revealed that the IV dexmedetomidine at 3, 5, and 7 μg/kg doses significantly inhibited (P ≤ 0.01) the bowel contractility compared to the administration of isotonic saline.

CONCLUSION

Dose-dependent inhibitory effect of dexmedetomidine on intestinal motility was reported in donkeys following intravenous administration. This inhibitory effect on intestinal motility should be considered in clinical practice.

Plasma concentrations at two dexmedetomidine constant rate infusions in isoflurane anaesthetized horses: a clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To determine dexmedetomidine plasma concentrations at two infusion rates in isoflurane anaesthetized horses and compare cardiovascular effects and anaesthetic recovery between treatments.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, masked clinical study.

ANIMALS

Healthy, adult, client-owned, non-food producing horses presented for castration.

METHODS

Premedication consisted of acepromazine, romifidine and morphine, and anaesthesia was induced with ketamine and midazolam. The horses were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg kg^-1 hour^-1 (treatment DL, n = 7) or 1.75 μg kg^-1 hour^-1 (treatment DH, n = 7) for 90 minutes of isoflurane anaesthesia at an end-tidal concentration of 1.2%. Venous plasma concentrations were determined with liquid chromatography-electrospray-ionization-tandem mass spectrometry. Jugular venous and arterial blood was sampled for blood gas analysis at the start and end of the infusion. Changes in cardiovascular variables from the start to the end of the infusion, and recovery parameters were statistically compared between treatments.

RESULTS

Fourteen male horses, 2-6 years old, 325-536 kg were included. Mean ± standard deviation dexmedetomidine plasma concentrations at 30, 60 and 90 minutes with treatment DL were 0.22 ± 0.05, 0.29 ± 0.07 and 0.33 ± 0.08 ng mL^-1, and with treatment DH were 0.65 ± 0.11, 0.89 ± 0.10 and 1.01 ± 0.10 ng mL^-1. The 95% confidence interval for change minute^-1 in dexmedetomidine plasma concentrations between 75 and 90 minutes was 0-1% for both treatments. With treatment DH, the heart rate decreased significantly more from the beginning to the end of the infusion compared to DL (p = 0.043). No other significant differences were found between treatments in cardiovascular or recovery parameters.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Infusion of dexmedetomidine in isoflurane anaesthetized horses resulted in plasma concentrations with low variation at both infusion rates, approaching stable levels after 75 minutes of infusion. No differences of clinical importance were found when comparing cardiovascular variables and quality of recovery between treatments.