首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
ObjectivesAssess effects of benzodiazepine administration on the propofol dose required to induce anaesthesia in healthy cats, investigate differences between midazolam and diazepam, and determine an optimal benzodiazepine dose for co-induction.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.AnimalsNinety client-owned cats (ASA I and II) with a median (interquartile range) body mass of 4.0 (3.4–4.9) kg.MethodsAll cats received 0.01 mg kg−1 acepromazine and 0.2 mg kg−1 methadone intravenously (IV). Fifteen minutes later, sedation was scored on a scale of 1–5, with 5 indicating greatest sedation. Propofol, 2 mg kg−1, administered IV, was followed by either midazolam or diazepam at 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 or 0.5 mg kg−1 or saline 0.1 mL kg−1. Further propofol was administered until endotracheal intubation was possible. Patient signalment, sedation score, propofol dosage and adverse reactions were recorded.ResultsMidazolam and diazepam (all doses) significantly reduced the propofol dose required compared with saline (p < 0.001). There was no difference between midazolam and diazepam in propofol dose reduction (p = 0.488). All individual doses of midazolam reduced propofol requirement compared with saline (0.2 mg kg−1, p = 0.028; 0.3 mg kg−1, p = 0.006; 0.4 mg kg−1, p < 0.001; 0.5 mg kg−1, p = 0.009). Diazepam 0.2 mg kg−1 did not reduce the propofol dose compared with saline (p = 0.087), but the remaining doses did (0.3 mg kg−1, p = 0.001; 0.4 mg kg−1, p = 0.032; 0.5 mg kg−1, p = 0.041). Cats with sedation scores of 3 required less propofol than cats with scores of 2 (p = 0.008). There was no difference between groups in adverse events.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam (0.2–0.5 mg kg−1) and diazepam (0.3–0.5 mg kg−1) administered IV after 2 mg kg−1 propofol significantly reduced the propofol dose required for tracheal intubation.  相似文献   

2.
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.  相似文献   

3.
ObjectiveTo 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 designProspective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 19 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs 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).ResultsThere 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 relevanceMidazolam 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.  相似文献   

4.

Objective

To evaluate the dose-sparing effect of midazolam or diazepam on the dose of alfaxalone required to achieve endotracheal intubation in premedicated dogs.

Study design

Prospective, randomized, ‘blinded’, controlled clinical trial.

Animals

Ninety healthy dogs anaesthetized for elective surgery or diagnostic procedures.

Methods

Saline (0.1 mL kg–1), or midazolam or diazepam (0.2, 0.3, 0.4 or 0.5 mg kg–1) intravenously (IV) was randomly assigned; investigators were unaware of group designation. After premedication with IV acepromazine 0.01 mg kg–1 and methadone 0.2 mg kg–1, the degree of sedation was assessed. Alfaxalone (0.5 mg kg–1) was administered IV, followed by the assigned treatment. Further alfaxalone was administered until endotracheal intubation could be performed. Ease of endotracheal intubation, pulse rate and arterial blood pressure were assessed. General linear models were used to examine the effect of treatment drug and dose on induction dose of alfaxalone with Tukey’s post hoc tests. Incidence of adverse reactions was assessed with chi-square tests.

Results

There were no significant differences between groups with regard to demographic data or sedation. Median (range) induction dose of alfaxalone in the saline group was 0.74 (0.43–1.26) mg kg–1 compared with 0.5 (0.46–0.75) mg kg–1 and 0.5 (0.42–1.2) mg kg–1 for the midazolam and diazepam groups, respectively. Midazolam 0.3 and 0.5 mg kg–1 (p = 0.005 and 0.044, respectively) and diazepam 0.4 mg kg–1 (p = 0.032) reduced the alfaxalone dose compared with saline. Adverse effects were not significantly different between groups. Midazolam 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 mg kg–1 (p < 0.044, p = 0.001, p = 0.007, p = 0.044, respectively) and diazepam 0.2 and 0.5 mg kg–1 (p = 0.025 and p = 0.025) improved intubation score compared with saline.

Conclusion and clinical relevance

Midazolam 0.3 and 0.5 mg kg–1 and diazepam 0.4 mg kg–1 coadministered at anaesthetic induction allow alfaxalone dose reduction in healthy dogs. Use of benzodiazepines improved the ease of endotracheal intubation.  相似文献   

5.
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.  相似文献   

6.
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 (fR) 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.  相似文献   

7.
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.  相似文献   

8.
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.  相似文献   

9.
ObjectivePropofol may cause adverse effects (e.g. apnoea, hypotension) at induction of anaesthesia. Co-induction of anaesthesia may reduce propofol requirements. The effect of fentanyl or midazolam on propofol dose requirements and cardiorespiratory parameters was studied.Study designRandomized, controlled, blinded clinical study.AnimalsSixty-six client owned dogs (35 male, 31 female, ASA I-II, age 6–120 months, body mass 4.7–48.0 kg) were selected.MethodsPre-medication with acepromazine (0.025 mg kg−1) and morphine (0.25 mg kg−1) was administered by intramuscular injection. After 30 minutes group fentanyl-propofol (FP) received fentanyl (2 μg kg−1), group midazolam-propofol (MP) midazolam (0.2 mg kg−1) injected over 30 seconds via a cephalic catheter and in a third group, control-propofol (CP), the IV catheter was flushed with an equivalent volume of heparinized saline. Anaesthesia was induced 2 minutes later, with propofol (4 mg kg−1minute−1) administered to effect. After endotracheal intubation anaesthesia was maintained with a standardized anaesthetic protocol. Pulse rate, respiratory rate (RR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before the co-induction agent, before induction, and 0, 2 and 5 minutes after intubation. Apnoea ≥30 seconds was recorded and treated. Sedation after pre-medication, activity after the co-induction agent, quality of anaesthetic induction and endotracheal intubation were scored.ResultsPropofol dose requirement was significantly reduced in FP [2.90 mg kg−1(0.57)] compared to CP [3.51 mg kg−1 (0.74)] and MP [3.58 mg kg−1(0.49)]. Mean pulse rate was higher in MP than in CP or FP (p = 0.003). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in mean RR, MAP or incidence of apnoea. Activity score was significantly higher (i.e. more excited) (p = 0.0001), and quality of induction score was significantly poorer (p = 0.0001) in MP compared to CP or FP. Intubation score was similar in all groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceFentanyl decreased propofol requirement but did not significantly alter cardiovascular parameters. Midazolam did not reduce propofol requirements and caused excitement in some animals.  相似文献   

10.
ObjectiveTo investigate the cardiorespiratory, nociceptive and endocrine effects of the combination of propofol and remifentanil, in dogs sedated with acepromazine.Study designProspective randomized, blinded, cross-over experimental trial.AnimalsTwelve healthy adult female cross-breed dogs, mean weight 18.4 ± 2.3 kg.MethodsDogs were sedated with intravenous (IV) acepromazine (0.05 mg kg?1) followed by induction of anesthesia with IV propofol (5 mg kg?1). Anesthesia was maintained with IV propofol (0.2 mg kg?1 minute?1) and remifentanil, infused as follows: R1, 0.125 μg kg?1 minute?1; R2, 0.25 μg kg?1 minute?1; and R3, 0.5 μg kg?1 minute?1. The same dogs were administered each dose of remifentanil at 1-week intervals. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (fR), end tidal CO2 (Pe′CO2), arterial hemoglobin O2 saturation, blood gases, and rectal temperature were measured before induction, and 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, and 120 minutes after beginning the infusion. Nociceptive response was investigated by electrical stimulus (50 V, 5 Hz and 10 ms). Blood samples were collected for plasma cortisol measurements. Statistical analysis was performed by anova (p < 0.05).ResultsIn all treatments, HR decreased during anesthesia with increasing doses of remifentanil, and increased significantly immediately after the end of infusion. MAP remained stable during anesthesia (72–98 mmHg). Antinociception was proportional to the remifentanil infusion dose, and was considered satisfactory only with R2 and R3. Plasma cortisol concentration decreased during anesthesia in all treatments. Recovery was smooth and fast in all dogs.Conclusions and clinical relevanceInfusion of 0.25–0.5 μg kg?1 minute?1 remifentanil combined with 0.2 mg kg?1 minute?1 propofol produced little effect on arterial blood pressure and led to a good recovery. The analgesia produced was sufficient to control the nociceptive response applied by electrical stimulation, suggesting that it may be appropriate for performing surgery.  相似文献   

11.
  相似文献   

12.
  相似文献   

13.
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 (fR) 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. fR 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 fR decreased, but mean values remained clinically acceptable.  相似文献   

14.

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.  相似文献   

15.
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 (fR) 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, fR 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.  相似文献   

16.
ObjectiveTo determine the anaesthetic and cardiorespiratory effects of a constant rate infusion of fentanyl in sheep anaesthetized with isoflurane and undergoing orthopaedic surgery.Study designProspective, randomised, ‘blinded’ controlled study.AnimalsTwenty healthy sheep (weight mean 41.1 ± SD 4.5 kg).MethodsSheep were sedated with intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine (4 μg kg−1) and morphine (0.2 mg kg−1). Anaesthesia was induced with propofol (1 mg kg−1 minute−1 to effect IV) and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen and a continuous rate infusion (CRI) of fentanyl 10 μg kg−1 hour−1 (group F) or saline (group P) for 100 minutes. The anaesthetic induction dose of propofol, isoflurane expiratory fraction (Fe’iso) required for maintenance and cardiorespiratory measurements were recorded and blood gases analyzed at predetermined intervals. The quality of recovery was assessed. Results were compared between groups using t-tests or Mann–Whitney as relevant.ResultsThe propofol induction dose was 4.7 ± 2.4 mg kg−1. Fe’iso was significantly lower (by 22.6%) in group F sheep than group P (p = 0). Cardiac index (mean ± SD mL kg−1 minute−1) was significantly (p = 0.012) lower in group F (90 ± 15) than group P (102 ± 35). Other measured cardiorespiratory parameters did not differ statistically significantly between groups. Recovery times and recovery quality were statistically similar in both groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceFentanyl reduced isoflurane requirements without clinically affecting the cardiorespiratory stability or post-operative recovery in anaesthetized sheep undergoing orthopaedic surgery.  相似文献   

17.
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.  相似文献   

18.
  相似文献   

19.
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 (fR) 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 fR 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.  相似文献   

20.
ObjectiveTo compare dexmedetomidine with acepromazine for premedication combined with methadone in dogs undergoing brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS) surgery.Study designRandomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsA group of 40 dogs weighing mean (± standard deviation) 10.5 ± 6 kg, aged 2.6 ± 1.9 years.MethodsDogs received either acepromazine 20 μg kg–1 (group A) or dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg–1 (group D) intramuscularly with methadone 0.3 mg kg–1. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with sevoflurane. Sedation (0–18), induction (0–6) and recovery (0–5) qualities were scored. Propofol dose, hypotension incidence, mechanical ventilation requirement, extubation time, additional sedation, oxygen supplementation, regurgitation and emergency intubation following premedication or during recovery were recorded. Data were analysed using t tests, Mann-Whitney U or Chi-square tests.ResultsGroup A dogs were less sedated [median (range): 1.5 (0–12)] than group D [5 (1–18)] (p = 0.021) and required more propofol [3.5 (1–7) versus 2.4 (1–8) mg kg–1; p = 0.018]. Induction scores [group A: 5 (4–5); group D 5 (3–5)] (p = 0.989), recovery scores [group A 5 (4–5); group D 5(3–5)](p = 0.738) and anaesthesia duration [group A:93 (50–170); group D 96 (54–263) minutes] (p = 0.758) were similar between groups. Time to extubation was longer in group A 12.5 (3-35) versus group D 5.5 (0–15) minutes; (p = 0.005). During recovery, two dogs required emergency intubation (p > 0.99) and five dogs required additional sedation (p > 0.99). Oxygen supplementation was required in 16 and 12 dogs in group A and D, respectively (p = 0.167); no dogs in group A and one dog in group D regurgitated (p = 0.311).Conclusions and clinical relevanceDexmedetomidine 2 μg kg–1 produces more sedation but similar recovery quality to acepromazine 20 μg kg–1 combined with methadone in dogs undergoing BOAS surgery.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号