A comparison of cardiopulmonary and anesthetic effects of an induction dose of alfaxalone or propofol in dogs |
| |
| Authors: | Jill K Maney Molly K Shepard Christina Braun Jeannette Cremer Erik H Hofmeister |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Large Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, , Athens, GA, USA;2. Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, , Athens, GA, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | alfaxalone anesthesia cardiopulmonary dog propofol recovery |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
