Author:
Lervik Andreas,Toverud Simen Forr,Krontveit Randi,Haga Henning Andreas
Abstract
Abstract
Background
General anaesthesia in pigs maintained with intravenous drugs such as propofol may cause respiratory depression. Alfaxalone gives less respiratory depression than propofol in some species. The aim of the investigation was to compare respiratory effects of propofol–ketamine–dexmedetomidine and alfaxalone–ketamine–dexmedetomidine in pigs. Sixteen pigs premedicated with ketamine 15 mg/kg and midazolam 1 mg/kg intramuscularly were anaesthetised with propofol or alfaxalone to allow endotracheal intubation, followed by propofol 8 mg/kg/h or alfaxalone 5 mg/kg/h in combination with ketamine 5 mg/kg/h and dexmedetomidine 4 µg/kg/h given as a continuous infusion for 60 min. The pigs breathed spontaneously with an FIO2 of 0.21. Oxygen saturation (SpO2), end-tidal CO2 concentration (PE′CO2), respiratory rate (fR) and inspired tidal volume (VT) were measured, and statistically compared between treatments. If the SpO2 dropped below 80% or if PE′CO2 increased above 10.0 kPa, the pigs were recorded as failing to complete the study, and time to failure was statistically compared between treatments.
Results
Alfaxalone treated pigs had significantly higher respiratory rates and lower PE′CO2 than propofol treated pigs, with a fR being 7.3 /min higher (P = 0.01) and PE′CO2 0.8 kPa lower (P = 0.05). SpO2 decreased by 0.6% and fR by 1.0 /min per kg increase in body weight in both treatment groups. Three of eight propofol treated and two of eight alfaxalone treated pigs failed to complete the study, and times to failure were not significantly different between treatments (P = 0.75).
Conclusions
No major differences in respiratory variables were found when comparing treatments. Respiratory supportive measures must be available when using both protocols.
Funder
Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Medical Services
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Veterinary,General Medicine
Reference32 articles.
1. Goolsby C, Branting A, Ausman J, Williams D, Ausman C, David J, et al. Systematic review of live tissue versus simulation education for prehospital trauma providers. Mil Med. 2017;182:e1824–e18331833.
2. Lundeen G, Manohar M, Parks C. Systemic distribution of blood flow in swine while awake and during 1.0 and 1.5 MAC isoflurane anesthesia with or without 50% nitrous oxide. Anesth Analg. 1983;62(5):499–512.
3. Clarke K, Trim C, Hall L. General pharmacology of the injectable agents used in anaesthesia. Veterinary Anaesthesia. 11thth ed ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2014. p. 135–55.
4. Lervik A, Raszplewicz J, Ranheim B, Solbak S, Toverud SF, Haga HA. Dexmedetomidine or fentanyl? Cardiovascular stability and analgesia during propofol–ketamine total intravenous anaesthesia in experimental pigs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2018;45(3):295–308.
5. Nolan A, Reid J. Pharmacokinetics of propofol administered by infusion in dogs undergoing surgery. Br J Anaesth. 1993;70(5):546–51.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献