Anesthesiology
Masoud Khaleghi; Ali Asghar Sarchahi; Hossein Kazemi Mehrjerdi; Mehdi Rasekh; Dariush Saadati
Volume 15, Issue 4 , April 2024, , Pages 187-194
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three anesthetic agents, with premedication of medetomidine and midazolam, on electrocardiographic variables in dogs. Ten adult mixed breed dogs were used in a crossover design study, where they received ketamine, propofol and isoflurane treatments ...
Read More
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three anesthetic agents, with premedication of medetomidine and midazolam, on electrocardiographic variables in dogs. Ten adult mixed breed dogs were used in a crossover design study, where they received ketamine, propofol and isoflurane treatments with a one-week washout period between them. In all three groups, medetomidine was administered first followed by midazolam after 15 min. Then, after 20 min, group 1 received ketamine intravenously (IV), group 2 received propofol (IV), and group 3 received isoflurane (inhalation). In all dogs, electrocardiographs were taken before and after premedication’s, as well as every 15 min during anesthesia. Medetomidine significantly decreased heart rate and P wave amplitude and increased PR interval, R wave amplitude, QT interval, and T wave amplitude. Midazolam increased the amplitude of the R and T waves. Ketamine increased the heart rate and PR interval. Propofol increased the heart rate for up to 15 min, decreased the PR interval for up to 30 min, and the QT interval for up to 45 min. Isoflurane increased the heart rate and decreased the amplitude of R and T waves. The results showed that the drugs used in this study did not have many side effects on electrocardiographic variables and could be used without serious concern. The most important side effects observed were a severe reduction in heart rate and 1st degree atrioventricular (AV) block and, to a lesser extent, 2nd degree AV block caused by medetomidine and midazolam which were masked by the anesthetics.
Keyvan Khojasteh; Nasser Vesal
Volume 14, Issue 2 , February 2023, , Pages 79-85
Abstract
In a prospective, randomized, experimental non-blinded study, the continuous infusions rates of propofol required to prevent swallowing (P-SR) or pedal withdrawal reflex (P-WR) were evaluated in healthy premedicated dogs. Dogs were randomly assigned to one of two treatments at weekly intervals. Following ...
Read More
In a prospective, randomized, experimental non-blinded study, the continuous infusions rates of propofol required to prevent swallowing (P-SR) or pedal withdrawal reflex (P-WR) were evaluated in healthy premedicated dogs. Dogs were randomly assigned to one of two treatments at weekly intervals. Following premedication with a combination of acepromazine and methadone, anesthesia was induced with propofol (4.00 mg kg-1 per min) and was maintained for 90 min. The propofol infusion rate was increased or decreased by 0.05 mg kg-1 per min based on positive or negative swallowing (P-SR) or pedal withdrawal reflexes (P-WR). Propofol induction doses were 2.12 ± 0.43 mg kg-1 (P-SR) and 2.14 ± 0.31 mg kg-1 (P-WR), which were not significantly different. The mean (±SD) propofol infusion rate was significantly higher for P-WR (0.26 ± 0.10 mg kg-1 per min) when compared to P-SR (0.22 ± 0.12 mg kg-1 per min). During the last 30 min, the mean propofol infusion rates were 0.09 ± 0.02 and 0.18 ± 0.03 mg kg-1 per min for P-SR and P-WR, respectively. There were no significant differences between treatments with respect to heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, arterial blood pressure, end-tidal CO2 partial pressure, hemoglobin oxygen saturation, partial pressures of oxygen or pH. Transient apnea lasting up to three minutes was observed in three dogs with each treatment. Propofol infusion rate of 0.22 ± 0.12 mg kg-1 per min can be used in premedicated dogs requiring tracheal intubation and undergoing mechanical ventilation, non-painful procedures or painful procedures with local anesthetic techniques.
Ramin Mazaheri-Khameneh; Farshid Sarrafzadeh-Rezaei; Siamak Asri-Rezaei; Bahram Dalir-Naghadeh
Volume 3, Issue 2 , June 2012, , Pages 103-109
Abstract
This prospective study aimed to compare the intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) effects of propofol on selected blood parameters and physiological variables during general anesthesia in rabbits. Thirty New Zealand White rabbits were studied. Six rabbits received IV propofol (group 1) and another 6 ...
Read More
This prospective study aimed to compare the intraosseous (IO) and intravenous (IV) effects of propofol on selected blood parameters and physiological variables during general anesthesia in rabbits. Thirty New Zealand White rabbits were studied. Six rabbits received IV propofol (group 1) and another 6 rabbits, were injected propofol intraosseously (Group 2) for 30 minutes (experimental groups). Rabbits of the third and fourth groups received IV and IO normal saline at the same volume given to the experimental groups, respectively. In the fifth group IO cannulation was performed but neither propofol nor normal saline were administered. Blood profiles were assayed before induction and after recovery of anesthesia. Heart and respiratory rates, rectal temperature, saturation of peripheral oxygen and mean arterial blood pressure were recorded. Heart rate increased significantly 1 to 5 minutes after induction of anesthesia in experimental groups (P < 0.05). Although mean arterial blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline, values remained above 60 mm Hg (P < 0.05). Respiratory rate decreased significantly in experimental groups, but remained higher in group 2 (P < 0.05). The lymphocyte count decreased significantly in group 1 (P < 0.05). The concentration of alkaline phosphatase in all rabbits, aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyl transferase in the first group and gamma-glutamyl transferase in the third group increased significantly (P < 0.05). Total bilirubin decreased significantly in group 2 (P < 0.05). All measured values remained within normal limits. Based on the least significant physiological, hematological and biochemical effects, the IO injection of propofol appears to be safe and suitable method of anesthesia in rabbits with limited vascular access.
