-
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Jun 2021The aim of this study was to compare the sedative effects in cats administered acepromazine-nalbuphine and acepromazine-butorphanol, intramuscularly (IM) and...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to compare the sedative effects in cats administered acepromazine-nalbuphine and acepromazine-butorphanol, intramuscularly (IM) and intravenously (IV), and the occurrence of adverse cardiorespiratory effects.
METHODS
Forty-six cats were randomly divided into four groups and administered acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with nalbuphine (0.5 mg/kg) or butorphanol (0.4 mg/kg), IV (ACP-NAL and ACP-BUT groups, respectively) or IM (ACP-NAL and ACP-BUT groups, respectively). Sedation scores, ease of intravenous catheter placement (simple descriptive scale [SDS] scores), physiologic variables, venous blood gases and the propofol dose required for anesthetic induction were recorded.
RESULTS
Mild sedation was observed in all groups approximately 30 mins after treatment administration (timepoint T1, prior to propofol administration). Sedation scores at T1 increased above baseline in all groups ( <0.05), but no significant difference was observed among groups. Dynamic interactive visual analogue scale sedation scores (range 0-100 mm) recorded at T1 were (median [interquartile range]): ACP-NAL, 12 (10-12); ACP-NAL, 11 (6-16); ACP-BUT, 11 (7-14); and ACP-BUT, 12 (7-19). Overall, SDS scores did not change from baseline at T1 and there was no significant difference among groups. The propofol dose did not differ among groups. Blood gases remained within the reference intervals for cats. Significant decreases from baseline were detected for all groups in systolic arterial pressure (SAP). Mean ± SD values at T1 were (mmHg): ACP-NAL, 108 ± 13; ACP-NAL, 102 ± 10; ACP-BUT, 97 ± 13; and ACP-BUT, 98 ± 21. Arterial hypotension (SAP <90 mmHg) was recorded at T1 in 0/11, 1/13, 4/11 and 5/11 cats in groups ACP-NAL, ACP-NAL, ACP-BUT and ACP-BUT, respectively, and was further exacerbated after the induction of anesthesia with propofol.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In healthy cats administered acepromazine-nalbuphine and acepromazine-butorphanol, IM and IV, the degree of sedation was mild regardless of the protocol and the route of administration. The main adverse effect observed was a reduction in arterial blood pressure.
Topics: Acepromazine; Animals; Butorphanol; Cats; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Nalbuphine; Propofol
PubMed: 33044122
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X20962754 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... May 2022The objective was to demonstrate walking locomotor pattern alterations after co-administration of acepromazine and morphine in horses. Six mature horses receiving four...
The objective was to demonstrate walking locomotor pattern alterations after co-administration of acepromazine and morphine in horses. Six mature horses receiving four different treatments were used. Treatments consisted of a single dose of saline solution, 0.2 mg/kg bwt of morphine hydrochloride, 0.02 mg/kg bwt of acepromazine maleate, and a combination of 0.2 mg/kg bwt of morphine hydrochloride with 0.02 mg/kg bwt of acepromazine maleate. A three-dimensional accelerometric device was used to collect data. Walking tests were performed 10 min prior to injection, and then at 5, 10, 15, and 20 min after the injection, and then every 10 min for 3 h. Eight variables were calculated including stride kinematic, coordination, and energetic parameters; moreover ground-to-lip distance (GLD), as a tranquilization parameter, was also measured. A significant interaction was observed in all the variables studied but regularity, mediolateral power, the propulsive part of the power, and the GLD. An evident counteraction of the effects caused by both, opioids and phenothiazines, in the gait pattern was observed. The co-administration of acepromazine and morphine could allow a safe opiate administration while minimizing the possible central nervous system (CNS) excitation and reducing potential locomotor adverse effects.
PubMed: 35565620
DOI: 10.3390/ani12091193 -
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Feb 2018Objectives The objective of this study was to determine the effect of administration rate on propofol dose for induction of anesthesia and the effect of methadone on...
Objectives The objective of this study was to determine the effect of administration rate on propofol dose for induction of anesthesia and the effect of methadone on this dose. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, blinded clinical study. Forty male cats (mean ± SD age 1.5 ± 0.8 years) were admitted for orchiectomy. Cats were randomly allocated to receive acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg) with either methadone (MET; 0.3 mg/kg) or saline (SAL; 0.03 ml/kg). Each premedication group then received anesthetic induction with propofol at 5 (F) or 1.5 mg/kg/min (S), resulting in the following four groups: MET-F, SAL-F, MET-S and SAL-S. Sedation scores were assigned at 15 and 30 mins after premedication using a simple descriptive scale (SDS) and a visual analog scale (VAS). After assignment of sedation scores, respiratory frequency ( f) was recorded, and anesthetic induction began and was continued until cats lost their palpebral reflexes and jaw tone, and the eye globe rotated ventromedially. The time for induction and the total amount of propofol needed was recorded, and intubation was then performed. After intubation, f was also recorded. Results SDS and VAS sedation scores were low at 15 and 30 mins after premedication. There was no significant difference in sedation scores by time or between the groups at any time on any scale. The amount of propofol needed to achieve anesthetic induction was 5.3 ± 1.1 mg/kg in group MET-F, which was statistically lower when compared with the other three groups, which demonstrated no difference among them. Conclusions and relevance Premedication with acepromazine and methadone was not able to produce adequate sedation in healthy cats. The slow induction rate is not adequate for use in cats considering that all of the animals demonstrated excitement during anesthetic induction. The fast administration rate was able to produce adequate induction of anesthesia and reduce the amount of propofol needed to achieve intubation only when using methadone.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Animals; Cats; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Methadone; Orchiectomy; Premedication; Propofol; Prospective Studies; Random Allocation; Respiratory Rate
PubMed: 29172963
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X17695891 -
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Nov 2020Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) describes the process of depressing a patient's conscious state to perform unpleasant, minimally invasive procedures, and is part... (Review)
Review
PRACTICAL RELEVANCE
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) describes the process of depressing a patient's conscious state to perform unpleasant, minimally invasive procedures, and is part of the daily routine in feline medicine. Maintaining cardiopulmonary stability is critical while peforming PSA.
CLINICAL CHALLENGES
Decision-making with respect to drug choice and dosage regimen, taking into consideration the cat's health status, behavior, any concomitant diseases and the need for analgesia, represents an everyday challenge in feline practice. While PSA is commonly perceived to be an uneventful procedure, complications may arise, especially when cats that were meant to be sedated are actually anesthetized.
AIMS
This clinical article reviews key aspects of PSA in cats while exploring the literature and discussing complications and risk factors. Recommendations are given for patient assessment and preparation, clinical monitoring and fasting protocols, and there is discussion of how PSA protocols may change blood results and diagnostic tests. An overview of, and rationale for, building a PSA protocol, and the advantages and disadvantages of different classes of sedatives and anesthetics, is presented in a clinical context. Finally, injectable drug protocols are reported, supported by an evidence-based approach and clinical experience.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthesia; Animals; Cats; Conscious Sedation; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33100168
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X20965830 -
Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia Jul 2022To investigate the effects of intramuscularly administered acepromazine or dexmedetomidine on buccal mucosa microcirculation in Beagle dogs.
Effects of acepromazine and dexmedetomidine, followed by propofol induction and maintenance with isoflurane anaesthesia, on the microcirculation of Beagle dogs evaluated by sidestream dark field imaging: an experimental trial.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effects of intramuscularly administered acepromazine or dexmedetomidine on buccal mucosa microcirculation in Beagle dogs.
STUDY DESIGN
Experimental, blinded, crossover study.
ANIMALS
A group of seven Beagle dogs aged 7.5 ± 1.4 years (mean ± standard deviation).
METHODS
Microcirculation was assessed on buccal mucosa using sidestream dark field videomicroscopy. After baseline measurements, 5 μg kg dexmedetomidine or 30 μg kg acepromazine were administered intramuscularly. After 10, 20 and 30 minutes, measurements were repeated. At 40 minutes after premedication, anaesthesia was induced with propofol intravenously and maintained with isoflurane. Measurements were repeated 50, 60 and 65 minutes after the injection of the investigated drugs. Analysed microcirculatory variables were: Perfused de Backer density, Perfused de Backer density of vessels < 20 μm, Proportion of perfused vessels and Proportion of perfused vessels < 20 μm. Heart rate (HR), systolic, diastolic (DAP) and mean (MAP) arterial pressures were recorded at the same time points. Macro- and microcirculatory variables were analysed using a linear mixed model with baseline as a covariate, treatment, trial period and repetition as fixed effects and time and dog as random effect. Results are presented as effect size and confidence interval; p values < 0.05 were considered significant.
RESULTS
After acepromazine, Perfused de Backer density was greater during sedation and anaesthesia [3.71 (1.93-5.48 mm mm, p < 0.0001) and 2.3 (0.86-3.75 mm mm, p < 0.003)], respectively, than after dexmedetomidine. HR was significantly lower, whereas MAP and DAP were significantly higher with dexmedetomidine during sedation and anaesthesia (p < 0.0001 for all) compared with acepromazine.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The sedative drugs tested exerted a significant effect on buccal mucosal microcirculation with a higher Perfused de Backer density after the administration of acepromazine compared with dexmedetomidine. This should be considered when microcirculation is evaluated using these drugs.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthesia; Animals; Cross-Over Studies; Dexmedetomidine; Dogs; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Isoflurane; Microcirculation; Propofol
PubMed: 35568677
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaa.2022.04.001 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2021Sedatives and tranquilizers are important in the control of excited camels during camel transport. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical sedation of...
Sedatives and tranquilizers are important in the control of excited camels during camel transport. This study was conducted to investigate the clinical sedation of camels with acepromazine and its correlation with pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The sedation score, heart rate, respiration, body temperature, and pharmacokinetics were monitored before and after acepromazine injection, and myeloid marker expression was analyzed using membrane immunofluorescence and flow cytometry. The distribution (t1/2α) and elimination (t1/2β) half-lives were 0.1 and 9.4 h, respectively. The volume of distribution at steady state (Vss) was 20.01 L/kg, and the mean residence time (MRT) was 12.25 h. Sedation started rapidly within 10 min followed by persistent low-medium sedation for 2 h with an average sedation score of 1.2 ± 0.61, which might be associated with a slow elimination phase and prolonged MRT. Compared to horses, camels showed a lower clearance rate, higher volume of distribution, and higher elimination half-life. Slight changes in body temperature and heart and respiratory rate, as well as a lower hematocrit and changes in blood cell composition, suggest the careful application of acepromazine in animals with abnormal blood parameters or poor vital conditions.
PubMed: 34568476
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.725841 -
American Journal of Veterinary Research Aug 2022To evaluate the sedative and cardiopulmonary effects of various combinations of acepromazine, dexmedetomidine, hydromorphone, and glycopyrrolate, followed by anesthetic...
Sedative and cardiopulmonary effects of intramuscular combinations of hydromorphone, acepromazine, dexmedetomidine, and glycopyrrolate followed by intravenous propofol and inhalant isoflurane anesthesia in healthy dogs.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the sedative and cardiopulmonary effects of various combinations of acepromazine, dexmedetomidine, hydromorphone, and glycopyrrolate, followed by anesthetic induction with propofol and maintenance with isoflurane in healthy dogs.
ANIMALS
6 healthy adult female Beagles.
PROCEDURES
Dogs were instrumented for hemodynamic measurements while anesthetized with isoflurane. Two hours after recovery, dogs received 1 of 4 IM combinations in a crossover design with 1 week between treatments: hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg) and acepromazine (0.005 mg/kg; HA); hydromorphone and dexmedetomidine (0.0025 mg/kg; HD); hydromorphone, acepromazine, and dexmedetomidine (HAD); and hydromorphone, acepromazine, dexmedetomidine, and glycopyrrolate (0.02 mg/kg; HADG). Sedation was scored after 30 minutes. Physiologic variables and cardiac index were measured after sedation, after anesthetic induction with propofol, and every 15 minutes during maintenance of anesthesia with isoflurane for 60 minutes (target expired concentration at 760 mm Hg, 1.3%).
RESULTS
Sedation scores were not significantly different among treatments. Mean ± SD cardiac index was significantly higher for the HA (202 ± 45 mL/min/kg) and HADG (185 ± 59 mL/min/kg) treatments than for the HD (88 ± 31 mL/min/kg) and HAD (103 ± 25 mL/min/kg) treatments after sedation and through the first 15 minutes of isoflurane anesthesia. No ventricular arrhythmias were noted with any treatment.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
In healthy dogs, IM administration of HADG before propofol and isoflurane anesthesia provided acceptable cardiopulmonary function with no adverse effects. This combination should be considered for routine anesthetic premedication in healthy dogs.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Animals; Cross-Over Studies; Dexmedetomidine; Dogs; Female; Glycopyrrolate; Heart Rate; Hydromorphone; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Isoflurane; Propofol
PubMed: 35973002
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.22.06.0098 -
BMC Veterinary Research May 2022Many veterinarians consider English Bulldogs to have a greater perianesthetic mortality risk. The aims of this study were to 1) determine total and anesthesia-related,...
BACKGROUND
Many veterinarians consider English Bulldogs to have a greater perianesthetic mortality risk. The aims of this study were to 1) determine total and anesthesia-related, perianesthetic mortality (PAM) rates in English Bulldogs (EB), 2) identify potential risk factors associated with mortality in EB, and 3) determine the difference in the perianesthetic mortality rates between EB, other-brachycephalic breeds (OB), and non-brachycephalic breeds (NB). Records from EB that were anesthetized between 2010 and 2017, were investigated. OB and NB were enrolled to match with each EB based on a procedure and age from the study period. Data collected in EB included: age, ASA status, weight, procedure types, anesthetic and analgesic management, anesthetic duration, anesthetic recovery location, and cause of death. Age and cause of death were determined from OB and NB. Fisher's exact test was used to compare PAM rate and age in EB, OB, and NB. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare EB survivor and EB non-survivor. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors and odds ratio (OR) associated with PAM in EB.
RESULT
Two hundred twenty nine EB, 218 OB, and 229 NB were identified. The total and anesthesia-related PAM rates in EB were 6.6 and 3.9%, respectively. EB had a greater total PAM rate compared with OB (p = 0.007). ASA status was different between survivors and non-survivors in EB (p < 0.01). Risk factors identified regardless of the cause of death were premedication with full μ opioids (OR = 0.333, p = 0.114), continuous infusion of ketamine post-operatively (OR = 13.775, p = 0.013), and acepromazine administration post-operatively (OR = 7.274, p = 0.004). The most common cause of death in EB was postoperative respiratory dysfunction (87.5%).
CONCLUSION
Total and anesthesia-related mortality in EB is considerable. Most deaths in EB occurred during the postoperative period secondary to respiratory complications.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Animals; Craniosynostoses; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35614460
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-022-03301-9 -
Journal of the American Veterinary... Dec 2021To compare effectiveness of maropitant and ondansetron in preventing preoperative vomiting and nausea in healthy dogs premedicated with a combination of hydromorphone,...
Effectiveness of orally administered maropitant and ondansetron in preventing preoperative emesis and nausea in healthy dogs premedicated with a combination of hydromorphone, acepromazine, and glycopyrrolate.
OBJECTIVE
To compare effectiveness of maropitant and ondansetron in preventing preoperative vomiting and nausea in healthy dogs premedicated with a combination of hydromorphone, acepromazine, and glycopyrrolate.
ANIMALS
88 dogs owned by rescue organizations.
PROCEDURES
Dogs received maropitant (n = 29) or ondansetron (28) PO 2 hours prior to premedication or did not receive an antiemetic (31; control). Dogs were evaluated for vomiting, nausea, and severity of nausea (scored for 6 signs) for 15 minutes following premedication with hydromorphone, acepromazine, and glycopyrrolate.
RESULTS
A significantly lower percentage of dogs vomited after receiving maropitant (3/29 [10%]), compared with control dogs (19/31 [62%]) and dogs that received ondansetron (15/28 [54%]). A significantly lower percentage of dogs appeared nauseated after receiving maropitant (3/29 [10%]), compared with control dogs (27/31 [87%]) and dogs that received ondansetron (14/28 [50%]), and a significantly lower percentage of dogs appeared nauseated after receiving ondansetron, compared with control dogs. Nausea severity scores for hypersalivation, lip licking, hard swallowing, and hunched posture were significantly lower for dogs that received maropitant than for control dogs, and scores for hypersalivation, lip licking, and hard swallowing were significantly lower for dogs that received ondansetron than for control dogs.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Oral administration of maropitant 2 hours prior to premedication with hydromorphone reduced the incidence of vomiting and the incidence and severity of nausea in healthy dogs. Oral administration of ondansetron reduced the incidence and severity of nausea but not the incidence of vomiting.
Topics: Animals; Dogs; Acepromazine; Analgesics, Opioid; Antiemetics; Dog Diseases; Glycopyrrolate; Hydromorphone; Nausea; Ondansetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting
PubMed: 34914630
DOI: 10.2460/javma.21.02.0082 -
BMC Veterinary Research Apr 2017The aim of this study was to assess validation evidence for a sedation scale for dogs. We hypothesized that the chosen sedation scale would be unreliable when used by...
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to assess validation evidence for a sedation scale for dogs. We hypothesized that the chosen sedation scale would be unreliable when used by different raters and show poor discrimination between sedation protocols. A sedation scale (range 0-21) was used to score 62 dogs scheduled to receive sedation at two veterinary clinics in a prospective trial. Scores recorded by a single observer were used to assess internal consistency and construct validity of the scores. To assess inter-rater reliability, video-recordings of sedation assessment were randomized and blinded for viewing by 5 raters untrained in the scale. Videos were also edited to allow assessment of inter-rater reliability of an abbreviated scale (range 0-12) by 5 different raters.
RESULTS
Both sedation scales exhibited excellent internal consistency and very good inter-rater reliability (full scale, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.95; abbreviated scale, ICC = 0.94). The full scale discriminated between the most common protocols: dexmedetomidine-hydromorphone (median [range] of sedation score, 11 [1-18], n = 20) and acepromazine-hydromorphone (5 [0-15], n = 36, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
The hypothesis was rejected. Full and abbreviated scales showed excellent internal consistency and very good reliability between multiple untrained raters. The full scale differentiated between levels of sedation.
Topics: Animals; Conscious Sedation; Dogs; Female; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Observer Variation; Prospective Studies; Random Allocation; Videotape Recording
PubMed: 28420386
DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1027-2