-
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Canadian Veterinary Journal = La... Jul 1994
Topics: Acepromazine; Animals; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Antiemetics; Contraindications
PubMed: 8076296
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of the American Association For... Mar 2020Studies of visual responses in isoflurane-anesthetized mice often use the sedative chlorprothixene to decrease the amount of isoflurane used because excessive isoflurane...
Studies of visual responses in isoflurane-anesthetized mice often use the sedative chlorprothixene to decrease the amount of isoflurane used because excessive isoflurane could adversely affect light-evoked responses. However, data are not available to justify the use of this nonpharmaceutical-grade chemical. The current study tested whether pharmaceutical-grade sedatives would be appropriate alternatives for imaging pupillary light reflexes. Male 15-wk-old mice were injected intraperitoneally with 1 mg/kg chlorprothixene, 5 mg/kg acepromazine, 10 mg/kg chlorpromazine, or saline. After anesthetic induction, anesthesia maintenance used 0.5% and 1% isoflurane for sedative- and saline-injected mice, respectively. A photostimulus (16.0 log photons cm s; 470 nm) was presented to the right eye for 20 min, during which the left eye was imaged for consensual pupillary constriction and involuntary pupil drift. Time to immobilization, loss of righting reflex, physiologic parameters, gain of righting reflex, and degree of recovery were assessed also. The sedative groups were statistically indistinguishable for all measures. By contrast, pupillary drift occurred far more often in saline-treated mice than in the sedative groups. Furthermore, saline-treated mice took longer to reach maximal pupil constriction than all sedative groups and had lower heart rates compared with chlorpromazine- and chlorprothixene-sedated mice. Full recovery (as defined by purposeful movement, response to tactile stimuli, and full alertness) was not regularly achieved in any sedative group. In conclusion, at the doses tested, acepromazine and chlorpromazine are suitable pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to chlorprothixene for pupil imaging and conceivably other in vivo photoresponse measurements; however, given the lack of full recovery, lower dosages should be investigated further for use in survival procedures.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthesia; Animals; Chlorpromazine; Chlorprothixene; Dopamine Antagonists; Isoflurane; Light; Male; Mice; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Reflex, Pupillary
PubMed: 31915106
DOI: 10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-19-000094 -
Veterinary Record Open 2018To evaluate the combined effect of intramuscular acepromazine and methadone on tear production in dogs undergoing general anaesthesia for elective, non-ocular procedures.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the combined effect of intramuscular acepromazine and methadone on tear production in dogs undergoing general anaesthesia for elective, non-ocular procedures.
DESIGN
Prospective, non-randomised, pre-post treatment study.
SETTING
Patients were recruited from a referral practice in the UK.
METHODS
Thirty client-owned dogs were enrolled in this study and received a combined intramuscular premedication of methadone (0.3 mg/kg) and acepromazine (0.02 mg/kg) before general anaesthesia for elective, non-ocular procedures. Full ophthalmic examination was performed and tear production was quantified using the Schirmer tear test-1 (STT-1). On the day of general anaesthesia, an STT-1 was performed before (STT-1a) and after (STT-1b) intramuscular premedication with methadone/acepromazine.
RESULTS
Using a general linear model, a significant effect on STT-1 results was found for premedication with methadone/acepromazine (P=0.013), but not eye laterality (P=0.527). Following premedication, there was a significant reduction observed in the mean STT-1 readings of left and right eyes between STT-1a (20.4±2.8 mm/min) and STT-1b (16.9±4.1 mm/min; P<0.001). Significantly more dogs had an STT-1 reading less than 15 mm/min in one or both eyes after premedication (30 per cent; 9/30 dogs) compared with before premedication (6.7 per cent; 2/30 dogs; P=0.042).
CONCLUSIONS
An intramuscular premedication of methadone and acepromazine results in a decrease in tear production in dogs before elective general anaesthesia. This may contribute to the risk of ocular morbidities, such as corneal ulceration, particularly in patients with lower baseline tear production.
PubMed: 30613403
DOI: 10.1136/vetreco-2018-000298 -
Journal of the American Veterinary... Feb 2017OBJECTIVE To compare the doses of propofol required to induce general anesthesia in dogs premedicated with acepromazine maleate or trazodone hydrochloride and compare... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE To compare the doses of propofol required to induce general anesthesia in dogs premedicated with acepromazine maleate or trazodone hydrochloride and compare the effects of these premedicants on cardiovascular variables in dogs anesthetized for orthopedic surgery. DESIGN Prospective, randomized study. ANIMALS 30 systemically healthy client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES 15 dogs received acepromazine (0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg [0.005 to 0.014 mg/lb], IM) 30 minutes before anesthetic induction and 15 received trazodone (5 mg/kg [2.27 mg/lb] for patients > 10 kg or 7 mg/kg [3.18 mg/lb] for patients ≤ 10 kg, PO) 2 hours before induction. Both groups received morphine sulfate (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb], IM) 30 minutes before induction. Anesthesia was induced with propofol (4 to 6 mg/kg [1.82 to 2.73 mg/lb], IV, to effect) and maintained with isoflurane or sevoflurane in oxygen. Bupivacaine (0.5 mg/kg [0.227 mg/lb]) and morphine (0.1 mg/kg [0.045 mg/lb]) were administered epidurally. Dogs underwent tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (n = 22) or tibial tuberosity advancement (8) and were monitored throughout anesthesia. Propofol induction doses and cardiovascular variables (heart rate and systemic, mean, and diastolic arterial blood pressures) were compared between groups. RESULTS The mean dose of propofol required for anesthetic induction and all cardiovascular variables evaluated did not differ between groups. Intraoperative hypotension developed in 6 and 5 dogs of the acepromazine and trazodone groups, respectively; bradycardia requiring intervention developed in 3 dogs/group. One dog that received trazodone had priapism 24 hours later and was treated successfully. No other adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE At the described dosages, cardiovascular effects of trazodone were similar to those of acepromazine in healthy dogs undergoing anesthesia for orthopedic surgery.
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Animals; Cardiac Output; Dogs; Female; Male; Orthopedic Procedures; Premedication; Propofol; Prospective Studies; Trazodone
PubMed: 28165304
DOI: 10.2460/javma.250.4.408 -
Journal of the American Veterinary... Jan 2020To evaluate the effects of lidocaine as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with...
Effects of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects of lidocaine as a coinduction agent with propofol on cardiopulmonary variables and administered propofol doses in healthy dogs premedicated with hydromorphone hydrochloride and acepromazine maleate and anesthetized with isoflurane.
ANIMALS
40 client-owned dogs (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification I or II and age ≥ 6 months) scheduled to undergo anesthesia for elective procedures.
PROCEDURES
In a randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial, dogs received 2% lidocaine hydrochloride solution (2.0 mg/kg [0.9 mg/lb], IV; n = 20) or buffered crystalloid solution (0.1 mL/kg [0.05 mL/lb], IV; 20; control treatment) after premedication with acepromazine (0.005 mg/kg [0.002 mg/lb], IM) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg, IM). Anesthesia was induced with propofol (1 mg/kg [0.45 mg/lb], IV, with additional doses administered as needed) and maintained with isoflurane. Sedation was assessed, and anesthetic and cardiopulmonary variables were measured at various points; values were compared between treatment groups.
RESULTS
Propofol doses, total sedation scores, and anesthetic and most cardiopulmonary measurements did not differ significantly between treatment groups over the monitoring period; only oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry differed significantly (lower in the lidocaine group). Mean ± SD propofol dose required for endotracheal intubation was 1.30 ± 0.68 mg/kg (0.59 ± 0.31 mg/lb) and 1.41 ± 0.40 mg/kg (0.64 ± 0.18 mg/lb) for the lidocaine and control groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
No propofol-sparing effect was observed with administration of lidocaine as a coinduction agent for the premedicated dogs of this study. Mean propofol doses required for endotracheal intubation were considerably lower than currently recommended doses for premedicated dogs. ( 2020;256:93-101).
Topics: Acepromazine; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Animals; Dogs; Heart; Hydromorphone; Lidocaine; Lung; Propofol
PubMed: 31841086
DOI: 10.2460/javma.256.1.93