Cargando…

Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of propofol or methohexital, with and without doxapram, on the examination of laryngeal function in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Forty healthy dogs randomly assigned to 4 groups: propofol with saline (n = 10), propofol with doxapram (n = 10),...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brown, Mikala B., Dugat, Danielle R., Lyon, Shane D., Nafe, Laura A., Payton, Mark E., Peakheart, Sarah K., Salazar, Rebecca S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587481/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30367699
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13110
_version_ 1783429075007700992
author Brown, Mikala B.
Dugat, Danielle R.
Lyon, Shane D.
Nafe, Laura A.
Payton, Mark E.
Peakheart, Sarah K.
Salazar, Rebecca S.
author_facet Brown, Mikala B.
Dugat, Danielle R.
Lyon, Shane D.
Nafe, Laura A.
Payton, Mark E.
Peakheart, Sarah K.
Salazar, Rebecca S.
author_sort Brown, Mikala B.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of propofol or methohexital, with and without doxapram, on the examination of laryngeal function in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Forty healthy dogs randomly assigned to 4 groups: propofol with saline (n = 10), propofol with doxapram (n = 10), methohexital with saline (n = 10), or methohexital with doxapram (n = 10). METHODS: Propofol and methohexital were administered to effect. Investigators examined laryngeal function (initial) simultaneously with video laryngoscopy. Doxapram or saline was administered, and laryngeal function was reevaluated (second). Laryngeal motion, quality of laryngeal exposure, and the degree of swallowing, laryngospasm, and jaw tone were scored at each evaluation. Adverse events were recorded. Initial and second videos were evaluated by a masked observer, and still images obtained from both evaluations were evaluated for change in rima glottidis size by 2 masked observers. RESULTS: Administration of doxapram and saline was delayed with propofol (P = .001). Laryngeal function did not differ between dogs receiving propofol or methohexital, irrespective of doxapram administration. Doxapram improved breathing scores in both groups (P < .001). Jaw tone increased with propofol during the second evaluation (P = .049). Swallowing was more prevalent at initial examination (P = .020). Methohexital resulted in an increased heart rate (P < .001) compared with propofol. Twenty‐five percent of dogs receiving methohexital developed seizure‐like activity (n = 5/20). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of laryngeal function did not differ between healthy dogs anesthetized with propofol or methohexital. Methohexital provided shorter examination times with less jaw tone but was associated with adverse events. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence to recommend propofol over methohexital as an induction agent for laryngeal function examination.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6587481
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65874812019-07-02 Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs Brown, Mikala B. Dugat, Danielle R. Lyon, Shane D. Nafe, Laura A. Payton, Mark E. Peakheart, Sarah K. Salazar, Rebecca S. Vet Surg Original Articles–Research OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of propofol or methohexital, with and without doxapram, on the examination of laryngeal function in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Forty healthy dogs randomly assigned to 4 groups: propofol with saline (n = 10), propofol with doxapram (n = 10), methohexital with saline (n = 10), or methohexital with doxapram (n = 10). METHODS: Propofol and methohexital were administered to effect. Investigators examined laryngeal function (initial) simultaneously with video laryngoscopy. Doxapram or saline was administered, and laryngeal function was reevaluated (second). Laryngeal motion, quality of laryngeal exposure, and the degree of swallowing, laryngospasm, and jaw tone were scored at each evaluation. Adverse events were recorded. Initial and second videos were evaluated by a masked observer, and still images obtained from both evaluations were evaluated for change in rima glottidis size by 2 masked observers. RESULTS: Administration of doxapram and saline was delayed with propofol (P = .001). Laryngeal function did not differ between dogs receiving propofol or methohexital, irrespective of doxapram administration. Doxapram improved breathing scores in both groups (P < .001). Jaw tone increased with propofol during the second evaluation (P = .049). Swallowing was more prevalent at initial examination (P = .020). Methohexital resulted in an increased heart rate (P < .001) compared with propofol. Twenty‐five percent of dogs receiving methohexital developed seizure‐like activity (n = 5/20). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of laryngeal function did not differ between healthy dogs anesthetized with propofol or methohexital. Methohexital provided shorter examination times with less jaw tone but was associated with adverse events. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence to recommend propofol over methohexital as an induction agent for laryngeal function examination. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-10-27 2019-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6587481/ /pubmed/30367699 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13110 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Veterinary Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Veterinary Surgeons. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles–Research
Brown, Mikala B.
Dugat, Danielle R.
Lyon, Shane D.
Nafe, Laura A.
Payton, Mark E.
Peakheart, Sarah K.
Salazar, Rebecca S.
Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs
title Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs
title_full Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs
title_fullStr Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs
title_short Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs
title_sort comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs
topic Original Articles–Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587481/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30367699
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13110
work_keys_str_mv AT brownmikalab comparisonofmethohexitalandpropofolasinductionagentsforevaluationoflaryngealfunctioninhealthydogs
AT dugatdanieller comparisonofmethohexitalandpropofolasinductionagentsforevaluationoflaryngealfunctioninhealthydogs
AT lyonshaned comparisonofmethohexitalandpropofolasinductionagentsforevaluationoflaryngealfunctioninhealthydogs
AT nafelauraa comparisonofmethohexitalandpropofolasinductionagentsforevaluationoflaryngealfunctioninhealthydogs
AT paytonmarke comparisonofmethohexitalandpropofolasinductionagentsforevaluationoflaryngealfunctioninhealthydogs
AT peakheartsarahk comparisonofmethohexitalandpropofolasinductionagentsforevaluationoflaryngealfunctioninhealthydogs
AT salazarrebeccas comparisonofmethohexitalandpropofolasinductionagentsforevaluationoflaryngealfunctioninhealthydogs