Cargando…
A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine
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–dexmedetomidin...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7066810/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32164761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13028-020-0512-y |
_version_ | 1783505316433887232 |
---|---|
author | Lervik, Andreas Toverud, Simen Forr Krontveit, Randi Haga, Henning Andreas |
author_facet | Lervik, Andreas Toverud, Simen Forr Krontveit, Randi Haga, Henning Andreas |
author_sort | Lervik, Andreas |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 FIO(2) of 0.21. Oxygen saturation (SpO(2)), end-tidal CO(2) concentration (PE′CO(2)), respiratory rate (f(R)) and inspired tidal volume (V(T)) were measured, and statistically compared between treatments. If the SpO(2) dropped below 80% or if PE′CO(2) 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′CO(2) than propofol treated pigs, with a f(R) being 7.3 /min higher (P = 0.01) and PE′CO(2) 0.8 kPa lower (P = 0.05). SpO(2) decreased by 0.6% and f(R) 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7066810 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70668102020-03-18 A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine Lervik, Andreas Toverud, Simen Forr Krontveit, Randi Haga, Henning Andreas Acta Vet Scand Research 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 FIO(2) of 0.21. Oxygen saturation (SpO(2)), end-tidal CO(2) concentration (PE′CO(2)), respiratory rate (f(R)) and inspired tidal volume (V(T)) were measured, and statistically compared between treatments. If the SpO(2) dropped below 80% or if PE′CO(2) 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′CO(2) than propofol treated pigs, with a f(R) being 7.3 /min higher (P = 0.01) and PE′CO(2) 0.8 kPa lower (P = 0.05). SpO(2) decreased by 0.6% and f(R) 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. BioMed Central 2020-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7066810/ /pubmed/32164761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13028-020-0512-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Lervik, Andreas Toverud, Simen Forr Krontveit, Randi Haga, Henning Andreas A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine |
title | A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine |
title_full | A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine |
title_fullStr | A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine |
title_short | A comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine |
title_sort | comparison of respiratory function in pigs anaesthetised by propofol or alfaxalone in combination with dexmedetomidine and ketamine |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7066810/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32164761 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13028-020-0512-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lervikandreas acomparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine AT toverudsimenforr acomparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine AT krontveitrandi acomparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine AT hagahenningandreas acomparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine AT lervikandreas comparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine AT toverudsimenforr comparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine AT krontveitrandi comparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine AT hagahenningandreas comparisonofrespiratoryfunctioninpigsanaesthetisedbypropofoloralfaxaloneincombinationwithdexmedetomidineandketamine |