Total injectable anesthesia of dogs and cats for remote location veterinary sterilization clinic.

BACKGROUND: Sterilization clinics often occur in remote places where anesthesia machines and compressed oxygen are unavailable. This study describes the use of total injectable anesthesia in dogs and cats presented for sterilization in a remote location. RESULTS: A total of 100 animals were sterilized; 26 female cats (CF), 22 male cats (CM), 28 female dogs (DF), and 24 male dogs (DM). CF were anesthetized with dexmedetomidine (20 mcg/kg), ketamine (8 mg/kg) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg) IM. CM were anesthetized with dexmedetomidine (15 mcg/kg), ketamine (5 mg/kg) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg) IM. Insufficient anesthesia in cats was treated with alfaxalone (1 mg/kg) IM. All cats were administered meloxicam at 0.3 mg/kg SQ. DF were anesthetized with dexmedetomidine (15 mcg/kg), ketamine (7-10 mg/kg) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg) IM. DM were anesthetized with dexmedetomidine (15 mcg/kg), ketamine (5 mg/kg) and hydromorphone (0.1 mg/kg) IM. All dogs had IV catheter and endotracheal tube placed. If SpO2 < 91%, ventilation was assisted with an Ambu bag. Insufficient anesthesia in dogs was treated with alfaxalone (1 mg/kg) IV. All dogs were administered meloxicam at 0.2 mg/kg SQ. Following surgery, atipamezole (0.05-0.1 mg/kg) IM was administered to any patient that did not have voluntary movement. All patients survived and were discharged. Less than 25% of cats and male dogs required supplemental anesthesia. Fifty seven percent of female dogs required supplemental anesthesia. More than 89% of patients (in any group) required atipamezole administration. One cat recovered with agitation and hyperthermia (41.1C/ 106F). Some dogs required ventilatory assistance to remain normoxemic while anesthetized. CONCLUSION: Total injectable anesthesia can be accomplished for remote location sterilization clinics with minimal morbidity.

Total intravenous anesthesia in domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) with propofol alone or in combination with methadone, nalbuphine or fentanyl for ulna osteotomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the propofol infusion rate and cardiopulmonary effects during total intravenous anesthesia with propofol alone and propofol combined with methadone, fentanyl or nalbuphine in domestic chickens undergoing ulna osteotomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, experiment trial. ANIMALS: A total of 59 healthy Hissex Brown chickens weighing 1.5 ± 0.2 kg. METHODS: Anesthesia was induced with propofol (9 mg kg-1) administered intravenously (IV) and maintained with propofol (1.2 mg kg-1 minute-1) for 30 minutes. Birds were intubated and supplemented with 100% oxygen through a nonrebreathing circuit under spontaneous ventilation. Thereafter, each animal was randomly assigned to one of four groups: group P, no treatment; group PM, methadone (6 mg kg-1) intramuscularly (IM); group PN, nalbuphine IM (12.5 mg kg-1); and group PF, fentanyl IV (30 µg kg-1 loading dose, 30 µg kg-1 hour-1 constant rate infusion). During the osteotomy surgery, the propofol infusion rate was adjusted to avoid movement of birds and provide adequate anesthesia. Pulse rate, invasive blood pressure, respiratory frequency, end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (Pe'CO2) and hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded. RESULTS: Data were available from 58 chickens. The mean ± standard deviation propofol infusion rate (mg kg-1 minute-1) for the duration of anesthesia was: group P, 0.81 ± 0.15; group PM, 0.66 ± 0.11; group PN, 0.60 ± 0.14; and group PF, 0.80 ± 0.07. Significant differences were P versus PM (p = 0.042), P versus PN (p = 0.002) and PF versus PN (p = 0.004). Pulse rate, blood pressure and SpO2 remained acceptable for anesthetized birds with minor differences among groups. Values of Pe'CO2 >60 mmHg (8 kPa) were observed in all groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Methadone and nalbuphine, but not fentanyl, decreased the propofol infusion rate required for anesthesia maintenance, but resulted in no obvious benefit in physiological variables.

Continuous infusion of propofol or intermittent bolus of tiletamine-zolazepam in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate an infusion of propofol for anesthesia in comparison to tiletamine-zolazepam anesthesia, evaluating physiological variables and recovery in squirrel monkeys. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective non-blinded randomized study. ANIMALS: Eight healthy squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus), aged 3 years and weighing 0.340-0.695 kg. METHODS: Premedication was intramuscular midazolam (0.5 mg) and meperidine (4 mg). Anesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) propofol (4 mg kg(-1)  minute(-1) ) and maintained with propofol starting at 0.4 mg kg(-1)  minute(-1) (PRO, n = 4) or IV tiletamine-zolazepam (5 mg kg(-1) ) and maintained with supplementary doses of TZ (TZ, n = 4). Cardiopulmonary variables were measured continuously. Arterial blood gases and lactate concentration were measured at the end of anesthesia. Quality and times of recovery were determined. Repeatedly measured data for significant differences were tested between groups with t-test and within groups by anova. RESULTS: Median time for induction of anesthesia in PRO was 180 seconds. Mean maintenance infusion rate of propofol was 0.43 ± 0.05 mg kg(-1)  minute(-1) , varying during the 1 hour period. One monkey died after administration of TZ; others required 1, 4, or 8 supplemental doses. Cardiopulmonary variables were similar between groups, but hypotension was recorded. Recovery times to ventral recumbency in PRO (32 ± 17 minutes) and TZ (84 ± 11 minutes) and normal ambulation in PRO (58 ± 22 minutes) and TZ (358 ± 109minutes) were significantly different (p < 0.05). Recovery quality was superior in PRO, with less ataxia and fewer unsuccessful attempts to stand. Lactate concentration was not different between treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cardiopulmonary variables were similar between protocols, aside from the higher incidence of hypotension in PRO, indicating that further studies with a larger number of animals are required. Compared to tiletamine-zolazepam, propofol anesthesia provided faster and superior anesthetic recovery in these animals.

PRÁTICA CLÍNICA ANESTÉSICA EM CÃES COM A ASSOCIAÇÃO LEVOMEPROMAZINA E TILETAMINA/ZOLAZEPAM

The association of levomepromazine and tiletamine/zolazepam was used as anesthetic in 67 surgeries in dogs. The surgical procedures were thoracotomy, wound sutures, intraabdominal surgeries, ocular globe enucleations, orthopedics, tumor extirpations and vaginal mucous ressection. Levomepromazine was administered as tranquilizer 1 mg/kg intravenous. After 10 minutes tiletamine/zolazepam 2mg/kg IV was used for induction. During transoperative period, tiletamine/zolazepam 1 mg/kg IV was administered repeatedly for maintenance of the effect. Clinical and ventilometric evaluation shows that the association could be used in anesthetic routine in dogs.

A associação anestésica de levomepromazina e tiletamina/zolazepam foi empregada em 67 cães submetidos à cirurgia. Os procedimentos cirúrgicos compreenderam toracotomia, síntese de ferimentos, cirurgias intra-abdominais, enucleação de globo ocular, intervenções ortopédicas, exerése de tumorações externas e ressecção de mucosa vaginal. A levomepromazina foi administrada com fins de tranqüilização, na dose de 1 mg/kg intravenosa. Após 10 minutos empregou-se a combinação anestésica tiletamina/zolazepam, 2mg/kg, por via intravenosa, para indução. Para manutenção anestésica no período trans-operatório foi utilizada tiletamina/zolazepam 1 mg/kg via intravenosa, em administrações repetidas até a obtenção do plano anestésico desejado. As observações clínicas e avaliações ventilométricas em 10 dos 67 cães, não mostraram efeitos adversos que pudessem contraindicar a utilização da associação na rotina anestésica.

Prática clínica anestésica em cães com a associação levomepromazina e tiletamina/zolazepam

The association of levomepromazine and tiletamine/zolazepam was used as anesthetic in 67 surgeries in dogs. The surgical procedures were thoracotomy, wound sutures, intraabdominal surgeries, ocular globe enucleations, orthopedics, tumor extirpations and vaginal mucous ressection. Levomepromazine was administered as tranquilizer 1 mg/kg intravenous. After 10 minutes tiletamine/zolazepam 2mg/kg IV was used for induction. During transoperative period, tiletamine/zolazepam 1 mg/kg IV was administered repeatedly for maintenance of the effect. Clinical and ventilometric evaluation shows that the association could be used in anesthetic routine in dogs.

A associação anestésica de levomepromazina e tiletamina/zolazepam foi empregada em 67 cães submetidos à cirurgia. Os procedimentos cirúrgicos compreenderam toracotomia, síntese de ferimentos, cirurgias intra-abdominais, enucleação de globo ocular, intervenções ortopédicas, exerése de tumorações externas e ressecção de mucosa vaginal. A levomepromazina foi administrada com fins de tranqüilização, na dose de 1 mg/kg intravenosa. Após 10 minutos empregou-se a combinação anestésica tiletamina/zolazepam, 2mg/kg, por via intravenosa, para indução. Para manutenção anestésica no período trans-operatório foi utilizada tiletamina/zolazepam 1 mg/kg via intravenosa, em administrações repetidas até a obtenção do plano anestésico desejado. As observações clínicas e avaliações ventilométricas em 10 dos 67 cães, não mostraram efeitos adversos que pudessem contraindicar a utilização da associação na rotina anestésica.