Dipyrone used with propofol anesthesia in rabbits appeared not to significantly impair cardiovascular and hemodynamic function.
A low dose of midazolam-medetomidine-ketamine (MMK) combination was evaluated in three increasing dosages. Each of the 18 cats was randomly allocated for several times to one of four groups. Five minutes after premedication with intramuscular (IM) 0.04 mg/kg atropine, group A (n = 43), B (n = 40) and C (n = 28) all were anaesthetized with 0.5 mg/kg midazolam, combined with 10, 20 or 30 microg/kg medetomidine, and 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 mg/kg ketamine, respectively, IM in one syringe. Group D (n = 11) received the established combination of 50 microg/kg medetomidine and 10.0 mg/kg ketamine for comparison. Because this study was in cooperation with a project on dental prophylaxis, cats had to be immobilized for approximately 1 h. Therefore, anaesthesia was prolonged with propofol to effect, if necessary. Duration of MMK anaesthesia was between 30 +/- 15, 45 +/- 19 and 68 +/- 28 min in groups A, B and C respectively. A significant decrease of respiratory rate was observed with increasing dosage, but venous carbon dioxide (pCO(2)) and pH values in combination with arterial oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) values were not alarming. The diastolic blood pressure particularly showed an increase. MMK combination A showed the best cardiovascular results, but it cannot be recommended due to disadvantages like a long induction time sometimes accompanied by excitations and the short duration of surgical immobilization. Dosage C in contrast had fewer side effects but less favourable cardiovascular results and a longer recovery period. However, either dosage B or C was suitable as a repeatable IM immobilization method for non-invasive procedures in healthy cats.
Two different methods, administered both subcutaneously and intravenously, to reverse intramuscular midazolam-medetomidine-ketamine, are evaluated. Eighteen cats were anaesthetized twice each 5 min after premedication with atropine 0.04 mg/kg using midazolam 0.5 mg/kg, medetomidine 0.02 mg/kg and ketamine 2.0 mg/kg intramuscularly in one syringe. Because this study was conducted in co-operation with a dental prophylaxis project, cats had to be immobilized for approximately 1 h. Therefore, anaesthesia was prolonged with propofol to effect, if necessary. After 68+/-11 min on average, immobilization was partially reversed by either atipamezole 0.05 mg/kg subcutaneously (group A/SC, n=7) or intravenously (group A/IV, n=10), or by atipamezole 0.05 mg/kg and flumazenil 0.05 mg/kg subcutaneously (group AF/SC, n=10) or intravenously (group AF/IV, n=9), respectively. These four groups were additionally compared with a non-reversed group. Recovery time and total time of immobilization (until cats regained a standing position) were not significantly shortened using the antagonists. However, unconsciousness and sedation (expressed through parameters like the time taken to head lifting, crawling, sitting and the return of righting reflex) were significantly shortened by the antagonists, especially if administered intravenously. Abnormal behaviour, such as vocalization, licking, hyperaesthesia, restlessness or salivation, was observed in all groups. However, excitation and hyperaesthesia were not observed in group AF/IV, whereas in this group only intensified salivation occurred. The addition of flumazenil showed no significant difference to atipamezole alone, but subcutaneous administration of atipamezole alone was not sufficient in the dosage used to show an advantage compared to non-reversed cats.
In this study, the investigation of the intraoperative effects of dipyrone (metamizol) on heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and analgesic efficacy in rabbits is described for the first time. This was carried out to evaluate the cardiovascular stability achieved using dipyrone compared with fentanyl. In this prospective study, 17 female New Zealand White rabbits were randomly allocated to either one of two groups: dipyrone/propofol (DP) or fentanyl/propofol (FP). Anaesthesia was induced in both groups using propofol to effect (4.0 -8.0 mg/kg intravenously) until the swallowing reflex was lost for intubation. After induction, anaesthesia was maintained with continuous infusion of propofol 1.5 -1.7 mg/kg/min intravenously. Analgesics were then injected in defined boluses of either dipyrone 65 mg/kg or fentanyl 0.0053 mg/kg. After surgical tolerance, defined as loss of the ear pinch reflex and loss of the anterior and posterior pedal withdrawal reflex, was achieved, two surgical procedures were performed. The surgical procedures (implantation of either a pacemaker or an electrocardiogram transmitter), both require a comparable level of analgesic depth. During and after surgery, clinical variables, such as MAP, HR, peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) and end-tidal CO 2 (PE 0 CO 2 ) were recorded simultaneously every 2 min. Eight time points were chosen for comparison: baseline, surgical tolerance (ST), values at 10, 20 and 30 min after reaching ST, values at the end of propofol infusion (EI) and data at 10 and 20 min after EI. Both FP and DP combinations provided effective anaesthesia and analgesia in rabbits. In both groups a significant decrease of HR and MAP was measured. The results of this study indicate that the non-opioid drug dipyrone produces similar analgesic and even better cardiovascular effects by trend in rabbits. Therefore we conclude that dipyrone in combination with propofol can be used as an alternative to FP for intraoperative analgesia.
Fentanyl injections induced a short-term decrease of vessel diameter in the abdominal aorta and increased resistance in the distal distribution area of the left common carotid artery. Results revealed decreases in MAP, HR, and body temperature, with an increasing effect after the third bolus injection, which indicated a cumulative drug effect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.