2008
DOI: 10.1136/vr.162.3.82
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sedative and cardiorespiratory effects of three doses of romifidine in comparison with medetomidine in five cats

Abstract: This study was designed to compare the effects of three doses of romifidine (200, 400 and 600 microg/kg) with medetomidine (80 microg/kg) administered intramuscularly to five cats. The quality of sedation and the cardiovascular and respiratory effects of each treatment were evaluated, and the onset and duration of the sedation, and the cats' recovery times, were measured. Cardiorespiratory variables were also analysed. The dose of 200 microg/kg romifidine was clinically superior to the other doses of romifidin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
23
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
3
23
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A significant reduction in the OA times was not observed when the dose of romifidine was increased. The lower α 2 /α 1 specificity of the romifidine in comparison with medetomidine and the erratic effects observed for romifidine in cats (Belda et al. 2008) could explain our findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…A significant reduction in the OA times was not observed when the dose of romifidine was increased. The lower α 2 /α 1 specificity of the romifidine in comparison with medetomidine and the erratic effects observed for romifidine in cats (Belda et al. 2008) could explain our findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…It has been reported in dogs that increasing the dose of romifidine did not shorten the time to sedation (Lemke 1999). Similarly, the time to sedation was not significantly different in cats, which received romifidine 200, 400 and 600 μg kg −1 (Belda et al. 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 3 more Smart Citations