We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Effects of thiopentone, propofol and alfaxalone on laryngeal motion during oral laryngoscopy in healthy dogs.
Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 2017 May
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of thiopentone, propofol and alfaxalone on arytenoid cartilage motion and establish the dose rates to achieve a consistent oral laryngoscopy examination.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomised crossover study.
ANIMALS: Six healthy adult Beagle dogs.
METHODS: Each dog was randomly administered three induction agents with a 1-week washout period between treatments. Thiopentone (7.5 mg kg-1 ), propofol (3 mg kg-1 ) or alfaxalone (1.5 mg kg-1 ) was administered over 1 minute for induction of anaesthesia. If the dog was deemed inadequately anaesthetised, then supplemental boluses of 1.8, 0.75 and 0.4 mg kg-1 were administered, respectively. Continual examination of the larynx, using a laryngoscope, commenced once an adequate anaesthetic depth was reached until examination end point. The number of arytenoid motions and vital breaths were counted during three time periods and compared over time and among treatments. Data were analysed using Friedman and Mann-Whitney U tests, Spearman rho and a linear mixed model with post hoc pairwise comparison with Tukey correction.
RESULTS: The median (range) induction and examination times were 2.8 (2.0-3.0), 2.7 (2.0-3.3) and 2.5 (1.7-3.3) minutes (p = 0.727); and 14.1 (8.0-41.8), 5.4 (3.3-14.8) and 8.5 (3.8-31.6) minutes (p = 0.016) for thiopentone, propofol and alfaxalone, respectively. The median dose rates required to achieve an adequate anaesthetic depth were 6.3 (6.0-6.6), 2.4 (2.4-2.4) and 1.2 (1.2-1.2) mg kg-1 minute-1 , respectively. There was no significant difference for the total number of arytenoid motions (p = 0.662) or vital breaths (p = 0.789) among induction agents.
CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The number of arytenoid motions were similar among the induction agents. However, at the dose rates used in this study, propofol provided adequate conditions for evaluation of the larynx with a shorter examination time which may be advantageous during laryngoscopy in dogs.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomised crossover study.
ANIMALS: Six healthy adult Beagle dogs.
METHODS: Each dog was randomly administered three induction agents with a 1-week washout period between treatments. Thiopentone (7.5 mg kg-1 ), propofol (3 mg kg-1 ) or alfaxalone (1.5 mg kg-1 ) was administered over 1 minute for induction of anaesthesia. If the dog was deemed inadequately anaesthetised, then supplemental boluses of 1.8, 0.75 and 0.4 mg kg-1 were administered, respectively. Continual examination of the larynx, using a laryngoscope, commenced once an adequate anaesthetic depth was reached until examination end point. The number of arytenoid motions and vital breaths were counted during three time periods and compared over time and among treatments. Data were analysed using Friedman and Mann-Whitney U tests, Spearman rho and a linear mixed model with post hoc pairwise comparison with Tukey correction.
RESULTS: The median (range) induction and examination times were 2.8 (2.0-3.0), 2.7 (2.0-3.3) and 2.5 (1.7-3.3) minutes (p = 0.727); and 14.1 (8.0-41.8), 5.4 (3.3-14.8) and 8.5 (3.8-31.6) minutes (p = 0.016) for thiopentone, propofol and alfaxalone, respectively. The median dose rates required to achieve an adequate anaesthetic depth were 6.3 (6.0-6.6), 2.4 (2.4-2.4) and 1.2 (1.2-1.2) mg kg-1 minute-1 , respectively. There was no significant difference for the total number of arytenoid motions (p = 0.662) or vital breaths (p = 0.789) among induction agents.
CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The number of arytenoid motions were similar among the induction agents. However, at the dose rates used in this study, propofol provided adequate conditions for evaluation of the larynx with a shorter examination time which may be advantageous during laryngoscopy in dogs.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app