Umar Mohammed A, Yamashita Kazuto, Kushiro Tokiko, Muir William W
Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Rakuno Gakuen University, Ebetsu, Hokkaido 0698501, Japan.
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006 Apr 15;228(8):1221-7. doi: 10.2460/javma.228.8.1221.
Objective-To compare the anesthetic and cardiorespiratory effects of total IV anesthesia with propofol (P-TIVA) or a ketamine-medetomidine-propofol combination (KMP-TIVA) in horses. Design-Randomized experimental trial. Animals-12 horses. Procedure-Horses received medetomidine (0.005 mg/kg [0.002 mg/lb], IV). Anesthesia was induced with midazolam (0.04 mg/kg [0.018 mg/lb], IV) and ketamine (2.5 mg/kg [1.14 mg/lb], IV). All horses received a loading dose of propofol (0.5 mg/kg [0.23 mg/lb], IV), and 6 horses underwent P-TIVA (propofol infusion). Six horses underwent KMP-TIVA (ketamine [1 mg/kg/h {0.45 mg/lb/h}] and medetomidine [0.00125 mg/kg/h {0.0006 mg/lb/h}] infusion; the rate of propofol infusion was adjusted to maintain anesthesia). Arterial blood pressure and heart rate were monitored. Qualities of anesthetic induction, transition to TIVA, and maintenance of and recovery from anesthesia were evaluated. Results-Administration of KMP IV provided satisfactory anesthesia in horses. Compared with the P-TIVA group, the propofol infusion rate was significantly less in horses undergoing KMP-TIVA (0.14 +/- 0.02 mg/kg/min [0.064 +/- 0.009 mg/lb/min] vs 0.22 +/- 0.03 mg/kg/min [0.1 +/- 0.014 mg/lb/min]). In the KMP-TIVA and P-TIVA groups, anesthesia time was 115 +/- 17 minutes and 112 +/- 11 minutes, respectively, and heart rate and arterial blood pressure were maintained within acceptable limits. There was no significant difference in time to standing after cessation of anesthesia between groups. Recovery from KMP-TIVA and P-TIVA was considered good and satisfactory, respectively. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-In horses, KMP-TIVA and P-TIVA provided clinically useful anesthesia; the ketamine-medetomidine infusion provided a sparing effect on propofol requirement for maintaining anesthesia.
目的——比较丙泊酚全静脉麻醉(P-TIVA)或氯胺酮-美托咪定-丙泊酚联合麻醉(KMP-TIVA)对马的麻醉及心肺效应。设计——随机试验。动物——12匹马。步骤——给马静脉注射美托咪定(0.005mg/kg[0.002mg/lb])。用咪达唑仑(0.04mg/kg[0.018mg/lb],静脉注射)和氯胺酮(2.5mg/kg[1.14mg/lb],静脉注射)诱导麻醉。所有马均静脉注射负荷剂量的丙泊酚(0.5mg/kg[0.23mg/lb]),6匹马接受P-TIVA(丙泊酚输注)。6匹马接受KMP-TIVA(氯胺酮[1mg/kg/h{0.45mg/lb/h}]和美托咪定[0.00125mg/kg/h{0.0006mg/lb/h}]输注;调整丙泊酚输注速率以维持麻醉)。监测动脉血压和心率。评估麻醉诱导、过渡到全静脉麻醉、维持麻醉及麻醉苏醒的质量。结果——静脉注射KMP能为马提供满意的麻醉效果。与P-TIVA组相比,接受KMP-TIVA的马丙泊酚输注速率显著更低(0.14±0.02mg/kg/min[0.064±0.009mg/lb/min]对0.22±0.03mg/kg/min[0.1±0.014mg/lb/min])。在KMP-TIVA组和P-TIVA组中,麻醉时间分别为115±17分钟和112±11分钟,心率和动脉血压维持在可接受范围内。两组之间麻醉停止后站立时间无显著差异。KMP-TIVA和P-TIVA的苏醒分别被认为良好和满意。结论及临床意义——在马中,KMP-TIVA和P-TIVA提供了临床上有用的麻醉;氯胺酮-美托咪定输注对维持麻醉所需的丙泊酚用量有节省作用