Dzikiti T B, Chanaiwa S, Mponda P, Sigauke C, Dzikiti L N
Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X04, Onderstepoort, 0110 South Africa.
J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2007 Dec;78(4):201-4. doi: 10.4102/jsava.v78i4.323.
The quality of induction of general anesthesia produced by ketamine and propofol, 2 of the most commonly used anaesthetic agents in cats, was assessed. Eighteen cats admitted for elective procedures were randomly assigned to 3 groups and then premedicated with xylazine 0.75 mg/kg intramuscularly before anaesthesia was induced with ketamine 15 mg/kg intramuscularly (KetIM group), ketamine 10 mg/kg intravenously (KetIV group) or propofol 4 mg/kg intravenously (PropIV group). Quality of induction of general anaesthesia was determined by scoring ease of intubation, degree of struggling, and vocalisation during the induction period. The quality of induction of anaesthesia of intramuscularly administered ketamine was inferior to that of intravenously administered ketamine, while intravenously administered propofol showed little difference in quality of induction from ketamine administered by both the intramuscular and intravenous routes. There were no significant differences between groups in the ease of intubation scores, while vocalisation and struggling were more common in cats that received ketamine intramuscularly than in those that received intravenously administered ketamine or propofol for induction of anaesthesia. Laryngospasms occurred in 2 cats that received propofol. The heart rates and respiratory rates decreased after xylazine premedication and either remained the same or decreased further after induction for all 3 groups, but remained within normal acceptable limits. This study indicates that the 3 regimens are associated with acceptable induction characteristics, but administration of ketamine intravenously is superior to its administration intramuscularly and laryngeal desensitisation is recommended to avoid laryngospasms.
对猫最常用的两种麻醉剂氯胺酮和丙泊酚产生的全身麻醉诱导质量进行了评估。18只因择期手术入院的猫被随机分为3组，然后在麻醉诱导前肌肉注射0.75mg/kg赛拉嗪进行预处理，之后分别肌肉注射15mg/kg氯胺酮（氯胺酮肌肉注射组）、静脉注射10mg/kg氯胺酮（氯胺酮静脉注射组）或静脉注射4mg/kg丙泊酚（丙泊酚静脉注射组）。通过对诱导期插管的难易程度、挣扎程度和发声情况进行评分来确定全身麻醉的诱导质量。肌肉注射氯胺酮的麻醉诱导质量低于静脉注射氯胺酮，而静脉注射丙泊酚在诱导质量上与肌肉注射和静脉注射氯胺酮相比差异不大。各组在插管难易程度评分上无显著差异，而在麻醉诱导时，肌肉注射氯胺酮的猫发声和挣扎比静脉注射氯胺酮或丙泊酚的猫更常见。2只接受丙泊酚的猫发生了喉痉挛。赛拉嗪预处理后心率和呼吸频率下降，所有3组诱导后心率和呼吸频率要么保持不变，要么进一步下降，但仍在正常可接受范围内。本研究表明，这三种方案都具有可接受的诱导特征，但静脉注射氯胺酮优于肌肉注射，建议进行喉部脱敏以避免喉痉挛。
