Dzikiti Brighton T, Stegmann Frik G, Dzikiti Loveness N, Hellebrekers Ludo J
Department of Companion Animal Clinical Studies, University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa.
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2010 Nov;37(6):519-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2010.00568.x.
To compare the efficacy and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol and fentanyl, with propofol and midazolam for total intravenous anaesthesia.
Prospective, randomized, crossover experimental study.
Six goats; three does and three wethers.
Goats received either fentanyl 0.02 mg kg(-1) (treatment FP) or midazolam 0.3 mg kg(-1) (treatment MP) intravenously. One minute later anaesthesia was induced with propofol, then maintained by constant rate infusion of propofol 12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) and fentanyl 0.02 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) (treatment FP) or propofol 12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) and midazolam 0.3 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) (treatment MP) for 90 minutes. Response to noxious stimulus was tested every 10 minutes and propofol dose adjusted to prevent purposeful movement. Cardiopulmonary parameters were measured continuously, and arterial blood-gas analysis performed intermittently. Recovery was timed and quality scored. Results are presented as median (IQR).
Differences in the propofol induction dose [4.00 (3.96-4.01) and 3.97 (3.91-4.00) mg kg(-1) for treatments FP and MP, respectively] were not significant. Quality of induction in both groups was smooth. The median propofol dose for maintenance was less (p = 0.004) with treatment FP (12.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1) than MP (18.0 mg kg(-1) hour(-1). Cardiopulmonary function was well maintained with both treatments. Recovery times in minutes from the end of anaesthetic infusion for treatments FP and MP respectively were; to extubation 3.0 (3.0-3.0) and 4.5 (3.3-5.0); to sternal position, 4.5 (3.3-5.0) and 5.0 (5.0-6.5) and to standing 13.0 (10.3-15.0) and 15.0 (11.3-17.3). Quality of recovery was acceptable in both groups, but abnormal behavioural signs were observed after treatment FP.
Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl or propofol and midazolam, at the doses studied, in spontaneously-breathing, oxygen-supplemented goats is practicable. Recovery from the fentanyl-propofol combination is not always smooth.
比较丙泊酚与芬太尼、丙泊酚与咪达唑仑用于全静脉麻醉的疗效及对心肺的影响。
前瞻性、随机、交叉实验研究。
6只山羊；3只母羊和3只公羊。
山羊静脉注射芬太尼0.02mg/kg（FP组）或咪达唑仑0.3mg/kg（MP组）。1分钟后用丙泊酚诱导麻醉，然后持续输注丙泊酚12.0mg/（kg·小时）和芬太尼0.02mg/（kg·小时）（FP组）或丙泊酚12.0mg/（kg·小时）和咪达唑仑0.3mg/（kg·小时）（MP组）维持麻醉90分钟。每10分钟测试对有害刺激的反应，并调整丙泊酚剂量以防止有目的的运动。连续测量心肺参数，间歇进行动脉血气分析。记录苏醒时间并进行质量评分。结果以中位数（四分位间距）表示。
丙泊酚诱导剂量差异无统计学意义[FP组和MP组分别为4.00（3.96 - 4.01）mg/kg和3.97（3.91 - 4.00）mg/kg]。两组诱导质量均平稳。FP组维持麻醉的丙泊酚中位数剂量[12.0mg/（kg·小时）]低于MP组[18.0mg/（kg·小时）]（p = 0.004）。两种处理方法均能良好维持心肺功能。FP组和MP组从麻醉输注结束到拔管的苏醒时间分别为3.0（3.0 - 3.0）分钟和4.5（3.3 - 5.0）分钟；到胸骨位分别为4.5（3.3 - 5.0）分钟和5.0（5.0 - 6.5）分钟；到站起分别为13.0（10.3 - 15.0）分钟和15.0（11.3 - 17.3）分钟。两组苏醒质量均可接受，但FP组术后观察到异常行为体征。
在本研究剂量下，对自主呼吸、吸氧的山羊，丙泊酚与芬太尼或丙泊酚与咪达唑仑用于全静脉麻醉是可行的。芬太尼 - 丙泊酚组合的苏醒并不总是平稳。
