Kim Charlene B Y, Ver Hoeve James N, Nork T Michael
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53792, USA.
Doc Ophthalmol. 2012 Feb;124(1):59-72. doi: 10.1007/s10633-011-9306-x. Epub 2011 Dec 27.
We compared the suitability of pentobarbital sodium (PB) and propofol (PF) anesthetics for multifocal electroretinograms (mfERGs) in rhesus macaques. mfERGs were collected from 4 ocularly normal rhesus macaques. All animals were pre-anesthetized with intramuscular ketamine (10-15 mg/kg). Intravenous PB induction/maintenance levels were 15 mg/kg/2-10 mg/kg and for PF, 2-5 mg/kg/6-24 mg/kg/h. There were 3 testing sessions with PB anesthesia and 5-7 testing sessions with PF anesthesia. All PB sessions were carried out before PF. First-order (K1) and second-order (first slice) kernels (K2.1) response density amplitude (RDA), implicit time (IT), and root mean square signal-to-noise ratios (RMS SNR) of the low-frequency (LFC) and high-frequency (HFC) components were evaluated. The use of PF or PB anesthesia resulted in robust, replicable mfERGs in rhesus macaques; however, RMS SNR of K1 LFC in ring and quadrant analyses was significantly larger for PF than for PB. Additionally, K1 RDA under PF was significantly larger than under PB for N1, P1, and P2 components (ring and quadrant) and for N2 (quadrant). PF IT was significantly prolonged (<1 ms) relative to PB IT for N1, P1 (ring), and N1 (quadrant), while PB IT was significantly prolonged (0.8-4.2 ms) relative to PF IT for N2 and P2 (ring and quadrant). K1 HFC and K2.1 LFC did not differ significantly between PB and PF in the ring or quadrant analyses. The response differences found with PB and PF anesthesia likely arise from variable relative effects of the anesthetics on retinal γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA(A)) receptors, and in part, on glycine and on glutamate receptors. Given the advantages of a stable anesthetic plane with continuous intravenous infusion and a smoother, more rapid recovery, PF is an appealing alternative for mfERG testing in rhesus macaques.
我们比较了戊巴比妥钠（PB）和丙泊酚（PF）麻醉剂对恒河猴多焦视网膜电图（mfERG）的适用性。从4只眼部正常的恒河猴采集mfERG。所有动物均先用肌肉注射氯胺酮（10 - 15mg/kg）进行预麻醉。静脉注射PB诱导/维持水平为15mg/kg/2 - 10mg/kg，PF为2 - 5mg/kg/6 - 24mg/kg/h。使用PB麻醉进行了3次测试，使用PF麻醉进行了5 - 7次测试。所有PB测试均在PF测试之前进行。评估了低频（LFC）和高频（HFC）成分的一阶（K1）和二阶（第一切片）核（K2.1）响应密度幅度（RDA）、隐含时间（IT）以及均方根信噪比（RMS SNR）。使用PF或PB麻醉在恒河猴中产生了可靠、可重复的mfERG；然而，在环形和象限分析中，PF的K1 LFC的RMS SNR显著大于PB。此外，对于N1、P1和P2成分（环形和象限）以及N2（象限），PF下的K1 RDA显著大于PB下的。相对于PB的IT，PF的N1、P1（环形）和N1（象限）的IT显著延长（<1ms），而相对于PF的IT，PB的N2和P2（环形和象限）的IT显著延长（0.8 - 4.2ms）。在环形或象限分析中，PB和PF之间的K1 HFC和K2.1 LFC没有显著差异。PB和PF麻醉所发现的反应差异可能源于麻醉剂对视网膜γ-氨基丁酸（GABA(A)）受体以及部分对甘氨酸和谷氨酸受体的相对作用不同。鉴于持续静脉输注具有稳定麻醉平面以及恢复更平稳、更快的优点，PF是恒河猴mfERG测试的一个有吸引力的替代选择。
