美索比妥与丙泊酚作为健康犬喉功能评估诱导剂的比较。
Comparison of methohexital and propofol as induction agents for evaluation of laryngeal function in healthy dogs.
作者信息
Brown Mikala B, Dugat Danielle R, Lyon Shane D, Nafe Laura A, Payton Mark E, Peakheart Sarah K, Salazar Rebecca S
机构信息
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
出版信息
Vet Surg. 2019 Jan;48(1):70-78. doi: 10.1111/vsu.13110. Epub 2018 Oct 27.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the influence of propofol or methohexital, with and without doxapram, on the examination of laryngeal function in dogs.
STUDY DESIGN
Experimental study.
ANIMALS
Forty healthy dogs randomly assigned to 4 groups: propofol with saline (n = 10), propofol with doxapram (n = 10), methohexital with saline (n = 10), or methohexital with doxapram (n = 10).
METHODS
Propofol and methohexital were administered to effect. Investigators examined laryngeal function (initial) simultaneously with video laryngoscopy. Doxapram or saline was administered, and laryngeal function was reevaluated (second). Laryngeal motion, quality of laryngeal exposure, and the degree of swallowing, laryngospasm, and jaw tone were scored at each evaluation. Adverse events were recorded. Initial and second videos were evaluated by a masked observer, and still images obtained from both evaluations were evaluated for change in rima glottidis size by 2 masked observers.
RESULTS
Administration of doxapram and saline was delayed with propofol (P = .001). Laryngeal function did not differ between dogs receiving propofol or methohexital, irrespective of doxapram administration. Doxapram improved breathing scores in both groups (P < .001). Jaw tone increased with propofol during the second evaluation (P = .049). Swallowing was more prevalent at initial examination (P = .020). Methohexital resulted in an increased heart rate (P < .001) compared with propofol. Twenty-five percent of dogs receiving methohexital developed seizure-like activity (n = 5/20).
CONCLUSION
Evaluation of laryngeal function did not differ between healthy dogs anesthetized with propofol or methohexital. Methohexital provided shorter examination times with less jaw tone but was associated with adverse events.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This study provides evidence to recommend propofol over methohexital as an induction agent for laryngeal function examination.
目的
确定丙泊酚或美索比妥在使用和不使用多沙普仑的情况下对犬喉功能检查的影响。
研究设计
实验性研究。
动物
40只健康犬随机分为4组：丙泊酚加生理盐水组（n = 10）、丙泊酚加多沙普仑组（n = 10）、美索比妥加生理盐水组（n = 10）或美索比妥加多沙普仑组（n = 10）。
方法
给予丙泊酚和美索比妥至起效。研究人员在视频喉镜检查的同时检查喉功能（首次）。给予多沙普仑或生理盐水，并重新评估喉功能（第二次）。每次评估时对喉运动、喉暴露质量以及吞咽、喉痉挛和下颌张力程度进行评分。记录不良事件。首次和第二次视频由一名盲法观察者评估，两名盲法观察者对两次评估获得的静态图像进行声门裂大小变化评估。
结果
丙泊酚使多沙普仑和生理盐水的给药延迟（P = 0.001）。无论是否给予多沙普仑，接受丙泊酚或美索比妥的犬之间喉功能无差异。多沙普仑改善了两组的呼吸评分（P < 0.001）。第二次评估时丙泊酚使下颌张力增加（P = 0.049）。吞咽在初次检查时更常见（P = 0.020）。与丙泊酚相比，美索比妥导致心率增加（P < 0.001）。接受美索比妥的犬中有百分之二十五出现癫痫样活动（n = 5/20）。
结论
用丙泊酚或美索比妥麻醉的健康犬之间喉功能评估无差异。美索比妥检查时间较短且下颌张力较小，但伴有不良事件。
临床意义
本研究提供了证据，推荐使用丙泊酚而非美索比妥作为喉功能检查的诱导剂。
Zotero 插件