Stemmet Gideon P, Meyer Leith Cr, Bruns Angela, Buss Peter, Zimmerman David, Koeppel Katja, Zeiler Gareth E
Department of Companion Animal Studies, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Department of Paraclinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2019 Jul;46(4):466-475. doi: 10.1016/j.vaa.2019.01.008. Epub 2019 Feb 11.
To compare immobilization efficacy of a nonpotent opioid drug combination, ketamine-butorphanol-medetomidine (KBM) to the preferred etorphine-azaperone (EA) combination in zebras.
Randomized crossover trial.
A group of ten adult zebra (six females and four male).
KBM and EA were administered once to the zebras in random order by dart, 3 weeks apart. Once a zebra was recumbent and instrumented, physiological parameters were measured and recorded at 5-minute intervals until 20 minutes. Antagonist drugs were administered at 25 minutes. KBM was antagonised using atipamezole (7.5 mg mg medetomidine dose) and naltrexone (2 mg mg butorphanol dose). EA was antagonized using naltrexone (20 mg mg etorphine dose). Induction and recovery (following antagonist administration) times were recorded. Physiological parameters, including invasive blood pressure and blood gas analysis, were compared between combinations using a general linear mixed model. Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range).
The doses of KBM and EA administered were 3.30 ± 0.18, 0.40 ± 0.02 and 0.16 ± 0.01 mg kg; and 0.02 ± 0.001 and 0.20 ± 0.01 mg kg, respectively. KBM and EA induction times were 420 (282-564) and 240 (204-294) seconds, respectively (p = 0.03). Zebras remained recumbent throughout the study procedures. Systolic blood pressure (226 ± 42 and 167 ± 42 mmHg) and oxygen partial pressure (64 ± 12 and 47 ± 13 mmHg) were higher for KBM compared to EA (p < 0.01). Recovery time, after administering antagonists, was 92 (34-1337) and 26 (22-32) seconds for KBM and EA, respectively (p = 0.03).
Compared to EA, KBM also immobilized zebras effectively. Systemic hypertension and moderate hypoxaemia are clinical concerns of KBM and severe hypoxaemia is a concern of EA. This occurrence of hypoxaemia highlights the importance of oxygen administration during immobilization.
比较一种非强效阿片类药物组合(氯胺酮-布托啡诺-美托咪定,KBM)与斑马首选的埃托啡-氮杂环庚烷(EA)组合的麻醉效果。
随机交叉试验。
一组十只成年斑马(六只雌性和四只雄性)。
KBM和EA以随机顺序通过注射给药,间隔3周。一旦斑马卧倒并安装监测仪器,每隔5分钟测量并记录生理参数,直至20分钟。在25分钟时给予拮抗剂。使用阿替美唑(美托咪定剂量为7.5毫克/毫克)和纳曲酮(布托啡诺剂量为2毫克/毫克)拮抗KBM。使用纳曲酮(埃托啡剂量为20毫克/毫克)拮抗EA。记录诱导和恢复(给予拮抗剂后)时间。使用一般线性混合模型比较两种组合之间的生理参数,包括有创血压和血气分析。数据以平均值±标准差或中位数(四分位间距)表示。
给予的KBM和EA剂量分别为3.30±0.18、0.40±0.02和0.16±0.01毫克/千克;以及0.02±0.001和0.20±0.01毫克/千克。KBM和EA的诱导时间分别为420(282 - 564)秒和240(204 - 294)秒(p = 0.03)。在整个研究过程中斑马一直处于卧倒状态。与EA相比,KBM组的收缩压(226±42和167±42毫米汞柱)和氧分压(6