Heart rate, arterial pressure and propofol-sparing effects of guaifenesin in dogs.

Autor: Hristova TS; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA., Keating SC; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA. Electronic address: skeating@illinois.edu., McCoy AM; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA., Strahl-Heldreth DE; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA., Doodnaught GM; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA., Sieja KM; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA., Swanson KS; Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia [Vet Anaesth Analg] 2023 Jan; Vol. 50 (1), pp. 50-56. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Oct 13.
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaa.2022.10.001
Abstrakt: Objective: To evaluate the heart rate (HR) and systemic arterial pressure (sAP) effects, and propofol induction dose requirements in healthy dogs administered propofol with or without guaifenesin for the induction of anesthesia.
Study Design: Prospective blinded crossover experimental study.
Animals: A total of 10 healthy adult female Beagle dogs.
Methods: Dogs were premedicated with intravenous (IV) butorphanol (0.4 mg kg -1 ) and administered guaifenesin 5% at 50 mg kg -1 (treatment G50), 100 mg kg -1 (treatment G100) or saline (treatment saline) IV prior to anesthetic induction with propofol. HR, invasive sAP and respiratory rate (f R ) were recorded after butorphanol administration, after guaifenesin administration and after propofol and endotracheal intubation. Propofol doses for intubation were recorded. Repeated measures analysis of variance (anova) was used to determine differences in propofol dose requirements among treatments, and differences in cardiopulmonary values over time and among treatments with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results: Propofol doses (mean ± standard deviation) for treatments saline, G50 and G100 were 3.3 ± 1.0, 2.7 ± 0.7 and 2.1 ± 0.8 mg kg -1 , respectively. Propofol administered was significantly lower in treatment G100 than in treatment saline (p = 0.04). In treatments G50 and G100, HR increased following induction of anesthesia and intubation compared with baseline measurements. HR was higher in treatment G100 than in treatments G50 and saline following induction of anesthesia. In all treatments, sAP decreased following intubation compared with baseline values. There were no significant differences in sAP among treatments. f R was lower following intubation than baseline and post co-induction values and did not differ significantly among treatments.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: When administered as a co-induction agent in dogs, guaifenesin reduced propofol requirements for tracheal intubation. HR increased and sAP and f R decreased, but mean values remained clinically acceptable.
(Copyright © 2022 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists and American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: