The authors declare no conflict of interest
1476-4431/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=1198e742bbbdf6a74b8cd41ab80445cebba03d3c)
1476-4431/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=2f073f06b827aa98d20490e80641e603df213ad0)
Original Study
A comparison of 3 anesthetic protocols for 24 hours of mechanical ventilation in cats
Article first published online: 10 APR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-4431.2012.00722.x
© Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society 2012
Issue
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care
Volume 22, Issue 2, pages 239–252, April 2012
Additional Information
How to Cite
Boudreau, A. E., Bersenas, A. M.E., Kerr, C. L., Holowaychuk, M. K. and Johnson, R. J. (2012), A comparison of 3 anesthetic protocols for 24 hours of mechanical ventilation in cats. Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care, 22: 239–252. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-4431.2012.00722.x
Presented in abstract form at the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society meeting in San Antonio, TX in September 2010.
Funding for this study was provided by the Ontario Veterinary College, Pet Trust Fund.
Publication History
- Issue published online: 10 APR 2012
- Article first published online: 10 APR 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 2 FEB 2012
- Manuscript Revised: 25 MAY 2011
- Manuscript Received: 1 NOV 2010
Funded by
- Ontario Veterinary College, Pet Trust Fund
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- analgesia;
- anesthetic agents;
- cardiovascular monitoring;
- critical care;
- small animal anesthesiology
Abstract
Objective
To compare the recovery times, recovery quality, and cardiovascular (CV) effects of 3 anesthetic protocols during 24 hours of mechanical ventilation (MV) in healthy cats.
Design
Prospective, randomized, crossover study.
Setting
Research laboratory at a veterinary teaching hospital.
Animals
Six healthy intact male purpose-bred cats.
Interventions
Each cat was randomly assigned to receive 3 anesthetic protocols for 24 hours of MV; Protocol K consisted of ketamine, Protocol P, propofol; and Protocol PK, propofol plus fixed-rate low-dose ketamine. Each infusion drug dose was adjusted using a sedation scoring system. All protocols included fixed doses of fentanyl (10 μg/kg/h) and midazolam (0.5 mg/kg/h).
Measurements and Main Results
Drug doses and recovery times were recorded. Recovery quality was scored. Blood gas results, CV parameters, and frequency of bradycardia or hypotension requiring interventions were recorded. The mean d dose ± standard error of K was 81.3 ± 3.3 μg/kg/m. The median dose (95% cardiac index) of propofol (μg/kg/m) in PK was 16.0 (13.1, 19.6) and in P was 48.1 (39.3, 58.9). P necessitated significantly more propofol than PK (P < 0.05). Protocol K (35.6 ± 3.2 hours) had significantly longer times to full recovery compared to P (18.2 ± 3.2 hours). Protocol K had significantly longer times to head up, crawling, and standing compared to P and PK. Cats sedated with PK (2.33 ± 0.47) required significantly more interventions for hypotension than K (0.50 ± 0.47). Protocol P (3.2 ± 0.4) and PK (1.4 ± 0.3) required significantly more interventions for bradycardia compared to K (0.8 ± 0.3). When comparing protocol K to P and PK, significant differences in blood pressure, lactate, oxygen delivery, and oxygen consumption were noted.
Conclusions
Cats anesthetized with P had shorter times to full recovery compared to K. Cats anesthetized with K required fewer interventions for bradycardia or hypotension but had longer recovery times compared to P or PK. Protocol PK reduced the propofol dose required to maintain optimal anesthesia.