Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Effects of alfaxalone and propofol on dog larynx motion during exams
By Radkey, Denise I et al.·Published in Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia·2018·University of Wisconsin Veterinary Care, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of the effects of alfaxalone and propofol with acepromazine, butorphanol and/or doxapram on laryngeal motion and quality of examination in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
Ten young female Beagle dogs were given different combinations of anesthesia to see how well they could breathe and how clear their throat examination would be. The dogs received either alfaxalone or propofol, with or without additional medications like acepromazine and butorphanol. It was found that using the combination of propofol with acepromazine and butorphanol led to better throat examination quality, and any issues with throat movement caused by the premedications could be fixed with another drug called doxapram. Overall, the study suggests that using just alfaxalone or propofol alone isn't the best choice for checking throat movement in dogs.
People also search for: dog throat examination · anesthesia for dog laryngeal exam · propofol vs alfaxalone in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of alfaxalone and propofol, with and without acepromazine and butorphanol followed by doxapram, on laryngeal motion and quality of laryngeal examination in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, crossover, blinded study. ANIMALS: Ten female Beagle dogs, aged 11-13 months and weighing 7.2-8.6 kg. METHODS: The dogs were administered four intravenous (IV) treatments: alfaxalone (ALF), alfaxalone+acepromazine and butorphanol (ALF-AB), propofol (PRO) and propofol+AB (PRO-AB). AB doses were standardized. Dogs were anesthetized 5 minutes later by administration of alfaxalone or propofol IV to effect. Arytenoid motion during maximal inspiration and expiration was captured on video before and after IV doxapram (0.25 mg kg). The change in rima glottidis surface area (RGSA) was calculated to measure arytenoid motion. An investigator blinded to the treatment scored laryngeal examination quality. RESULTS: A 20% increase in RGSA was the minimal arytenoid motion that was detectable. RGSA was significantly less in ALF before doxapram compared with all other treatments. A <20% increase in RGSA was measured in eight of 10 dogs in PRO and in all dogs in ALF before doxapram. After doxapram, RGSA was significantly increased for PRO and ALF; however, 20% of dogs in PRO and 50% of dogs in ALF still had <20% increase in RGSA. A <20% increase in RGSA was measured in five of 10 dogs in PRO-AB and ALF-AB before doxapram. All dogs in PRO-AB and ALF-AB with <20% increase in RGSA before doxapram had ≥20% increase in RGSA after doxapram. Examination quality was significantly better in PRO-AB and ALF-AB. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of acepromazine and butorphanol improved the quality of laryngeal examination. Any negative impact on arytenoid motion caused by these premedications was overcome with doxapram. Using either propofol or alfaxalone alone is not recommended for the evaluation of arytenoid motion.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29426677/