Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Propofol and midazolam effects on heart and lungs in sick dogs
By Aguilera, Rodrigo et al.·Published in Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia·2020·Department of Clinical Studies, Canada·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in critically ill dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
Nineteen critically ill dogs needing emergency abdominal surgery were given either propofol alone or propofol with midazolam to see which combination worked better for anesthesia. The dogs were first sedated with fentanyl, and then the quality of their anesthesia induction was measured. It turned out that using midazolam allowed for a lower dose of propofol and improved the overall quality of anesthesia induction without affecting heart and breathing rates. This means that for dogs in serious condition, combining these medications can make the process smoother and safer.
People also search for: dog anesthesia options · propofol vs midazolam for dogs · emergency surgery anesthesia for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥III dogs requiring emergency abdominal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial. ANIMALS: A total of 19 client-owned dogs. METHODS: Dogs were sedated with fentanyl (2 μg kg) intravenously (IV) for instrumentation for measurement of heart rate, arterial blood pressure, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate and rectal temperature. After additional IV fentanyl (3 μg kg), the quality of sedation was scored and cardiopulmonary variables recorded. Induction of anesthesia was with IV propofol (1 mg kg) and saline (0.06 mL kg; group PS; nine dogs) or midazolam (0.3 mg kg; group PM; 10 dogs), with additional propofol (0.25 mg kg) IV every 6 seconds until endotracheal intubation. Induction/intubation quality was scored, and anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane. Variables were recorded for 5 minutes with the dog in lateral recumbency, breathing spontaneously, and then in dorsal recumbency with mechanical ventilation for the next 15 minutes. A general linear mixed model was used with post hoc analysis for multiple comparisons between groups (p < 0.05). RESULTS: There were no differences in group demographics, temperature and cardiopulmonary variables between groups or within groups before or after induction. The propofol doses for induction of anesthesia were significantly different between groups, 1.9 ± 0.5 and 1.1 ± 0.5 mg kgfor groups PS and PM, respectively, and the induction/intubation score was significantly better for group PM. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Midazolam co-induction reduced the propofol induction dose and improved the quality of induction in critically ill dogs without an improvement in cardiopulmonary variables, when compared with a higher dose of propofol alone.
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/32402602/