Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Alfaxalone versus propofol for treating dog seizures not responding
By Al Kafaji, Tania et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2024·Veterinary Neurological Center "La Fenice", Italy·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Efficacy and safety of alfaxalone compared to propofol in canine refractory status epilepticus: a pilot study.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of twenty dogs experiencing severe, uncontrolled seizures (refractory status epilepticus) were treated with either alfaxalone or propofol to see which was more effective. Both medications were given through an intravenous drip after an initial injection, and while propofol helped six out of ten dogs, alfaxalone helped five out of ten. Some dogs experienced side effects, but there were no significant differences in outcomes between the two treatments. Overall, alfaxalone appears to be a safe alternative to propofol for treating these severe seizures, but careful monitoring is still necessary.
People also search for: dog seizures treatment · alfaxalone for dogs · propofol side effects in dogs
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is defined as seizure activity that is minimally responsive to first- or second-line antiseizure medications. Constant rate infusion (CRI) intravenous propofol (PPF) is commonly used to treat RSE in dogs and cats. The antiseizure activity of alfaxalone (ALF) in RSE has been demonstrated in various experimental studies. This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of intramuscular administration followed by CRI infusion of ALF with intravenous administration followed by CRI infusion of PPF to treat canine RSE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial of client-owned dogs referred for status epilepticus that did not respond to first- and second-line drugs. Animals with suspected or confirmed idiopathic or structural epilepsy were included. The dogs were randomly assigned to either the PPF or ALF treatment groups and each group received drug CRI infusions for 6 h. Drug dosages were progressively reduced by 25% every hour from the third hour until suspension after 6 h. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on the relapse of epileptic seizures during the 24 h therapy infusion or within 24 h of drug suspension. Univariate statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twenty dogs were enrolled in the study. Ten (10/20) dogs were randomly allocated to the PPF group and 10 (10/20) to the ALF group. Successful outcomes were obtained in six (6/10) patients in the PPF group and five (5/10) patients in the ALF group. Adverse effects were recorded in six (6/10) and three (3/10) animals in the PPF and ALF groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences in outcomes or the presence of adverse effects were observed between the groups. DISCUSSION: The results of this preliminary study suggest that ALF can be considered a valid and safe alternative to PPF for the treatment of RSE in dogs, with the additional advantage of intramuscular administration. However, caution should be exercised when using these drugs to provide airway and hemodynamic support.
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/39040816/