Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Sedation effects of acepromazine with nalbuphine or butorphanol
By Costa, Gabriela P et al.·Published in Journal of feline medicine and surgery·2021·Department of Animal Medicine, Brazil·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Sedative effects of acepromazine in combination with nalbuphine or butorphanol, intramuscularly or intravenously, in healthy cats: a randomized, blinded clinical trial.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A group of healthy cats received a combination of acepromazine with either nalbuphine or butorphanol to see how well it would sedate them before anesthesia. About 30 minutes after the treatment, all cats showed mild sedation, but there was no significant difference in sedation levels between the two combinations. While the sedation was mild, a drop in blood pressure was noted in some cats, particularly after they were given the anesthetic propofol. Overall, the sedation was effective but careful monitoring of blood pressure is important during the procedure.
People also search for: cat sedation options · acepromazine for cats · cat anesthesia safety · nalbuphine for cats · butorphanol side effects in cats
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the sedative effects in cats administered acepromazine-nalbuphine and acepromazine-butorphanol, intramuscularly (IM) and intravenously (IV), and the occurrence of adverse cardiorespiratory effects. METHODS: Forty-six cats were randomly divided into four groups and administered acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with nalbuphine (0.5 mg/kg) or butorphanol (0.4 mg/kg), IV (ACP-NALand ACP-BUTgroups, respectively) or IM (ACP-NALand ACP-BUTgroups, respectively). Sedation scores, ease of intravenous catheter placement (simple descriptive scale [SDS] scores), physiologic variables, venous blood gases and the propofol dose required for anesthetic induction were recorded. RESULTS: Mild sedation was observed in all groups approximately 30 mins after treatment administration (timepoint T1, prior to propofol administration). Sedation scores at T1 increased above baseline in all groups (<0.05), but no significant difference was observed among groups. Dynamic interactive visual analogue scale sedation scores (range 0-100 mm) recorded at T1 were (median [interquartile range]): ACP-NAL, 12 (10-12); ACP-NAL, 11 (6-16); ACP-BUT, 11 (7-14); and ACP-BUT, 12 (7-19). Overall, SDS scores did not change from baseline at T1 and there was no significant difference among groups. The propofol dose did not differ among groups. Blood gases remained within the reference intervals for cats. Significant decreases from baseline were detected for all groups in systolic arterial pressure (SAP). Mean ± SD values at T1 were (mmHg): ACP-NAL, 108 ± 13; ACP-NAL, 102 ± 10; ACP-BUT, 97 ± 13; and ACP-BUT, 98 ± 21. Arterial hypotension (SAP <90 mmHg) was recorded at T1 in 0/11, 1/13, 4/11 and 5/11 cats in groups ACP-NAL, ACP-NAL, ACP-BUTand ACP-BUT, respectively, and was further exacerbated after the induction of anesthesia with propofol. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In healthy cats administered acepromazine-nalbuphine and acepromazine-butorphanol, IM and IV, the degree of sedation was mild regardless of the protocol and the route of administration. The main adverse effect observed was a reduction in arterial blood pressure.
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/33044122/