Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs
Objective To compare the clinical effects of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol in dogs following premedication with medetomidine and methadone. Study design Prospective, ‘blinded’ and randomized clinical study. Animals A total of 75 male dogs presented for neutering at a charity clini...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/43959/ |
| _version_ | 1848796805961089024 |
|---|---|
| author | White, Kate L. Yates, David |
| author_facet | White, Kate L. Yates, David |
| author_sort | White, Kate L. |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Objective
To compare the clinical effects of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol in dogs following premedication with medetomidine and methadone.
Study design
Prospective, ‘blinded’ and randomized clinical study.
Animals
A total of 75 male dogs presented for neutering at a charity clinic.
Methods
Dogs were allocated to receive alfaxalone, ketamine or propofol following premedication with medetomidine (20 μg kg−1) and methadone (0.2 mg kg−1). Dogs were temperament scored prior to premedication. Quality of sedation, induction of anaesthesia, recovery and recovery environment were scored by simple descriptive scales. Physiological variables during anaesthesia were recorded. Continuous numerical data were analysed using analysis of variance with repeated measures as necessary. Nonparametric data were analysed using Kruskal–Wallis tests and multiple comparisons using Dunn's test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results
The mean (± standard deviation) dose of alfaxalone was 0.6 ± mg kg−1, that for ketamine was 1.5 ± 0.7 mg kg−1 and that for propofol was 0.8 ± 0.3 mg kg−1. Alfaxalone inductions were significantly smoother compared to ketamine but not to propofol. Only one of 75 of the inductions was deemed poor. There were no differences in cardiopulmonary variables between groups except immediately after induction of anaesthesia. There were no differences in quality of recovery between groups.
Conclusions and clinical relevance
All three induction agents provided reliable, predictable anaesthesia conditions that were clinically indistinguishable and ideal for teaching anaesthesia skills. The medetomidine and methadone premedication resulted in profound, heavy sedation and the quality of induction of anaesthesia was better with alfaxalone compared to ketamine. No significant difference in induction quality was detected between alfaxalone and proprofol or propofol and ketamine, and these findings are likely to be of limited clinical significance when choosing an induction agent. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:53:50Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-43959 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:53:50Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-439592020-05-04T18:36:57Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/43959/ Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs White, Kate L. Yates, David Objective To compare the clinical effects of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol in dogs following premedication with medetomidine and methadone. Study design Prospective, ‘blinded’ and randomized clinical study. Animals A total of 75 male dogs presented for neutering at a charity clinic. Methods Dogs were allocated to receive alfaxalone, ketamine or propofol following premedication with medetomidine (20 μg kg−1) and methadone (0.2 mg kg−1). Dogs were temperament scored prior to premedication. Quality of sedation, induction of anaesthesia, recovery and recovery environment were scored by simple descriptive scales. Physiological variables during anaesthesia were recorded. Continuous numerical data were analysed using analysis of variance with repeated measures as necessary. Nonparametric data were analysed using Kruskal–Wallis tests and multiple comparisons using Dunn's test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results The mean (± standard deviation) dose of alfaxalone was 0.6 ± mg kg−1, that for ketamine was 1.5 ± 0.7 mg kg−1 and that for propofol was 0.8 ± 0.3 mg kg−1. Alfaxalone inductions were significantly smoother compared to ketamine but not to propofol. Only one of 75 of the inductions was deemed poor. There were no differences in cardiopulmonary variables between groups except immediately after induction of anaesthesia. There were no differences in quality of recovery between groups. Conclusions and clinical relevance All three induction agents provided reliable, predictable anaesthesia conditions that were clinically indistinguishable and ideal for teaching anaesthesia skills. The medetomidine and methadone premedication resulted in profound, heavy sedation and the quality of induction of anaesthesia was better with alfaxalone compared to ketamine. No significant difference in induction quality was detected between alfaxalone and proprofol or propofol and ketamine, and these findings are likely to be of limited clinical significance when choosing an induction agent. Elsevier 2017-03-06 Article PeerReviewed White, Kate L. and Yates, David (2017) Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia . ISSN 1467-2995 alfaxalone anaesthesia dog ketamine propofol http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146729871730079X doi:10.1016/j.vaa.2016.12.057 doi:10.1016/j.vaa.2016.12.057 |
| spellingShingle | alfaxalone anaesthesia dog ketamine propofol White, Kate L. Yates, David Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs |
| title | Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs |
| title_full | Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs |
| title_fullStr | Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs |
| title_short | Clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs |
| title_sort | clinical comparison of alfaxalone, ketamine and propofol following medetomidine and methadone in dogs |
| topic | alfaxalone anaesthesia dog ketamine propofol |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/43959/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/43959/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/43959/ |