Total intravenous anaesthesia with ketamine, medetomidine and guaifenesin compared with ketamine, medetomidine and midazolam in young horses anaesthetised for computerised tomography

Summary Background There is no information directly comparing midazolam with guaifenesin when used in combination with an alpha‐2 agonist and ketamine to maintain anaesthesia via i.v. infusion in horses. Objectives To compare ketamine–medetomidine–guaifenesin with ketamine–medetomidine–midazolam for...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Equine veterinary journal 2019-07, Vol.51 (4), p.510-516
Hauptverfasser: Pratt, S., Cunneen, A., Perkins, N., Farry, T., Kidd, L., McEwen, M., Rainger, J., Truchetti, G., Goodwin, W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Summary Background There is no information directly comparing midazolam with guaifenesin when used in combination with an alpha‐2 agonist and ketamine to maintain anaesthesia via i.v. infusion in horses. Objectives To compare ketamine–medetomidine–guaifenesin with ketamine–medetomidine–midazolam for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in young horses anaesthetised for computerised tomography. Study design Prospective, randomised, blinded, crossover trial. Methods Fourteen weanlings received medetomidine 7 μg/kg bwt i.v. and anaesthesia was induced with ketamine 2.2 mg/kg bwt i.v. On two separate occasions horses each received infusions of ketamine 3 mg/kg bwt/h, medetomidine 5 μg/kg bwt/h, guaifenesin 100 mg/kg bwt/h (KMG) or ketamine 3 mg/kg bwt/h, medetomidine 5 μg/kg bwt/h, midazolam 0.1 mg/kg bwt/h (KMM) for 50 min. Cardiorespiratory variables and anaesthetic depth were assessed every 5–10 min. Recovery times after the infusions ceased were recorded and recovery quality was assessed using a composite score system (CSS), simple descriptive scale (SDS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Multivariable models were used to generate mean recovery scores for each treatment and each recovery score system and provide P‐values comparing treatment groups. Results Anaesthesia was uneventful with no difference in additional anaesthetic requirements and little clinically relevant differences in cardiopulmonary variables between groups. All horses recovered without incident with no significant difference in recovery times. Quality of the anaesthetic recovery was significantly better for the KMM group compared with the KMG group using the CSS (P
ISSN:0425-1644
2042-3306
DOI:10.1111/evj.13045