Search

Objectives The objective of this study was to determine the effect of administration rate on propofol dose for induction of anesthesia and the effect of methadone on this dose. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, blinded clinical study. Forty male cats (mean ± SD age 1.5 ± 0.8 years) were admitted for orchiectomy. Cats were randomly allocated to receive acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg) with either methadone (MET; 0.3 mg/kg) or saline (SAL; 0.03 ml/kg). Each premedication group then received anesthetic induction with propofol at 5 (F) or 1.5 mg/kg/min (S), resulting in the following four groups: MET-F, SAL-F, MET-S and SAL-S. Sedation scores were assigned at 15 and 30 mins after premedication using a simple descriptive scale (SDS) and a visual analog scale (VAS). After assignment of sedation scores, respiratory frequency ( fR) was recorded, and anesthetic induction began and was continued until cats lost their palpebral reflexes and jaw tone, and the eye globe rotated ventromedially. The time for induction and the total amount of propofol needed was recorded, and intubation was then performed. After intubation, fR was also recorded. Results SDS and VAS sedation scores were low at 15 and 30 mins after premedication. There was no significant difference in sedation scores by time or between the groups at any time on any scale. The amount of propofol needed to achieve anesthetic induction was 5.3 ± 1.1 mg/kg in group MET-F, which was statistically lower when compared with the other three groups, which demonstrated no difference among them. Conclusions and relevance Premedication with acepromazine and methadone was not able to produce adequate sedation in healthy cats. The slow induction rate is not adequate for use in cats considering that all of the animals demonstrated excitement during anesthetic induction. The fast administration rate was able to produce adequate induction of anesthesia and reduce the amount of propofol needed to achieve intubation only when using methadone.

Objective To compare the reaction to cephalic intravenous (IV) catheter placement with or without lidocaine–prilocaine cream in cats sedated with dexmedetomidine and methadone or nalbuphine. Study design Prospective, randomized, blind study. Animals A group of 24 female mixed breed cats. Methods Cats were randomly allocated to one of the two sedation protocols: dexmedetomidine (0.01 mg kg–1) and methadone (0.3 mg kg–1; DEXMET) or dexmedetomidine (0.01 mg kg–1) and nalbuphine (0.3 mg kg–1; DEXNALB). Sedation was scored 30 minutes later using a visual analog scale. Subsequently, a 2 × 3.5 cm area of the antebrachium over the cephalic vein was clipped, and half the cats within each protocol were randomly assigned for topical lidocaine–prilocaine cream (treatment), whereas no cream was applied to other cats (control). After 20 minutes, an attempt was made to place a 24 gauge catheter into the cephalic vein and the reaction of the cats to this procedure was scored using a numeric scale 0–3. Sedation and catheterization reaction scores were compared between sedation protocols and whether cats were administered lidocaine–prilocaine cream or not using the Friedman test followed by the Bonferroni procedure. A p value Results Sedation scores were not different between sedation protocols or between treatment and control cats within each protocol. All cats administered lidocaine–prilocaine cream showed no reaction to IV catheter placement. Among the control cats, no response was observed in one cat in DEXNALB. Catheterization reaction score was lower in the treatment cats in both the sedation protocols when compared with their respective controls. Conclusions and clinical relevance Lidocaine–prilocaine cream applied for 20 minutes abolished the reaction to catheterization in cats sedated with dexmedetomidine and nalbuphine or methadone. Facilitation of IV catheter placement occurred within 20 minutes of lidocaine–prilocaine application.