4.7 Article

Effect of oral administration of gabapentin on the minimum alveolar concentration of isoflurane in cats

期刊

FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1117313

关键词

anesthesia; gabapentin; minimum alveolar concentration (MAC); isoflurane; cat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to determine if oral gabapentin decreases the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of isoflurane in cats. The results showed that gabapentin significantly reduced the MAC of isoflurane in cats without affecting cardiovascular and other vital variables.
ObjectiveTo determine if oral gabapentin decreases the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of isoflurane in cats. Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, crossover, and experimental study. AnimalsA total of six healthy adult cats (three male, three female) aged 18-42 months, weighing 3.31 +/- 0.26 kg. MethodsCats were randomly given oral gabapentin (100 mg cat(-1)) or placebo 2 h before starting MAC determination, with the crossover treatment given at least 7 days apart. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Isoflurane MAC was determined in duplicate using an iterative bracketing technique and tail clamp method. Hemodynamic and other vital variables were recorded at each stable isoflurane concentration and were compared between gabapentin and placebo treatments at lowest end-tidal isoflurane concentration when cats did not respond to tail clamping. A paired t-test was used to compare normally distributed data, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied for non-normally distributed data. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Data are mean +/- standard deviation. ResultsIsoflurane MAC in the gabapentin treatment was 1.02 +/- 0.11%, which was significantly lower than that in the placebo treatment (1.49 +/- 0.12%; p < 0.001), decreasing by 31.58 +/- 6.94%. No significant differences were found in cardiovascular and other vital variables between treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据