4.2 Article

Intraperitoneal Continuous-Rate Infusion for the Maintenance of Anesthesia in Laboratory Mice (Mus musculus)

出版社

AMER ASSOC LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCE

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of the Vice Provost for Research at the University of Pennsylvania
  2. NIH [GM107117, GM088156]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intraperitoneal injectable anesthetics are often used to achieve surgical anesthesia in laboratory mice. Because bolus redosing of injectable anesthetics can cause unacceptably high mortality, we evaluated intraperitoneal continuous-rate infusion (CRI) of ketamine with or without xylazine for maintaining surgical anesthesia for an extended period of time. Anesthesia was induced in male C57BL/6J mice by using ketamine (80 mg/kg) and xylazine (8 mg/kg) without or with acepromazine at 0.1 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg. At 10 min after induction, CRI for 90 min was initiated and comprised 25%, 50%, or 100% of the initial ketamine dose per hour or 50% of the initial doses of both ketamine and xylazine. Anesthetic regimens were compared on the basis of animal immobility, continuous surgical depth of anesthesia as determined by the absence of a pedal withdrawal reflex, and mortality. Consistent with previous studies, the response to anesthetics was highly variable. Regimens that provided the longest continuous surgical plane of anesthesia with minimal mortality were ketamine-xylazine-acepromazine (0.1 mg/kg) with CRI of 100% of the initial ketamine dose and ketamine-xylazine-acepromazine (0.5 mg/kg) with CRI of 50% of the initial ketamine and xylazine doses. In addition, heart rate and respiratory rate did not increase consistently in response to a noxious stimulus during CRI anesthesia, even when mice exhibited a positive pedal withdrawal reflex, suggesting that these parameters are unreliable indicators of anesthetic depth during ketamine-xylazine anesthesia in mice. We conclude that intraperitoneal CRI anesthesia in mice prolongs injectable anesthesia more consistently and with lower mortality than does bolus redosing.

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

4.2
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