4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluation of the isoflurane-sparing effects of lidocaine and fentanyl during surgery in dogs

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.229.4.522

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To evaluate the isoflurane-sparing effects of lidocaine and fentanyl administered by constant rate infusion (CRI) during surgery in dogs. Design-Randomized prospective study. Animals-24 female dogs undergoing unilateral mastectomy because of mammary neoplasia. Procedures-After premedication with acepromazine and morphine and anesthetic induction with ketamine and diazepam, anesthesia in dogs (n = 8/group) was maintained with isoflurane combined with either saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (control), liclocaine (1.5 mg/kg [0.68 mg/lb], IV bolus, followed by 250 mu g/kg/min [113 mu g/lb/min], CRI), or fentanyl (5 mu g/kg [2.27 mu g/lb], IV bolus, followed by 0.5 mu g/kg/min [0.23 mu g/lb/min], CRI). Positive-pressure ventilation was used to maintain eucapnia. An anesthetist unaware of treatment, endtidal isoflurane (ETiso) concentration, and vaporizer concentrations adjusted a nonprecision vaporizer to maintain surgical depth of anesthesia. Cardiopulmonary variables and ETiso values were monitored before and after beginning surgery. Results-Heart rate was lower in the fentanyl group. Mean arterial pressure did not differ among groups after surgery commenced. In the control group, mean +/- SD ETiso values ranged from 1.16 +/- 0.35% to 1.94 +/- 0.96%. Fentanyl significantly reduced isoflurane requirements during surgical stimulation by 54% to 66%, whereas the reduction in ETiso concentration (34% to 44%) observed in the lidocaine group was not significant. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Administration of fentanyl resulted in greater isoflurane sparing effect than did liclocaine. However, it appeared that the low heart rate induced by fentanyl may partially offset the improvement in mean arterial pressure that would be expected with reduced isoflurane requirements.

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

4.4
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