A Clinical Comparative Study of Propofol Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Dogs
Propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) was compared with a well established propofol induced, isoflurane maintained anesthesia in 271 client-owned canine patients of variable anesthetic risks. Dogs anesthetized with propofol TIVA showed generally higher values of heart rate and systemic blood pressure, especially in patients with greater anesthetic risks. Propofol TIVA appeared to offer lighter level of anesthesia which precludes its application in procedures eliciting nasal passage stimulation. The time to first regain spontaneous breathing after induction was significantly longer in dogs maintained with propofol. Uncommon seizure-like tremor episodes during propofol infusion were also observed in the study.
The Recovery Profiles of Propofol Total Intravenous Anesthesia in Dogs
Objective
To compare the recovery of propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and propofol induced, isoflurane maintained anesthesia in clinical canine cases.
Study design
Prospective, randomized clinical study
Animals
One hundred and forty-nigh clients-owned dogs
Materials and methods
Dogs requiring general anesthesia for surgical or diagnostic procedures (gastrointestinal surgeries excluded) were randomly assigned to two groups of different anesthetic maintenance regimens including (1) isoflurane inhalational anesthesia with oxygen after propofol induction (Isoflurane group), and (2) propofol TIVA with oxygen supplement (TIVA group). The smoothness, speed and adverse effects of anesthetic recovery were recorded and compared statistically between the two groups.
Results
The smoothness of anesthetic recovery in the TIVA group was significantly better than the Isoflurane group. However, dogs in the Isoflurane group recovered generally faster than the TIVA group. Adverse effects were observed in 31 of 91 dogs (34%) in the Isoflurane group and 18 of 58 dogs (31%) in the TIVA group, with no statistical difference. Postoperative hypersalivation was commonly observed in both groups and had never been reported before. The incidence of neurological signs during recovery was similar in both groups.
Conclusions
Propofol TIVA provided smoother but slower recovery compared with propofol induced, isoflurane maintained anesthesia. Adverse effects were similar in both protocols. The accumulated propofol dosage with total intravenous maintenance did not further predispose the dogs to more neurological disorders. Post-operative hypersalivation was commonly noticed after propofol administration.
Clinical relevance
Controlled laboratory canine model had been used to study propofol maintained anesthesia. However, systemic clinical research of dogs under propofol TIVA was still lacking. The understanding of the recovery profiles of propofol TIVA under clinical setups is important to practitioners who use this protocol as an option of general anesthesia.
