这项研究的目的是比较服用乙酰丙嗪-纳布啡和乙酰丙嗪-布托啡诺的猫的镇静作用,肌内(IM)和静脉(IV),以及不良心肺作用的发生。
将46只猫随机分为四组,分别给予乙酰丙嗪(0.05mg/kg)和纳布啡(0.5mg/kg)或布托啡诺(0.4mg/kg),IV(ACP-NAIV和ACP-BUTIV组,分别)或IM(ACP-NALIM和ACP-BUTIM组,分别)。镇静分数,静脉导管放置的简易性(简单描述性量表[SDS]评分),生理变量,记录静脉血气和麻醉诱导所需的异丙酚剂量.
在治疗施用后约30分钟(时间点T1,丙泊酚施用前),在所有组中观察到轻度镇静。所有组T1时的镇静评分均高于基线(P<0.05),但组间无显著差异。T1时记录的动态交互式视觉模拟量表镇静评分(范围0-100mm)为(中位数[四分位距]):ACP-NALIM,12(10-12);ACP-NAIV,11(6-16);ACP-BUTIM,11(7-14);和ACP-BUTIV,12(7-19)。总的来说,在T1时,SDS评分与基线相比没有变化,组间没有显着差异。丙泊酚剂量在组间没有差异。对于猫,血气保持在参考区间内。所有组的收缩压(SAP)均较基线显着下降。T1时的平均值±SD值为(mmHg):ACP-NALIM,108±13;ACP-NAIV,102±10;ACP-BUTIM,97±13;和ACP-BUTIV,98±21。ACP-NALIM组的0/11、1/13、4/11和5/11猫在T1时记录动脉低血压(SAP<90mmHg),ACP-NAIV,ACP-BUTIM和ACP-BUTIV,分别,丙泊酚麻醉诱导后进一步加剧。
在健康猫服用乙酰丙嗪-纳布啡和乙酰丙嗪-布托啡诺,IM和IV,无论方案和给药途径如何,镇静程度均为轻度.观察到的主要不良反应是动脉血压降低。
The aim of this study was to compare the sedative effects in cats administered acepromazine-nalbuphine and acepromazine-butorphanol, intramuscularly (IM) and intravenously (IV), and the occurrence of adverse cardiorespiratory effects.
Forty-six cats were randomly divided into four groups and administered acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with nalbuphine (0.5 mg/kg) or butorphanol (0.4 mg/kg), IV (ACP-NALIV and ACP-BUTIV groups, respectively) or IM (ACP-NALIM and ACP-BUTIM groups, respectively). Sedation scores, ease of intravenous catheter placement (simple descriptive scale [SDS] scores), physiologic variables, venous blood gases and the propofol dose required for anesthetic induction were recorded.
Mild sedation was observed in all groups approximately 30 mins after treatment administration (timepoint T1, prior to propofol administration). Sedation scores at T1 increased above baseline in all groups (P <0.05), but no significant difference was observed among groups. Dynamic interactive visual analogue scale sedation scores (range 0-100 mm) recorded at T1 were (median [interquartile range]): ACP-NALIM, 12 (10-12); ACP-NALIV, 11 (6-16); ACP-BUTIM, 11 (7-14); and ACP-BUTIV, 12 (7-19). Overall, SDS scores did not change from baseline at T1 and there was no significant difference among groups. The propofol dose did not differ among groups. Blood gases remained within the reference intervals for cats. Significant decreases from baseline were detected for all groups in systolic arterial pressure (SAP). Mean ± SD values at T1 were (mmHg): ACP-NALIM, 108 ± 13; ACP-NALIV, 102 ± 10; ACP-BUTIM, 97 ± 13; and ACP-BUTIV, 98 ± 21. Arterial hypotension (SAP <90 mmHg) was recorded at T1 in 0/11, 1/13, 4/11 and 5/11 cats in groups ACP-NALIM, ACP-NALIV, ACP-BUTIM and ACP-BUTIV, respectively, and was further exacerbated after the induction of anesthesia with propofol.
In healthy cats administered acepromazine-nalbuphine and acepromazine-butorphanol, IM and IV, the degree of sedation was mild regardless of the protocol and the route of administration. The main adverse effect observed was a reduction in arterial blood pressure.