Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Propofol-sparing and hemodynamic effects of guaifenesin in sheep.
Ashkin, Mitchell R; Strahl-Heldreth, Danielle E; Keating, Stephanie Cj; Garrett, Edgar F; Gutierrez-Nibeyro, Santiago D; Trenholme, H Nicole.
Afiliación
  • Ashkin MR; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
  • Strahl-Heldreth DE; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA. Electronic address: strahl2@illinois.edu.
  • Keating SC; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
  • Garrett EF; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
  • Gutierrez-Nibeyro SD; Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
  • Trenholme HN; Evolution Veterinary Specialists, Lakewood, CO, USA.
Vet Anaesth Analg ; 51(5): 515-519, 2024.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38969616
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the propofol-sparing and hemodynamic effects of guaifenesin administered for co-induction of anesthesia in sheep. STUDY

DESIGN:

Prospective, blinded, two-way crossover experimental study. ANIMALS Thirteen healthy adult female sheep.

METHODS:

Anesthesia was induced without premedication with intravenous (IV) guaifenesin 5% at 100 mg kg-1 (GGE) or an equivalent volume of physiologic saline (SAL), followed by IV propofol at a controlled rate (1 mg kg-1 min-1). Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate and oscillometric noninvasive arterial blood pressure (NIBP) were recorded at baseline after co-induction administration, following endotracheal intubation and every 2 minutes thereafter for 10 minutes. Propofol doses required to achieve intubation after each co-induction treatment were compared by independent Student's t-test. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS:

The propofol dose required (mean ± standard deviation) to achieve intubation was significantly lower (p = 0.001) in the GGE treatment (3.40 ± 0.74 mg kg-1) than in the SAL treatment (5.94 ± 1.09 mg kg-1). HR was increased after anesthetic induction compared with baseline in both treatments. HR was generally lower in the GGE treatment than in the SAL treatment. NIBP did not vary between GGE and SAL treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Guaifenesin, when administered as a co-induction agent with propofol in sheep, reduces propofol dose requirements and maintains hemodynamic variables within a clinically acceptable range.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Propofol / Estudios Cruzados / Anestésicos Intravenosos / Guaifenesina / Frecuencia Cardíaca / Hemodinámica Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Vet Anaesth Analg Asunto de la revista: ANESTESIOLOGIA / MEDICINA VETERINARIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Propofol / Estudios Cruzados / Anestésicos Intravenosos / Guaifenesina / Frecuencia Cardíaca / Hemodinámica Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Vet Anaesth Analg Asunto de la revista: ANESTESIOLOGIA / MEDICINA VETERINARIA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos