Effect of fentanyl on the induction dose and minimum infusion rate of alfaxalone preventing movement in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of fentanyl on the induction dose and minimum infusion rate of alfaxalone required to prevent movement in response to a noxious stimulus (MIRNM) in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental crossover design. ANIMALS: A group of six healthy, adult, intact female mixed-breed dogs, weighing 19.7 ± 1.3 kg. METHODS: Dogs were randomly administered one of three treatments at weekly intervals: premedication with 0.9% saline (treatment A), fentanyl 5 µg kg-1 (treatment ALF) or fentanyl 10 µg kg-1 (treatment AHF), administered intravenously over 5 minutes. Anesthesia was induced 5 minutes later with incremental doses of alfaxalone to achieve intubation and was maintained for 90 minutes in A with alfaxalone (0.12 mg kg-1 minute-1), in ALF with alfaxalone (0.09 mg kg-1 minute-1) and fentanyl (0.1 µg kg-1 minute-1) and in AHF with alfaxalone (0.06 mg kg-1 minute-1) and fentanyl (0.2 µg kg-1 minute-1). The alfaxalone infusion was increased or decreased by 0.006 mg kg-1 minute-1 based on positive or negative response to antebrachium stimulation (50 V, 50 Hz, 10 ms). Data were analyzed using a mixed-model anova and presented as least squares means ± standard error. RESULTS: Alfaxalone induction doses were 3.50 ± 0.13 (A), 2.17 ± 0.10 (ALF) and 1.67 ± 0.10 mg kg-1 (AHF) and differed among treatments (p < 0.05). Alfaxalone MIRNM was 0.17 ± 0.01 (A), 0.10 ± 0.01 (ALF) and 0.07 ± 0.01 mg kg-1 minute-1 (AHF) and differed among treatments. ALF and AHF decreased the MIRNM by 44 ± 8% and 62 ± 5%, respectively (p < 0.05). Plasma alfaxalone concentrations at MIRNM were 5.82 ± 0.48 (A), 4.40 ± 0.34 (ALF) and 2.28 ± 0.09 µg mL-1 (AHF). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Fentanyl, at the doses studied, significantly decreased the alfaxalone induction dose and MIRNM.

Legal billing for pathology services.

Minnesota physicians recently debated whether primary care physicians can legally and ethically "mark up" or add to the fees charged by a pathologist when submitting bills for pathology services to third-party payers. This article explores the relevant federal and state laws and offers the conclusion that both federal and state law allow for such a mark-up if it reflects reasonable compensation for additional work and risk assumed by the primary care provider group.