Use of intravenous lidocaine to treat dexmedetomidine-induced bradycardia in sedated and anesthetized dogs

Nicardipine constant rate infusion alleviates the cardiovascular effects of dexmedetomidine infusions without affecting the minimal alveolar concentration in sevoflurane-anesthetized dogs

Two randomized crossover trials evaluated the effects of nicardipine constant rate infusion (CRI) on 1) the anesthetic potency of sevoflurane and 2) the ability to attenuate dexmedetomidine-induced cardiovascular depression in anesthetized dogs. First, six healthy Beagle dogs weighing 11.7 ± 0.9 kg were allocated to one of three treatments that administered a CRI of carrier (saline) or dexmedetomidine 0.5 or 3.0 μg/kg/h following a loading dose. The minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane was determined utilizing electric stimuli before and after the loading dose of nicardipine (20 μg/kg intravenously for 10 min), followed by CRI at 40 μg/kg/h with 60 min of equilibration. Subsequently, cardiovascular and blood gas variables were evaluated in another trial under sevoflurane anesthesia at the individual 1.5 MAC. After baseline measurements, the dogs were assigned to two treatments (dexmedetomidine CRI at 0.5 or 3.0 μg/kg/h following a loading dose) with sevoflurane doses adjusted to 1.5 times of MAC equivalent, and the measurements were repeated every 15 min for 120 min. After 60 min, nicardipine CRI at 40 μg/kg/h with a loading dose was added to the dexmedetomidine CRI. Dexmedetomidine infusions significantly decreased the sevoflurane MAC but nicardipine did not significantly alter the MAC either with or without dexmedetomidine CRI in dogs. Dexmedetomidine dose-dependently decreased the cardiac index and increased the systemic vascular resistance index; these effects were fully counteracted by concomitant nicardipine CRI. Nicardipine CRI can be useful for controlling the cardiovascular depression elicited by dexmedetomidine in anesthetized dogs without affecting the anesthetic potency of sevoflurane.

A comparative analysis of opioid-free and opioid-sparing anaesthesia techniques for laparoscopic ovariectomy in healthy dogs

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative analgesic effects of an opioid-free (OFA) and an opioid-sparing (OSA) anaesthetic protocol in dogs undergoing laparoscopic ovariectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.

ANIMALS

A group of 28 client-owned dogs.

METHODS

Dogs were allocated to one of two groups. The OFA group was administered intramuscular (IM) dexmedetomidine 5 μg kg-1 and ketamine 1 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative constant rate infusions (CRIs) of dexmedetomidine (3 μg kg-1 hour-1) and lidocaine (1 mg kg-1 loading dose, 2 mg kg-1 hour-1). The OSA group was administered IM dexmedetomidine 5 μg kg-1, ketamine 1 mg kg-1 and methadone 0.2 mg kg-1, followed by two intraoperative saline CRIs. In both groups, anaesthesia was induced with intravenous (IV) propofol 2 mg kg-1 and diazepam 0.2 mg kg-1 and maintained with isoflurane. Rescue dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg kg-1) was administered IV if there was a 20% increase in cardiovascular variables compared with pre-stimulation values. Ketorolac (0.5 mg kg-1) was administered IV when the surgery ended. Postoperative analgesia was evaluated using the Short Form-Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale and methadone (0.2 mg kg-1) was administered IM if the pain score was ≥ 6/24. Statistical analysis included mixed analysis of variance, Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the intraoperative monitored variables between groups. The OFA group showed a significantly lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement (p = 0.016) and lower postoperative pain scores at 3 (p =0.001) and 6 (p < 0.001) hours. No dogs were administered rescue methadone postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although both groups achieved acceptable postoperative pain scores with no need for further intervention, the analgesic efficacy of the OFA protocol was significantly superior to that of the OSA protocol presented and was associated with a lower intraoperative rescue analgesia requirement and early postoperative pain scores.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of lidocaine administered intravenously, intranasally or as infraorbital nerve block in dogs undergoing rostral rhinosocopy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of lidocaine administered intravenously, intranasally or as an infraorbital nerve block in dogs undergoing rostral rhinoscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

ANIMALS

A total of 43 client-owned dogs.

METHODS

After premedication with medetomidine 0.01 mg kg-1 and methadone 0.2 mg kg-1 intramuscularly, anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Dogs were randomly allocated to receive 2 mg kg-1 of 2% lidocaine as a bilateral infraorbital nerve block (INB) via the caudal intraoral approach, via bilateral topical intranasal administration (TIA) or as an intravenous bolus (IVB). At 5 minutes following lidocaine administration, responses to rhinoscopy (RR) and biopsies (RB) were evaluated using a simple scoring system (0: no reaction; 1: reaction). Response to the rhinoscopy in the recovery period (RE) was recorded. Recovery quality was scored using a simple descriptive score. Heart rate, respiratory rate and noninvasive arterial blood pressure were recorded. Intravenous (IV) fentanyl 0.001 mg kg-1 was administered if an increase > 20% in any variable occurred. Gross movement was attenuated using propofol 0.5 mg kg-1 IV. Scores were analysed using the Chi-square test with Monte Carlo method. Cardiorespiratory changes among and overtime between groups were compared using one-way anova and one-way anova for repeated measures, respectively, or the correspondent non-parametric tests; p < 0.05.

RESULT

Of the 43 dogs, 42 completed the study. No statistically significant differences were detected in either physical reactions or changes in cardiorespiratory variables for RR, RB, RE or recovery quality, although RB tended to be higher in group TIA (7/10 versus 1/10 INB and 3/13 IVB).Various cardiorespiratory variables changed overtime within groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In dogs, all three investigated techniques attenuated responses during rostral rhinoscopy in dogs, although INB and IVB were more efficacious when biopsies were taken.

Haemodynamic effects of labetalol in isoflurane-anaesthetized dogs that received dexmedetomidine: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To test whether labetalol improved cardiovascular function in anaesthetized dogs injected with dexmedetomidine.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.

ANIMALS

A group of 20 healthy client-owned dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy.

METHODS

Each dog received dexmedetomidine (5 μg kg-1) and methadone (0.2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly. General anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. All dogs were mechanically ventilated, and epidural anaesthesia with lidocaine was performed. Standard anaesthetic monitoring, invasive blood pressure, oesophageal Doppler and near-infrared tissue perfusion/oxygenation were applied. Peak velocity (PV), mean acceleration and stroke distance (SD) from the oesophageal Doppler were recorded. Arterial elastance (Ea) was calculated. Tissue oxygenation (rStO2) was also recorded. Prior to surgery, animals received either 0.1 mg kg-1 of labetalol intravenously (IV) over 60 seconds or the equivalent volume of saline. Data were recorded for 20 minutes. Age, weight and propofol dose were compared with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The effects of time, treatment and their interaction with haemodynamic and perfusion variables were analysed with mixed-effect models and Tukey's post hoc tests.

RESULTS

Significant effects of the interaction between treatment and time were observed whereby heart rate (HR) was higher in dogs given labetalol (p = 0.01), whereas arterial blood pressure and Ea were lower (p < 0.01). Similarly, PV, SD and rStO2 were higher in the labetalol group, and significant effects were detected for the interaction between treatment and time (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Labetalol at a dose of 0.1 mg kg-1 IV in dogs under general anaesthesia and administered a pre-anaesthetic medication of dexmedetomidine produced mild vasodilation (reduction of Ea), resulting in an increase in HR and left ventricular outflow. Although labetalol could be an effective option to achieve haemodynamic optimization after dexmedetomidine-induced vasoconstriction, future studies are needed to assess long-term effects.

Cardiopulmonary Effects and Pharmacokinetics of Dexmedetomidine Used as an Adjunctive Analgesic to Regional Anesthesia of the Oral Cavity with Levobupivacaine in Dogs

This study investigated the cardiopulmonary effects and pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine (DEX) used as an adjunctive analgesic for regional anesthesia of the oral cavity with levobupivacaine in anesthetized dogs. Forty dogs were randomly assigned to four groups of 10 dogs. All dogs received levobupivacaine (4 blocks) with DEX IO (infraorbital block, n = 10) or IA (inferior alveolar block, n = 10) or placebo (PLC; n = 10) or DEX (n = 10) was injected intravenously (IV) after administration of levobupivacaine. The dose of DEX was always 0.5 µg/kg. Cardiopulmonary parameters were recorded, and blood was drawn for the quantification of DEX in plasma using LC-MS/MS. Heart rate was lower in all LB + DEX groups, while mean arterial pressure (MAP) was higher in the LB + DEX IV and LB + DEX IA groups compared to the LB + PLC IV group. Compared to DEX IV, IO and IA administration resulted in lower MAP up to 2 min after application. Absorption of DEX was faster at IO administration (Cmax and Tmax were 0.47 ± 0.08 ng/mL and 7.22 ± 1.28 min and 0.76 ± 0.09 ng/mL and 7.50 ± 1.63 min for the IO and IA block, respectively). The IA administration resulted in better bioavailability and faster elimination (t1/2 was 63.44 ± 24.15 min and 23.78 ± 3.78 min for the IO and IA block, respectively). Perineural administration of DEX may be preferable because of the less pronounced cardiovascular response compared to IV administration.

Sparing effect of tramadol, lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and their combination on the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane in dogs

Background

Problems associated with using inhalational anaesthesia are numerous in veterinary anaesthesia practice. Decreasing the amount of used inhalational anaesthetic agents and minimising of cardiorespiratory disorders are the standard goals of anaesthetists.

Objective

This experimental study was carried out to investigate the sparing effect of intravenous tramadol, lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and their combinations on the minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane in healthy Beagle dogs.

Methods

This study was conducted on six beagle dogs. Sevoflurane MAC was determined by the tail clamp method on five separate occasions. The dogs received no treatment (control; CONT), tramadol (TRM: 1.5 mg kg^-1 intravenously followed by 1.3 mg kg^-1 h^-1), lidocaine (LID: 2 mg kg^-1 intravenously followed by 3 mg kg^-1 h^-1), dexmedetomidine (DEX: 2 μg kg^-1 intravenously followed by 2 μg kg^-1 h^-1), and their combination (COMB), respectively. Cardiorespiratory variables were recorded every five minutes and immediately before the application of a noxious stimulus.

Results

The COMB treatment had the greatest sevoflurane MAC-sparing effect (67.4 ± 13.9%) compared with the other treatments (5.1 ± 25.3, 12.7 ± 14.3, and 40.3 ± 15.1% for TRM, LID, and DEX treatment, respectively). The cardiopulmonary variables remained within the clinically acceptable range following COMB treatment, although the mean arterial pressure was higher and accompanied by bradycardia.

Conclusions

Tramadol-lidocaine-dexmedetomidine co-infusion produced a remarkable sevoflurane MAC-sparing effect in clinically healthy beagle dogs and could result in the alleviation of cardiorespiratory depression caused by sevoflurane. Cardiorespiratory variables should be monitored carefully to avoid undesirable side effects induced by dexmedetomidine.