Non-invasive visual evoked potentials under sevoflurane
Ketamine-xylazine
Repeatability indices
Sevoflurane
Signal-to-noise ratio
Visual evoked potential
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
20
01
2021
revised:
19
03
2021
accepted:
05
11
2021
entrez:
24
11
2021
pubmed:
25
11
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) quantifies electrical signals produced in visual cortex in response to visual stimuli. VEP elicited by light flashes is a useful biomarker to evaluate visual function in preclinical models and it can be recorded in awake or anaesthetised state. Different types of anaesthesia influence VEP properties, such as latency, which measures the propagation speed along nerve fibers, and amplitude that quantifies the power of electrical signal. The goal of this work is to compare VEPs elicited in Dark Agouti rats under two types of anaesthesia: volatile sevoflurane or injectable ketamine-xylazine. VEP latency, amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio and recording duration were measured in Dark Agouti rats randomly assigned to two groups, the first subjected to volatile sevoflurane and the second to injectable ketamine-xylazine. Taking advantage of non-invasive flash-VEP recording through epidermal cup electrodes, three time points of VEP recordings were assessed in two weeks intervals. VEP recorded under ketamine-xylazine showed longer latency and higher amplitude compared with sevoflurane, with analogous repeatability over time. However, sevoflurane tended to suppress electrical signals from visual cortex, resulting in a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Moreover, VEP procedure duration lasted longer in rats anaesthetised with sevoflurane than ketamine-xylazine. In Dark Agouti rats, the use of different anaesthesia can influence VEP components in terms of latency and amplitude. Notably, sevoflurane and ketamine-xylazine revealed satisfying repeatability over time, which is critical to perform reliable follow-up studies. Ketamine-xylazine allowed to obtain more clearly discernible VEP components and less background noise, together with a quicker recording procedure and a consequently improved animal safety and welfare.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) quantifies electrical signals produced in visual cortex in response to visual stimuli. VEP elicited by light flashes is a useful biomarker to evaluate visual function in preclinical models and it can be recorded in awake or anaesthetised state. Different types of anaesthesia influence VEP properties, such as latency, which measures the propagation speed along nerve fibers, and amplitude that quantifies the power of electrical signal.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this work is to compare VEPs elicited in Dark Agouti rats under two types of anaesthesia: volatile sevoflurane or injectable ketamine-xylazine.
METHODS
METHODS
VEP latency, amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio and recording duration were measured in Dark Agouti rats randomly assigned to two groups, the first subjected to volatile sevoflurane and the second to injectable ketamine-xylazine. Taking advantage of non-invasive flash-VEP recording through epidermal cup electrodes, three time points of VEP recordings were assessed in two weeks intervals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
VEP recorded under ketamine-xylazine showed longer latency and higher amplitude compared with sevoflurane, with analogous repeatability over time. However, sevoflurane tended to suppress electrical signals from visual cortex, resulting in a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Moreover, VEP procedure duration lasted longer in rats anaesthetised with sevoflurane than ketamine-xylazine.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In Dark Agouti rats, the use of different anaesthesia can influence VEP components in terms of latency and amplitude. Notably, sevoflurane and ketamine-xylazine revealed satisfying repeatability over time, which is critical to perform reliable follow-up studies. Ketamine-xylazine allowed to obtain more clearly discernible VEP components and less background noise, together with a quicker recording procedure and a consequently improved animal safety and welfare.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34816047
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08360
pii: S2405-8440(21)02463-4
pmc: PMC8591496
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e08360Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Doc Ophthalmol. 2011 Oct;123(2):109-19
pubmed: 21909708
J Neurosci. 1996 May 15;16(10):3274-86
pubmed: 8627365
J Med Life. 2013 Jun 15;6(2):214-25
pubmed: 23904886
Doc Ophthalmol. 2020 Jun;140(3):245-255
pubmed: 31832898
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1978 Sep;9(3):301-6
pubmed: 714979
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015 Jan;40(2):268-77
pubmed: 25053181
J Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 May;15(3):217-26
pubmed: 9681559
Neurosci Lett. 2006 Oct 2;406(1-2):81-6
pubmed: 16905255
J Vis Exp. 2015 Jul 29;(101):e52934
pubmed: 26273963
Brain Res. 2000 Aug 4;873(1):26-33
pubmed: 10915807
J Neurosci Methods. 2019 Sep 1;325:108316
pubmed: 31251949
J Anesth. 2020 Apr;34(2):298-302
pubmed: 31950267
Brain Res Bull. 1978 Jan-Feb;3(1):1-5
pubmed: 564737
Physiol Rep. 2018 Aug;6(16):e13782
pubmed: 30155997
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 03;11(6):e0156927
pubmed: 27257864
Lab Anim. 2008 Apr;42(2):161-70
pubmed: 18435874
Curr Opin Neurol. 2000 Jun;13(3):255-61
pubmed: 10871248
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60
pubmed: 19897823
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2013 Jan;33(1):7-14
pubmed: 23252852
Neuroscience. 2011 Jun 30;185:161-5
pubmed: 21515340
Doc Ophthalmol. 2018 Jun;136(3):165-175
pubmed: 29623523
BMC Vet Res. 2016 Jun 21;12(1):120
pubmed: 27329086
Brain Pathol. 2020 Jan;30(1):137-150
pubmed: 31267597
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1988 Jul-Aug;71(4):310-8
pubmed: 2454797
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Sep;121(9):1393-1409
pubmed: 20558103
Anesthesiology. 2013 Jun;118(6):1264-75
pubmed: 23695090
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2003 Jan;30(1):15-23
pubmed: 14498913
Neuroscience. 2004;123(1):269-78
pubmed: 14667461
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 12;8(9):e74172
pubmed: 24069276
Doc Ophthalmol. 2009 Jun;118(3):217-24
pubmed: 19123065
J Neuroimmunol. 2018 Dec 15;325:1-9
pubmed: 30340030
Br J Anaesth. 1998 Nov;81(5):748-53
pubmed: 10193288
Masui. 1994 May;43(5):657-64
pubmed: 8015151
Vision Res. 1999 Sep;39(18):3071-81
pubmed: 10664805
Autoimmun Rev. 2013 Aug;12(10):947-53
pubmed: 23537508
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2014 Nov;41(6):613-20
pubmed: 24628924
Eur J Pharmacol. 2009 Jan 14;602(2-3):294-7
pubmed: 19071105
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Aug 29;52(9):6911-8
pubmed: 21791585
Anesthesiology. 1990 Jan;72(1):33-9
pubmed: 2297131
Front Syst Neurosci. 2019 May 08;13:19
pubmed: 31139058
Brain. 2001 Mar;124(Pt 3):468-79
pubmed: 11222447
Physiol Behav. 1993 Oct;54(4):707-11
pubmed: 8248347
Neurology. 1993 Jul;43(7):1311-2
pubmed: 8327130
Curr Eye Res. 2006 Oct;31(10):885-93
pubmed: 17050280
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017 Apr;70(2):127-135
pubmed: 28367282
Exp Brain Res. 1985;59(3):427-33
pubmed: 4029318
Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2019 May 08;4:90-96
pubmed: 31193661
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017 Jan;45(1):62-72
pubmed: 27011293
Brain Res. 2003 Sep 5;983(1-2):23-35
pubmed: 12914963
Exp Anim. 2018 Jul 30;67(3):329-336
pubmed: 29445064
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018 Nov;35(11):840-847
pubmed: 29771733
Doc Ophthalmol. 2019 Jun;138(3):169-179
pubmed: 30840173