Effects of tiletamine-zolazepam vs. propofol on peri-induction intraocular pressure in dogs: A randomized, masked crossover study.
induction
intraocular pressure
intubation
ophthalmology
propofol
tiletamine-zolazepam
Journal
Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
Titre abrégé: Front Vet Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666658
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
05
10
2022
accepted:
16
02
2023
entrez:
23
3
2023
pubmed:
24
3
2023
medline:
24
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Anesthesia induction agents have the potential to cause severe ocular side effects, resulting in lasting damage to the eye. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of tiletamine-zolazepam on IOP compared to propofol when they are used as an induction agent in normal healthy dogs. Twenty healthy adult client owned dogs weighing 22.2 ± 7.6 kg were selected for the study. In a randomized order, all dogs received tiletamine-zolazepam 5 mg/kg IV or propofol 8 mg/kg IV titrated to effect without premedication. Washout between each treatment was at least seven days. IOP measurements were obtained at four time points: baseline, post-induction, post-intubation, and after recovery using applanation tonometry. No additional procedures were performed. After normality of the data was determined, a linear mixed model was built with time, eye, treatment and all interactions of those variables as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. There was no significant difference for age, body weight, drug dose, baseline IOP, and recovery IOP between treatments. Average IOP measurements remained within the normal range of 15-25 mmHg at these time points. However, IOP was significantly less elevated by the tiletamine-zolazepam treatment vs. propofol at the post-induction (mean difference: -4.7 ± 4.6 [95%CI -6.8 to -2.5]) and the post-intubation (mean difference: -4.4 ± 4.6 [95%CI -6.5 to -2.2]) time points. Dogs receiving tiletamine-zolazepam for anesthetic induction had a significantly less elevated IOP at induction and intubation compared to dogs receiving propofol.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36950543
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1061755
pmc: PMC10025522
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1061755Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 McIver, Boveland, Clark-Price and Hofmeister.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Tech Small Anim Pract. 2000 May;15(2):94-100
pubmed: 10998822
Am J Vet Res. 2006 Jul;67(7):1136-9
pubmed: 16817733
Vet Ophthalmol. 2015 Nov;18(6):481-4
pubmed: 25440910
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2009 Sep;36(5):442-8
pubmed: 19709048
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2019 Jan;46(1):36-42
pubmed: 30528669
J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 1993 Dec;16(4):383-418
pubmed: 8126757
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018 Dec;57(12):1539-1558
pubmed: 30019172
Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1976 Apr 14;199(2):179-86
pubmed: 1083696
Open Ophthalmol J. 2010 Sep 03;4:52-9
pubmed: 21293732
Vet Rec. 2015 Jan 17;176(3):73
pubmed: 25324218
Vet Ophthalmol. 2019 Sep;22(5):726-740
pubmed: 31106969
Vet Ophthalmol. 2000;3(1):17-19
pubmed: 11397277
Vet Ophthalmol. 2008 May-Jun;11(3):170-6
pubmed: 18435659
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2008 Jul;35(4):275-81
pubmed: 18282248
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2020 Mar;47(2):145-151
pubmed: 32014398
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2018 Apr 1;252(7):823-829
pubmed: 29553899
Vet Ophthalmol. 2004 Jul-Aug;7(4):265-9
pubmed: 15200623