Anesthetic monitoring of the thiopental-propofol mixture in canine females during ovariohysterectomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22579/20112629.541Keywords:
Parenteral anesthetics, canine, anesthetic monitoringAbstract
Objective: to monitor the final expiratory fraction of CO2 (capnometry), oxygen saturation in hemoglobin (pulse oximetry) and non-invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP) in healthy dogs during ovariohysterectomy (OVH), in which anesthesia was induced and maintained with the Propofol-Thiopental (PT) mixture. Materials and methods: Pre-surgical analysis was performed. The premedication included acepromazine, ketoprofen and tramadol, the anesthetic induction was performed with a mixture in equal parts of propofol 10% and thiopental 2.5%. The induction dose was calculated based on the thiopental present in each cm3 of the mixture, and was 3 mg / kg of thiopental / IV. Bowls were given for the effect of 1 mg / kg of thiopental present in the mixture for maintenance. Capnometry, pulse oximetry and MAP were measured every five minutes using a multiparametric monitor. The data were analyzed with an inferential study aimed at finding a confidence interval for the mean oxygen saturation in hemoglobin (SO2), final expiratory fraction of CO2 (FEFCO2) and PAM, with a confidence level of 95%. Results: SO2 maintained an average of 97%, MAP was throughout the intervention above 60 mmHg, FEFCO2 was initially high> 45mmHg, but return to normal values after 25 minutes. On average there was no hypoxia or hypotension, but mild hypercapnia at the beginning. Conclusion: For the three variables studied, the P-T mixture was safe. Studies with broader monitoring are suggested to determine hemodynamic and respiratory safety.
Downloads
References
Calabor I. Inductores anestésicos en pequeños animales. (2008); [accedido en octubre, 2014]. URL:www.ucm.es.info/sevicema
Fossum T. 2012. Small Animal Surgery. 3 ed. St. Louis. Mosby. p745.
Galindo V. 2009.Guía práctica de anestesia en pequeños animales. Bogotá. LitoChalver S.A. p45.
Helmann E, et al. The association of propofol usage with postoperative wound infection rate in clean wounds: A retrospective study. Vet Surg. 1999; 28(4):256-259.
Muir W, Hubbell J, Skarda R, Bednarski R. 2012. Manual de Anestesia Veterinaria. 5 ed. Amsterdam. Mosby-Year Book. p234.
Muñoz P, Granados M, Navarrete R. 2019. Manuales clínicos de veterinaria. Anestesiología y cuidados intensivos. Barcelona, España: Elsevier. p. 22.
Naguib M, Sari K. Tiopentone-propofol hypnotic synergism in patients. Br J Anaesth. 1991;67(5):234-236.
Niño M, Chaves A, Salazar C. Cambios hemodinámicas durante la inducción anestésica con tiopental versus propofol en pacientes Asa I y II. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2007;(35):53-58.
Padilla C, Cardona R. Comparación de los efectos cardiovasculares del propofol, tiopental y de la mezcla propofol-tipental en un grupo de caninos sanos premedicados con hidromorfona. Rev Med Vet. 2013;(26):133-146.
Pandit, J. Intravenous anaesthetic agents. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;9(4):54-159.
Pawson P, Forsyth S. 2008. Agentes anestésicos. En: Madison J, Page J, Church, D. (Ed). Farmacología Clínica en Pequeños Animales. Buenos Aires, Argentina, Inter-Medica. p73 – 80.
Teppema J, Baby S. Anesthetics and control of breathing. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2011;(177):80-92.
Sumano H, Ocampo L. 2016. Farmacología Veterinaria; 3.ed. México: McGrawHill., p606.














