English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The study was conducted in geriatric dogs to evaluate the anesthetic effect of propofol and etomidate in dogs premedicated with butorphanol and diazepam. Twelve adult dogs (males and females) were used in the study and were randomly divided into two groups viz. group P (propofol) and group E (etomidate) six animals each. The dogs were premedicated with diazepam 0.25 mg/kg and butorphanol 0.2 mg/kg fifteen minutes before induction intravenously and separately. General anesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg/kg in group P or etomidate 1 mg/kg in group E to effect and drugs were administered rapidly over a period of 45 seconds up to effect. Induction quality, recovery quality, and ataxia scores were recorded for each dog. Cardiopulmonary parameters (respiratory, pulse rates, pulse oximeter, and ECG recordings) were recorded before induction and immediately after intubation and before connection to the inhalant gas machine, using a multi-parameter monitor. The mean ± SE induction doses for the propofol and etomidate groups were 2.2 ± 0.16 and 0.97 ± 0.15 mg/kg respectively. Smooth intubation was observed in the propofol group as compared to the etomidate group, as laryngeal reflex was intact in this group. Physiological parameters (pulse rate, respiratory rate, pulse oximeter, capillary refill time, mucous membrane color, ECG recordings and blood pressure) did not vary significantly between the two groups during the anesthesia. There were more adverse reactions in the etomidate group as compared to the propofol group, but the differences were not significant. Neither of the anesthetics, etomidate and propofol, in dogs premedicated with butorphanol and diazepam, had any major adverse effect on the cardiopulmonary system in the geriatric dogs.

The anesthetic effect of propofol or etomidate in geriatric dogs premedicated with butorphanol and diazepam