Cover American Journal of Veterinary Research
American Journal of Veterinary Research
ISSN:
0002-9645
Publication Date:
01 Sep 2006
  • 1

    Short CE, Bufalari A. Propofol anesthesia. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999;29:747–778.

  • 2

    Wagner AE, Hellyer PW. Survey of anesthesia techniques and concerns in private veterinary practice. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:1652–1657.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Ilkiw JE, Pascoe PJ & Haskins SC, et al. Cardiovascular and respiratory effects of propofol administration in hypovolemic dogs. Am J Vet Res 1992;53:2323–2327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Mama KR, Steffey EP, Pascoe PJ. Evaluation of propofol for general anesthesia in premedicated horses. Am J Vet Res 1996;57:512–516.

  • 5

    Frias AF, Marsico F & Gomez de Segura I, et al. Evaluation of different doses of propofol in xylazine pre-medicated horses. Vet Anaesth Analg 2003;30:193–201.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Mama KR, Steffey EP, Pascoe PJ. Evaluation of propofol as a general anesthetic for horses. Vet Surg 1995;24:188–194.

  • 7

    Matthews NS, Hartsfield SM & Hague B, et al. Detomidinepropofol anesthesia for abdominal surgery in horses. Vet Surg 1999;28:196–201.

  • 8

    Oku K, Yamanaka T & Ashihara N, et al. Clinical observations during induction and recovery of xylazine-midazolam-propofol anesthesia in horses. J Vet Med Sci 2003;65:805–808.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Wagner AE, Mama KR & Steffey EP, et al. Behavioral responses following eight anesthetic induction protocols in horses. Vet Anaesth Analg 2002;29:207–211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Nolan AM, Hall LW. Total intravenous anaesthesia in the horse with propofol. Equine Vet J 1985;17:394–398.

  • 11

    Steffey EP, Zinkl J & Howland D Jr. Minimal changes in blood cell counts and biochemical values associated with prolonged isoflurane anesthesia of horses. Am J Vet Res 1979;40:1646–1648.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Steffey EP, Farver T & Zinkl J, et al. Alterations in horse blood cell count and biochemical values after halothane anesthesia. Am J Vet Res 1980;41:934–939.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Stover SM, Steffey EP & Dybdal NO, et al. Hematologic and serum biochemical alterations associated with multiple halothane anesthesia exposures and minor surgical trauma in horses. Am J Vet Res 1988;49:236–241.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Baker MT, Naguib M. Propofol: the challenges of formulation. Anesthesiology 2005;103:860–876.

  • 15

    Egan TD, Kern SE & Johnson KB, et al. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in a modified cyclodextrin formulation (Captisol) versus propofol in a lipid formulation (Diprivan): an electroencephalographic and hemodynamic study in a porcine model. Anesth Analg 2003;97:72–79.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Mazoit JX, Samii K. Binding of propofol to blood components: implications for pharmacokinetics and for pharmacodynamics. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999;47:35–42.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Comparison of high (5%) and low (1%) concentrations of micellar microemulsion propofol formulations with a standard (1%) lipid emulsion in horses

Pedro Boscan DVM, PhD1, Eugene P. Steffey VMD, PhD2, Thomas B. Farver PhD3, Khursheed R. Mama DVM4, Nick J. Huang BSc5, and Steven B. Harris MD6
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences and Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 2 Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences and Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 3 Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 4 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.
  • | 5 MEDDS (Micro Emulsion Drug Delivery Systems) Inc, Civic Center Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
  • | 6 MEDDS (Micro Emulsion Drug Delivery Systems) Inc, Civic Center Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.67.9.1476
Volume/Issue:
Volume 67: Issue 9
Online Publication Date:
01 Sep 2006
Restricted access
Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

Objective—To compare anesthesia-related events associated with IV administration of 2 novel micellar microemulsion preparations (1% and 5%) and a commercially available formulation (1%) of propofol in horses.

Animals—9 healthy horses.

Procedures—On 3 occasions, each horse was anesthetized with 1 of the 3 propofol formulations (1% or 5% microemulsion or 1% commercial preparation). All horses received xylazine (1 mg/kg, IV), and anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg/kg, IV). Induction and recovery events were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed. Venous blood samples were obtained before and at intervals following anesthesia for quantification of clinicopathologic variables.

Results—Compared with the commercial formulation, the quality of anesthesia induction in horses was slightly better with the micellar microemulsion formulas. In contrast, recovery characteristics were qualitatively and quantitatively indistinguishable among treatment groups (eg, time to stand after anesthesia was 34.3 ± 7.3 minutes, 34.1 ± 8.8 minutes, and 39.0 ± 7.6 minutes in horses treated with the commercial formulation, 1% microemulsion, and 5% microemulsion, respectively). During recovery from anesthesia, all horses stood on the first attempt and walked within 5 minutes of standing. No clinically relevant changes in hematologic and serum biochemical analytes were detected during a 3-day period following anesthesia.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggest that the micellar microemulsion preparation of propofol (1% or 5%) has similar anesthetic effects in horses, compared with the commercially available lipid propofol formulation. Additionally, the micellar microemulsion preparation is anticipated to have comparatively low production costs and can be manufactured in various concentrations.

Contributor Notes

Partial financial support and supplies of propofol microemulsions were provided by MEDDS Incorporated.

Presented as a poster abstract at the Fall Meeting of the Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, Vienna, Austria, September 2004.

The authors thank Don Hermes, Chris Scarlett, and Doug West for technical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. Boscan.