A comparison of alfaxalone and propofol on intraocular pressure in healthy dogs. (18th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hasiuk, Michelle M. M.; Forde, Nessa; Cooke, Amy; Ramey, Kelli; Pang, Daniel S. J.
• Is Part Of: Veterinary ophthalmology. Volume 17:Number 6(2014)
• Page Start: 411
• Page End: 416
• Publication Date: 2013-11-18
• Subjects: Veterinary ophthalmology -- Periodicals; 636.08977
• DOI: 10.1111/vop.12119
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1463-5216

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="vop12119-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="vop12119-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Objective</title> <p>To compare the effects of alfaxalone and propofol on intraocular (IOP) pressure in the canine eye.</p> </sec> <sec id="vop12119-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Animals studied</title> <p>Twenty‐three healthy adult dogs.</p> </sec> <sec id="vop12119-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Procedures</title> <p>Dogs were randomized to receive intravenous propofol (<italic>n</italic> = 11) or alfaxalone (<italic>n</italic> = 12) until loss of jaw tone, 20 min after intravenous premedication (acepromazine 0.02–0.03 mg/kg and hydromorphone 0.05–0.1 mg/kg). IOP was measured at baseline (BL), 20 min postpremedication (postpremed), loss of jaw tone (postinduct), and immediately following orotracheal intubation (postintub). Between‐ and within‐treatment effects were analyzed with two‐way and one‐way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni's <italic>post hoc</italic> test, respectively. <italic>P</italic> < 0.05 was considered significant.</p> </sec> <sec id="vop12119-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>No significant IOP differences were detected between alfaxalone or propofol groups at any time point (<italic>P</italic> > 0.05). Propofol: IOP did not change between BL (15.5 ± 2.7 mmHg) and postpremed (16.2 ± 3.6 mmHg, <italic>P</italic> > 0.05), or postinduct (19.1 ± 5.2 mmHg) and postintub (21.0 ± 4.6 mmHg, <italic>P</italic> > 0.05), but differed significantly between BL and postinduct (<italic>P</italic> < 0.0001), and postintub (<italic>P</italic> < 0.0001). Alfaxalone: IOP did not change between BL (15.7 ± 2.8 mmHg) and postpremed (15.3 ± 4.1 mmHg, <italic>P</italic> > 0.05), or postinduct (19.2 ± 4.9 mmHg) and postintub (20.5 ± 4.5 mmHg, <italic>P</italic> > 0.05), but differed significantly between BL and postinduct (<italic>P</italic> < 0.01), and postintub (<italic>P</italic> < 0.0001).</p> </sec> <sec id="vop12119-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>These data show a potentially clinically significant increase in IOP following induction with propofol or alfaxalone, but no difference between agents.</p> </sec> </abstract>