Comparison of subcutaneous dexmedetomidine–midazolam versus alfaxalone–midazolam sedation in leopard geckos (Eublepharis macularius)

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

ObjectiveTo compare dexmedetomidine–midazolam with alfaxalone–midazolam for sedation in leopard geckos (Eublepharis macularius). Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, complete crossover study. AnimalsNine healthy adult leopard geckos. MethodsGeckos were administered a combination of dexmedetomidine (0.1 mg kg−1) and midazolam (1.0 mg kg−1; treatment D–M) or alfaxalone (15 mg kg−1) and midazolam (1.0 mg kg−1; treatment A–M) subcutaneously craniodorsal to a thoracic limb. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (fR), righting reflex, palpebral reflex, superficial and deep pain reflexes, jaw tone and escape response were assessed every 5 minutes until reversal. Conditions for intubation and response to needle prick were evaluated. Antagonist drugs [flumazenil (0.05 mg kg−1) ± atipamezole (1.0 mg kg−1)] were administered subcutaneously, craniodorsal to the contralateral thoracic limb, 45 minutes after initial injection, and animals were monitored until recovery. ResultsHR, but not fR, decreased significantly over time in both treatments. HR was significantly lower than baseline at all time points in D–M and for all but the 5 and 10 minute time points in A–M. HR was significantly higher in A–M at all time points after drug administration when compared with D–M. Sedation scores between protocols were similar for most time points. All animals in A–M lost righting reflex compared with seven out of nine (78%) geckos in D–M. Geckos in A–M lost righting reflex for significantly longer time. Mean ± standard deviation time to recovery after antagonist administration was 6.1 ± 2.2 minutes for D–M and 56 ± 29 minutes for A–M, and these times were significantly different. Conclusions and clinical relevanceCombination D–M or A–M provided sedation of a level expected to allow physical examinations and venipuncture in leopard geckos. A–M provided a faster onset of sedation compared with D–M. Recovery was significantly faster following antagonist reversal of D–M, compared with A–M.