Comparison of two sedation protocols, with and without analgesia, in pigs: Assessment of sedation end points and propofol requirements

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of intramuscular premedication with a novel nonanalgesic [alfaxalone–midazolam–acepromazine (AMA)] and an analgesic [ketamine–midazolam–detomidine (KMD)] protocol on sedation end points and propofol requirements for induction of anesthesia in swine. Study designProspective experimental study. AnimalsA total of 27 Yorkshire cross gilts weighing approximately 30 kg. MethodsTwo sedation protocols, AMA and KMD, were compared. Time from intramuscular injection to ataxia, recumbency and nonresponsiveness to tactile stimulation was recorded. The propofol dose requirement for induction of general anesthesia and tracheal intubation, and any adverse events (paddling, twitching), were recorded. Data were tested for normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test. Propofol requirements were compared using a Student’s t test. Times from injection to sedation end points were compared using a Mood’s test, and significance was confirmed using a Kaplan–Meier curve with Wilcoxon test survival analysis. ResultsSedation end points were reached significantly faster with KMD than with AMA. Nonresponsiveness occurred in 5 (0–16) and 9.5 (5–36) minutes for KMD and AMA, respectively (p = 0.011). No significant difference (p = 0.437) was found between propofol doses used in either group (KMD; 64.38 ± 5.98 mg, AMA; 72.00 ± 7.57 mg). More adverse events were noted with AMA (11/16 pigs) than with KMD (1/11 pigs). Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn pigs, AMA can be used as a reliable sedation protocol. Frequency of adverse events and time to reach sedation end points between AMA and KMD differed, but the dose of propofol needed to induce general anesthesia was not significantly different.