Journal of medical primatology · 2013
Continuous infusion of propofol or intermittent bolus of tiletamine-zolazepam in feline night monkeys (Aotus infulatus).
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Galante Rafaela, Muniz José A P C, Castro Paulo H G, Amora Dorli S, Gris Vanessa N, Carvalho Elizabeth R, Vilani Ricardo G D O C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although commonly used, dissociative anesthesia results in unsatisfactory and long recovery periods. The intravenous anesthetic propofol seems to be the most advantageous solution. The objectives of this study were to investigate the required infusion rate of propofol to maintain surgical anesthesia and to compare it to tiletamine-zolazepam in Aotus infulatus.
METHODS: Eight healthy feline night monkeys were anesthetized with propofol (PRO) or tiletamine-zolazepam (TZ) during 60 minutes. Cardiopulmonary parameters, arterial blood gases and lactate and quality and times to recovery were determined.
RESULTS: Mean infusion rate of propofol was 0.53 ± 0.10 mg/kg/minute. Cardiopulmonary effects did not show marked differences between groups. Times for hanging, ventral recumbency, and normal ambulation were lower in PRO. Establishment of desirable anesthetic depth was easier, recovery quality was superior, and lactate levels were lower in PRO.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tiletamine-zolazepam, minor post-anesthetic adverse events should be expected with propofol anesthesia, as well as faster and better anesthetic recovery.
METHODS: Eight healthy feline night monkeys were anesthetized with propofol (PRO) or tiletamine-zolazepam (TZ) during 60 minutes. Cardiopulmonary parameters, arterial blood gases and lactate and quality and times to recovery were determined.
RESULTS: Mean infusion rate of propofol was 0.53 ± 0.10 mg/kg/minute. Cardiopulmonary effects did not show marked differences between groups. Times for hanging, ventral recumbency, and normal ambulation were lower in PRO. Establishment of desirable anesthetic depth was easier, recovery quality was superior, and lactate levels were lower in PRO.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tiletamine-zolazepam, minor post-anesthetic adverse events should be expected with propofol anesthesia, as well as faster and better anesthetic recovery.