Clinical comparison of dexmedetomidine and medetomidine for isoflurane balanced anaesthesia in horses.

Objective: To compare the effects of two balanced anaesthetic protocols (isoflurane-dexmedetomidine versus medetomidine) on sedation, cardiopulmonary function and recovery in horses.

Study Design: Prospective, blinded, randomized clinical study.

Animals: Sixty healthy adult warm blood horses undergoing elective surgery.

Methods: Thirty horses each were sedated with dexmedetomidine 3.5 μg kg (group DEX) or medetomidine 7 μg kg (group MED) intravenously. After assessing and supplementing sedation if necessary, anaesthesia was induced with ketamine/diazepam and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen/air and dexmedetomidine 1.75 μg kg hour or medetomidine 3.5 μg kg hour. Ringer's lactate (7-10 mL kg hour) and dobutamine were administered to maintain normotension. Controlled mechanical ventilation maintained end-tidal expired carbon dioxide pressures at 40-50 mmHg (5.3-6.7 kPa). Heart rate, invasive arterial blood pressure, inspired and expired gas composition and arterial blood gases were measured. Dexmedetomidine 1 μg kg or medetomidine 2 μg kg was administered for timed and scored recovery phase. Data were analysed using two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance and chi-square test. Significance was considered when p≤0.05.

Results: In group DEX, significantly more horses (n=18) did not fulfil the sedation criteria prior to induction and received one or more supplemental doses, whereas in group MED only two horses needed one additional bolus. Median (range) total sedation doses were dexmedetomidine 4 (4-9) μg kg or medetomidine 7 (7-9) μg kg. During general anaesthesia, cardiopulmonary parameters did not differ significantly between groups. Recovery scores in group DEX were significantly better than in group MED.

Conclusions And Clinical Relevance: Horses administered dexmedetomidine required more than 50% of the medetomidine dose to reach equivalent sedation. During isoflurane anaesthesia, cardiopulmonary function was comparable between the two groups. Recovery scores following dexmedetomidine were better compared to medetomidine.