A comparison of medetomidine-propofol and medetomidine-midazolam-propofol anesthesia in rabbits

Abstract

We evaluated and compared the effects of medetomidine-propofol and medetomidine-midazolam-propofol anesthesia in rabbits. Fourteen New Zealand White rabbits were randomly assigned to receive either medetomidine (0.25 mg/kg, i.m.)-atropine (0.5 mg/kg, i.m.)-propofol (4 mg/kg, i.v.) (n = 7) or medetomidine (0.25 mg/kg, i.m.)-atropine (0.5 mg/kg, i.m.)-midazolam (0.5 mg/kg, i.m.)-propofol (2 mg/kg, i.v.) (n = 7). Five minutes after medetomidine-atropine or medetomidine-atropine-midazolam i.m. injection, propofol was administered i.v. Both medetomidine and medetomidine-midazolam rapidly (within 5 minutes) immobilized all rabbits and greatly eased the i.v. administration of propofol. Endotracheal intubation was accomplished easily after propofol injection in both groups. There was no significant difference between medetomidine-propofol and medetomidine-midazolam-propofol-treated rabbits in heart rate, respiratory rate, mean arterial pressure, or end-tidal CO2. The addition of midazolam to the medetomidine-propofol regimen significantly (P < 0.05) prolonged the duration of ear-pinch analgesia (25.0 +/- 7.1 vs. 36.7 +/- 8.9 minutes), the time from extubation to sternal recumbency (0.0 vs. 26.7 +/- 8.1 minutes), and the time from extubation to standing (0.0 vs. 39.5 +/- 11.3 minutes) without inducing significant changes in arterial blood pressure and end-tidal alveolar CO2. We consider both medetomidine-propofol and medetomidine-midazolam-propofol combinations to be safe and effective regimens for induction and short-term anesthesia in rabbits.