Comparison of the anesthetic efficacy and cardiopulmonary effects of continuous rate infusions of alfaxalone-2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin and propofol in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cardiopulmonary effects of continuous rate infusions (CRIs) of alfaxalone-2-hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (HPCD) and propofol in healthy dogs. ANIMALS: 6 young adult medium-sized healthy crossbred dogs. PROCEDURES: A crossover design was used with a washout period of 6 days between anesthetic treatments. Each dog was sedated with acepromazine (0.02 mg/kg, IV) and hydromorphone (0.05 mg/kg, IV). Anesthesia was induced with propofol (4 mg/kg) or alfaxalone-HPCD (2 mg/kg). After endotracheal intubation, anesthesia was maintained with the same agent (propofol, 0.25 mg/kg/min; alfaxalone-HPCD, 0.07 mg/kg/min) for 120 minutes. Dogs spontaneously breathed 100% oxygen. Measurements included end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide, heart and respiratory rates, mean arterial blood pressure, thermodilution-derived cardiac output, and body temperature. Paired arterial and mixed venous blood samples were collected for determination of blood pH, PaCO(2), and PaO(2). Data were recorded prior to induction; 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after induction of anesthesia; and 20 minutes after stopping the CRI, when feasible. Stroke volume and systemic vascular resistance were calculated. Quality of anesthetic induction and recovery and interval to recovery were recorded. RESULTS: Both propofol and alfaxalone-HPCD produced excellent induction of anesthesia, maintenance, and recovery. Respiratory depression was evident with both anesthetics. Clinically acceptable, mild hemodynamic changes were similar for both anesthetics. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alfaxalone-HPCD produced clinically acceptable anesthetic quality and hemodynamic values ideal for use as a CRI. Ventilation may need to be supported if hydromorphone is used at these propofol and alfaxalone-HPCD infusion rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".