To systematically review the quality of evidence comparing the cardiopulmonary effects and quality of anesthesia after induction with alfaxalone vs. other anesthetic agents in dogs and cats. Studies published from 2001 until 20th May 2013 were identified with the terms ‘alfaxan’ OR ‘alfaxalone’ OR ‘alphaxalone’ in electronic databases: Discovery, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Wiley Interscience. The study design and risk of bias of all included studies were assessed. Twenty-two studies from 408 (22 of 408, 5.39%) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies (14 of 22, 64%) focused on dogs and nine (9 of 22, 40%) on cats. One study had both dogs and cats as subjects. (Hunt et al., 2013) Twelve studies were rated an LOE1, and six of these as ROB1. One, seven, and two studies were rated as LOE2, LOE3, and LOE5, respectively. In dogs, strong evidence shows that induction quality with either alfaxalone-HPCD or propofol is smooth. Moderate evidence supports this finding in cats. In dogs, moderate evidence shows that there is no significant change in heart rate after induction with either alfaxalone-HPCD or propofol. In cats, moderate evidence shows no significant difference in postinduction respiratory rate and heart rate between alfaxalone-HPCD and propofol induction. Strong evidence shows dogs and cats have smooth recoveries after induction using either alfaxalone-HPCD or propofol, before reaching sternal recumbency.
|Number of pages||14|
|Journal||Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Dec 2016|