Objective

To compare induction times and physiological effects of etorphine–azaperone with etorphine–midazolam immobilization in African buffaloes.

Study design

Randomized crossover study.

Animals

A group of 10 adult buffalo bulls (mean body weight 353 kg).

Methods

Etorphine–azaperone (treatment EA; 0.015 and 0.15 mg kg^–1, respectively) and etorphine–midazolam (treatment EM; 0.015 and 0.15 mg kg^–1, respectively) were administered once to buffaloes, 1 week apart. Once in sternal recumbency, buffaloes were instrumented and physiological variables recorded at 5 minute intervals, from 5 minutes to 20 minutes. Naltrexone (20 mg mg^–1 etorphine dose) was administered intravenously at 40 minutes. Induction (dart placement to recumbency) and recovery (naltrexone administration to standing) times were recorded. Arterial blood samples were analysed at 5 and 20 minutes. Physiological data were compared between treatments using a general linear mixed model and reported as mean ± standard deviation. Time data were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as median (interquartile range) with p ≤ 0.05.

Results

Actual drug doses administered for etorphine, azaperone and midazolam were 0.015 ± 0.001, 0.15 ± 0.01 and 0.16 ± 0.02 mg kg^–1, respectively. Induction time for treatment EA was 3.3 (3.6) minutes and not different from 3.2 (3.2) minutes for treatment EM. The overall mean arterial blood pressure was significantly lower for treatment EA (102 ± 25 mmHg) than that for treatment EM (163 ± 18 mmHg) (p < 0.001). The PaO₂ for treatment EA (37 ± 12 mmHg; 5.0 ± 1.6 kPa) was not different from that for treatment EM (43 ± 8 mmHg; 5.8 ± 1.1 kPa). Recovery time was 0.8 (0.6) minutes for treatment EA and did not differ from 1.1 (0.6) minutes for treatment EM.

Conclusions and clinical relevance

Treatment EA was as effective as treatment EM for immobilization in this study. However, systemic arterial hypertension was a concern with treatment EM, and both combinations produced clinically relevant hypoxaemia. Supplemental oxygen administration is recommended with both drug combinations.

中文翻译：

---

与埃托啡-阿扎哌隆相比，使用埃托啡-咪达唑仑固定非洲水牛（Syncerus caffer）

客观的

比较埃托啡-阿扎哌隆与埃托啡-咪达唑仑在非洲水牛中的诱导时间和生理效应。

学习规划

随机交叉研究。

动物

一组 10 头成年水牛公牛（平均体重 353 公斤）。

方法

埃托啡-阿扎哌隆（EA 治疗；分别为 0.015 和 0.15 mg kg ^-1）和埃托啡-咪达唑仑（EM 治疗；分别为 0.015 和 0.15 mg kg ^-1）对水牛给药一次，间隔 1 周。一旦在胸骨卧位，对水牛进行仪器检测，并以 5 分钟的间隔（从 5 分钟到 20 分钟）记录生理变量。纳曲酮 (20 mg mg ^–1埃托啡剂量）在 40 分钟时静脉内给药。记录诱导（飞镖放置至卧位）和恢复（纳曲酮给药至站立）时间。在 5 分钟和 20 分钟时分析动脉血样。使用一般线性混合模型比较治疗之间的生理数据，并报告为平均值±标准偏差。使用 Mann-Whitney U检验比较时间数据，并报告为中位数（四分位距），p ≤ 0.05。

结果

埃托啡、阿扎哌隆和咪达唑仑的实际给药剂量分别为 0.015 ± 0.001、0.15 ± 0.01 和 0.16 ± 0.02 mg kg ^–1。EA 治疗的诱导时间为 3.3 (3.6) 分钟，与 EM 治疗的 3.2 (3.2) 分钟没有区别。EA 治疗的总体平均动脉血压 (102 ± 25 mmHg) 明显低于 EM 治疗 (163 ± 18 mmHg) ( p < 0.001)。EA处理的PaO ₂ (37 ± 12 mmHg; 5.0 ± 1.6 kPa)与EM处理的(43 ± 8 mmHg; 5.8 ± 1.1 kPa)没有区别。EA 治疗的恢复时间为 0.8 (0.6) 分钟，与 EM 治疗的 1.1 (0.6) 分钟没有区别。

结论和临床相关性

在本研究中，治疗 EA 与治疗 EM 在固定方面同样有效。然而，全身性动脉高血压是治疗 EM 的一个问题，两种组合都会产生临床相关的低氧血症。建议对两种药物组合进行补充氧气管理。