Top Companion Anim Med. 2024 Apr 12:100873. doi: 10.1016/j.tcam.2024.100873. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare the safety and clinical efficacy of epidural levobupivacaine combined with fentanyl or sufentanil for bitches undergoing elective cesarean-section and the impact of these anesthetic protocols on neonatal viability. The anesthetic protocol consisted of intramuscular morphine (0.2 mg/kg), followed by an intravenous bolus of propofol, in a dose sufficient to allowed the puncture of the lumbosacral space. The dogs were randomly allocated to receive 0.5% levobupivacaine plus fentanyl (2.5 µg/kg; LF: n = 9) or sufentanil (1 µg/kg; LS; n = 11). Maternal cardiorespiratory parameters were monitored at specific time points during surgery. Intraoperative propofol supplementation was based on the presence of head and/or thoracic limb movements. Neonatal reflex responses and the Apgar score (range 0-10 points) were assessed at 5 and 60 minutes after birth. Puppy mortality rate was recorded until 24 hours after birth. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and Fisher’s exact test (P < 0.05). Intraoperatively, maternal cardiorespiratory variables and propofol requirements were similar between groups, with no detection of anesthetic complications. The puppy reflex responses did not differ between groups at any time point. The medians (range) of Apgar scores were lower (P = 0.016) in the LF [5 (1-9)] at 5 minutes in comparison with LS [6 (2-9)], while no intergroup differences were recorded at 60 minutes [LF = 8 (2-10); LS = 9 (6-10]. The total mortality rate was 4.1%. In the LS group, no puppies died, while in the LF 8% of the puppies died in the first 24 hours after birth (P = 0.11). Epidural levobupivacaine combined with fentanyl or sufentanil provided minimal maternal and neonatal adverse effects, but neither protocol enabled the performance of a C-section in 100% of the French and English bulldogs, without propofol supplementation.
PMID:38616021 | DOI:10.1016/j.tcam.2024.100873
