COMPARISON OF THREE MIDAZOLAM-BASED SEDATION PROTOCOLS IN BUDGERIGARS (MELOPSITTACUS UNDULATUS) AND BLACK-CHEEKED LOVEBIRDS (AGAPORNIS NIGRIGENIS).

IF 0.7 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Sara A Abreu, Sophie A Laursen, Kathryn L Perrin, Stamatios A Tahas, Mads F Bertelsen
{"title":"COMPARISON OF THREE MIDAZOLAM-BASED SEDATION PROTOCOLS IN BUDGERIGARS (<i>MELOPSITTACUS UNDULATUS</i>) AND BLACK-CHEEKED LOVEBIRDS (<i>AGAPORNIS NIGRIGENIS</i>).","authors":"Sara A Abreu, Sophie A Laursen, Kathryn L Perrin, Stamatios A Tahas, Mads F Bertelsen","doi":"10.1638/2022-0124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This randomized, crossover study evaluated three sedation protocols administered subcutaneously in nine budgerigars (<i>Melopsittacus undulatus</i>) and nine black-cheeked lovebirds (<i>Agapornis nigrigenis</i>). All protocols included midazolam (5 mg/kg), combined with butorphanol (5 mg/kg) (BM), medetomidine (20 lg/kg) (MM), or alfaxalone (13 mg/kg) (AM). Mortalities from suspected cardiorespiratory arrest were observed when AM was used in lovebirds, even after reduction of alfaxalone dosage to 3 mg/kg, and therefore this protocol was excluded from further use in this species. Induction and recovery times were recorded and their quality assessed. Sedation depth and heart and respiratory rates were measured every 5 min and radiographic positioning was attempted at 10 and 20 min. At 30 min, midazolam and medetomidine were reversed with flumazenil (0.05 mg/kg, SC), and atipamezole (0.2 mg/kg, SC), respectively. MM consistently provided deep sedation in both species, with successful radiographic positioning at every attempt. As expected, heart rate was often lower with MM than with other protocols, but no associated complications were noted. In budgerigars, BM had the lowest radiographic positioning success rate (10 min: 5/9, 20 min: 3/9), whereas in lovebirds it provided significantly deeper sedation (<i>P</i> < 0.001), allowing radiographic positioning in all subjects. In both species, BM provided the shortest recovery times. AM resulted in reliable radiographic positioning of all budgerigars at 10 min, but not at 20 min (5/ 9), and provided consistently poor recoveries. This study highlights how differently two psittacine species of similar size may react to the same sedation protocols. AM sedation cannot be fully reversed and produced significant undesirable effects, several of which have been previously reported with alfaxalone administration to avian species. The authors therefore caution against using alfaxalone-midazolam combinations in budgerigars and black-cheeked lovebirds. Both BM and MM provided reliable sedation in these species, and appear to be suitable alternatives to AM.</p>","PeriodicalId":17667,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine","volume":"55 1","pages":"111-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1638/2022-0124","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This randomized, crossover study evaluated three sedation protocols administered subcutaneously in nine budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and nine black-cheeked lovebirds (Agapornis nigrigenis). All protocols included midazolam (5 mg/kg), combined with butorphanol (5 mg/kg) (BM), medetomidine (20 lg/kg) (MM), or alfaxalone (13 mg/kg) (AM). Mortalities from suspected cardiorespiratory arrest were observed when AM was used in lovebirds, even after reduction of alfaxalone dosage to 3 mg/kg, and therefore this protocol was excluded from further use in this species. Induction and recovery times were recorded and their quality assessed. Sedation depth and heart and respiratory rates were measured every 5 min and radiographic positioning was attempted at 10 and 20 min. At 30 min, midazolam and medetomidine were reversed with flumazenil (0.05 mg/kg, SC), and atipamezole (0.2 mg/kg, SC), respectively. MM consistently provided deep sedation in both species, with successful radiographic positioning at every attempt. As expected, heart rate was often lower with MM than with other protocols, but no associated complications were noted. In budgerigars, BM had the lowest radiographic positioning success rate (10 min: 5/9, 20 min: 3/9), whereas in lovebirds it provided significantly deeper sedation (P < 0.001), allowing radiographic positioning in all subjects. In both species, BM provided the shortest recovery times. AM resulted in reliable radiographic positioning of all budgerigars at 10 min, but not at 20 min (5/ 9), and provided consistently poor recoveries. This study highlights how differently two psittacine species of similar size may react to the same sedation protocols. AM sedation cannot be fully reversed and produced significant undesirable effects, several of which have been previously reported with alfaxalone administration to avian species. The authors therefore caution against using alfaxalone-midazolam combinations in budgerigars and black-cheeked lovebirds. Both BM and MM provided reliable sedation in these species, and appear to be suitable alternatives to AM.

在虎皮鹦鹉(melopsittacus undulatus)和黑颊爱情鸟(agapornis nigrigenis)中比较三种基于咪达唑仑的镇静方案。
这项随机交叉研究评估了三种皮下注射镇静方案,分别用于九只虎皮鹦鹉(Melopsittacus undulatus)和九只黑颊爱情鸟(Agapornis nigrigenis)。所有治疗方案都包括咪达唑仑(5 毫克/千克)和丁诺醇(5 毫克/千克)(BM)、美托咪定(20 毫克/千克)(MM)或阿法沙隆(13 毫克/千克)(AM)。在对爱情鸟使用 AM 时,即使阿法沙酮的剂量降至 3 毫克/千克,也会出现疑似心肺骤停的死亡病例,因此该方案不再用于该物种。记录诱导和恢复时间并评估其质量。每 5 分钟测量一次镇静深度、心率和呼吸频率,并在 10 分钟和 20 分钟时尝试进行放射定位。30 分钟时,分别用氟马唑尼(0.05 毫克/千克,皮下注射)和阿替帕唑(0.2 毫克/千克,皮下注射)逆转咪达唑仑和美托咪定。MM始终能为两种动物提供深度镇静,每次尝试都能成功进行放射定位。不出所料,MM 的心率通常低于其他方案,但未发现相关并发症。在虎皮鹦鹉中,BM 的放射定位成功率最低(10 分钟:5/9,20 分钟:3/9),而在爱情鸟中,BM 的镇静效果明显更深(P < 0.001),所有受试者都能进行放射定位。在这两种鸟类中,BM 的恢复时间最短。AM 可在 10 分钟内对所有虎皮鹦鹉进行可靠的放射定位,但在 20 分钟内则不能(5/9),而且恢复能力一直较差。这项研究强调了两种体型相似的鹦鹉对相同镇静方案的不同反应。AM镇静剂不能完全逆转,而且会产生明显的不良反应,其中有几种不良反应以前曾在对鸟类施用阿法沙酮时报道过。因此,作者告诫虎皮鹦鹉和黑颊爱情鸟不要使用阿法沙龙-咪达唑仑复合制剂。BM 和 MM 可为这些鸟类提供可靠的镇静效果,似乎是阿法沙酮的合适替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
74
审稿时长
9-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine (JZWM) is considered one of the major sources of information on the biology and veterinary aspects in the field. It stems from the founding premise of AAZV to share zoo animal medicine experiences. The Journal evolved from the long history of members producing case reports and the increased publication of free-ranging wildlife papers. The Journal accepts manuscripts of original research findings, case reports in the field of veterinary medicine dealing with captive and free-ranging wild animals, brief communications regarding clinical or research observations that may warrant publication. It also publishes and encourages submission of relevant editorials, reviews, special reports, clinical challenges, abstracts of selected articles and book reviews. The Journal is published quarterly, is peer reviewed, is indexed by the major abstracting services, and is international in scope and distribution. Areas of interest include clinical medicine, surgery, anatomy, radiology, physiology, reproduction, nutrition, parasitology, microbiology, immunology, pathology (including infectious diseases and clinical pathology), toxicology, pharmacology, and epidemiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信