Sedation Efficacy of Midazolam in Conjunction with Ketamine and Alfaxalone in Female Laboratory Guinea Pigs (Cavia porcellus).

Keely Nicole Wharton, Courtney A Walsh, Marlena Haulter, Dinesh Ekanayake, Dil Ekanayake-Alper
{"title":"Sedation Efficacy of Midazolam in Conjunction with Ketamine and Alfaxalone in Female Laboratory Guinea Pigs (<i>Cavia porcellus</i>).","authors":"Keely Nicole Wharton, Courtney A Walsh, Marlena Haulter, Dinesh Ekanayake, Dil Ekanayake-Alper","doi":"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-24-000028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Guinea pigs have been integral as models used in biomedical research, making significant contributions to nutritional, auditory, immunologic, and hypersensitivity studies, and necessitating the routine need for sedation in laboratory settings. The ketamine-xylazine (KX) combination has been the standard sedation protocol for decades. However, due to the adverse effects and abuse potential of xylazine, this study explores the possibility of substituting xylazine with midazolam and examines the combined use of midazolam with ketamine and alfaxalone in female laboratory guinea pigs. Our findings indicate that KX facilitates the fastest induction and longest duration of sedation compared with other sedatives, including ketamine-midazolam (KM), which, despite its rapid induction, results in significantly shorter sedation durations. KX also ensures a deeper anesthetic depth and greater odds of loss of withdrawal and inguinal reflexes, in contrast to KM and alfaxalone-midazolam (AM), under which only 15% of the animals lost these reflexes. In terms of cardiopulmonary function, KM led to an increased heart rate attributed to elevated sympathetic activity. All 4 sedative protocols lead to respiratory depression, except KM, which causes minimal reduction. Adverse events varied, with 75% of animals experiencing injection site reactions after KX administration and 67% exhibiting regurgitation post-KM administration. No adverse events were reported for the AM combination, suggesting its safer profile. In conclusion, while KX remains the superior protocol for sedation due to its efficiency, reliability, and minimal impact on physiologic parameters, midazolam is not a preferable alternative to replace xylazine. Its increased sympathetic tone, hyperesthesia, and shorter action duration, coupled with a higher potential for adverse events, limit its suitability to combine with ketamine in guinea pig sedation. However, when midazolam is used in conjunction with safer alternatives like alfaxalone, it presents a viable sedation strategy, emphasizing the need for further research into optimizing sedative combinations for laboratory guinea pigs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11467886/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-24-000028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Guinea pigs have been integral as models used in biomedical research, making significant contributions to nutritional, auditory, immunologic, and hypersensitivity studies, and necessitating the routine need for sedation in laboratory settings. The ketamine-xylazine (KX) combination has been the standard sedation protocol for decades. However, due to the adverse effects and abuse potential of xylazine, this study explores the possibility of substituting xylazine with midazolam and examines the combined use of midazolam with ketamine and alfaxalone in female laboratory guinea pigs. Our findings indicate that KX facilitates the fastest induction and longest duration of sedation compared with other sedatives, including ketamine-midazolam (KM), which, despite its rapid induction, results in significantly shorter sedation durations. KX also ensures a deeper anesthetic depth and greater odds of loss of withdrawal and inguinal reflexes, in contrast to KM and alfaxalone-midazolam (AM), under which only 15% of the animals lost these reflexes. In terms of cardiopulmonary function, KM led to an increased heart rate attributed to elevated sympathetic activity. All 4 sedative protocols lead to respiratory depression, except KM, which causes minimal reduction. Adverse events varied, with 75% of animals experiencing injection site reactions after KX administration and 67% exhibiting regurgitation post-KM administration. No adverse events were reported for the AM combination, suggesting its safer profile. In conclusion, while KX remains the superior protocol for sedation due to its efficiency, reliability, and minimal impact on physiologic parameters, midazolam is not a preferable alternative to replace xylazine. Its increased sympathetic tone, hyperesthesia, and shorter action duration, coupled with a higher potential for adverse events, limit its suitability to combine with ketamine in guinea pig sedation. However, when midazolam is used in conjunction with safer alternatives like alfaxalone, it presents a viable sedation strategy, emphasizing the need for further research into optimizing sedative combinations for laboratory guinea pigs.

咪达唑仑与氯胺酮和阿法沙酮联合使用对雌性实验豚鼠(Cavia porcellus)的镇静效果。
豚鼠一直是生物医学研究中不可或缺的模型,在营养学、听觉、免疫学和超敏反应研究中做出了重要贡献,因此在实验室环境中必须使用常规镇静剂。几十年来,氯胺酮-恶嗪(KX)组合一直是标准镇静方案。然而,由于恶嗪的不良反应和滥用潜力,本研究探讨了用咪达唑仑替代恶嗪的可能性,并研究了在雌性实验豚鼠中将咪达唑仑与氯胺酮和阿法沙龙联合使用的情况。我们的研究结果表明,与包括氯胺酮-咪达唑仑(KM)在内的其他镇静剂相比,KX 的诱导速度最快,镇静持续时间最长。KX 还能确保更深的麻醉深度和更高的失禁和腹股沟反射几率,而 KM 和阿法沙酮-咪达唑仑(AM)只有 15% 的动物会失去这些反射。在心肺功能方面,KM会导致交感神经活动升高而导致心率加快。除 KM 会导致呼吸抑制外,其他四种镇静剂都会导致呼吸抑制。不良反应各不相同,75%的动物在注射 KX 后出现注射部位反应,67%的动物在注射 KM 后出现反胃。AM 组合未出现任何不良反应,表明其安全性更高。总之,尽管 KX 因其高效、可靠和对生理参数影响最小而仍然是镇静的最佳方案,但咪达唑仑并不是取代羟嗪的理想选择。咪达唑仑的交感神经张力增高、过度兴奋、作用持续时间较短,再加上发生不良反应的可能性较高,限制了其与氯胺酮联合用于豚鼠镇静的适宜性。不过,如果将咪达唑仑与阿法沙龙等更安全的替代品结合使用,则是一种可行的镇静策略,这也强调了进一步研究优化实验室豚鼠镇静剂组合的必要性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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