Objective: To compare the doses of propofol required for insertion of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) with those for endotracheal intubation in sedated dogs.
Study design: Randomized prospective clinical study. Animals Sixty healthy dogs aged 0.33-8.5 (3.0 +/- 2.3, mean +/- SD) years, weighing 2.2-59.0 (23.4 +/- 13.6, mean +/- SD) kg, presented for elective surgery requiring inhalation anaesthesia.
Methods: Animals were randomly assigned to receive either a LMA or an endotracheal tube. Pre-anaesthetic medication was intravenous (IV) glycopyrrolate (0.01 mg kg(-1)) medetomidine (10 microg kg(-1)) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg(-1)). Repeated IV propofol injections (1 mg kg(-1) in 30 seconds) were given until LMA insertion or endotracheal intubation was achieved, when the presence or absence of laryngospasm, the respiratory rate (fr) and the total dose of propofol used were recorded.
Results: The total propofol dose (mean +/- SD) required for LMA insertion (0.53 +/- 0.51 mg kg(-1)) was significantly lower than for endotracheal intubation (1.43 +/- 0.57 mg kg(-1)). The LMA could be inserted without propofol in 47% of dogs; the remainder needed a single 1 mg kg(-1) bolus (n = 30). Endotracheal intubation was possible without propofol in 3.3% of the dogs, 47% needed one bolus and 50% required two injections (n = 30). The f(r) (mean +/- SD) was 18 +/- 6 and 15 +/- 7 minute(-1) after LMA insertion and intubation, respectively.
Conclusion and clinical relevance: Laryngeal mask airway insertion requires less propofol than endotracheal intubation in sedated dogs therefore propofol-induced cardiorespiratory depression is likely to be less severe. The LMA is well tolerated and offers a less invasive means of securing the upper airway.