title: Comparison of high (5%) and low (1%) concentrations of micellar microemulsion propofol formulations with a standard (1%) lipid emulsion in horses.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare anesthesia-related events associated with IV administration of 2 novel micellar microemulsion preparations (1% and 5%) and a commercially available formulation (1%) of propofol in horses. Animals-9 healthy horses.
  
  
  METHODS
  On 3 occasions, each horse was anesthetized with 1 of the 3 propofol formulations (1% or 5% microemulsion or 1% commercial preparation). All horses received xylazine (1 mg/kg, IV), and anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg/kg, IV). Induction and recovery events were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed. Venous blood samples were obtained before and at intervals following anesthesia for quantification of clinicopathologic variables.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compared with the commercial formulation, the quality of anesthesia induction in horses was slightly better with the micellar microemulsion formulas. In contrast, recovery characteristics were qualitatively and quantitatively indistinguishable among treatment groups (eg, time to stand after anesthesia was 34.3 +/- 7.3 minutes, 34.1 +/- 8.8 minutes, and 39.0 +/- 7.6 minutes in horses treated with the commercial formulation, 1% microemulsion, and 5% microemulsion, respectively). During recovery from anesthesia, all horses stood on the first attempt and walked within 5 minutes of standing. No clinically relevant changes in hematologic and serum biochemical analytes were detected during a 3-day period following anesthesia.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Results suggest that the micellar microemulsion preparation of propofol (1% or 5%) has similar anesthetic effects in horses, compared with the commercially available lipid propofol formulation. Additionally, the micellar microemulsion preparation is anticipated to have comparatively low production costs and can be manufactured in various concentrations.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences and Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
authors.forename: Pedro
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Boscan
authors.forename: Eugene P
authors.initials: EP
authors.lastname: Steffey
authors.forename: Thomas B
authors.initials: TB
authors.lastname: Farver
authors.forename: Khursheed R
authors.initials: KR
authors.lastname: Mama
authors.forename: Nick J
authors.initials: NJ
authors.lastname: Huang
authors.forename: Steven B
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Harris
mesh_terms: D000758:Anesthesia / Q000662:veterinary*; D000762:Anesthesia Recovery Period; D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000737:chemistry; D000818:Animals; D001772:Blood Cell Count / Q000662:veterinary; D001774:Blood Chemical Analysis / Q000662:veterinary; D001831:Body Temperature / Q000187:drug effects; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004655:Emulsions / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000737:chemistry; D005260:Female; D006339:Heart Rate / Q000187:drug effects; D006736:Horses / Q000097:blood / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008823:Micelles; D015742:Propofol / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000737:chemistry; D012119:Respiration / Q000187:drug effects
chemical_list: D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous; D004655:Emulsions; D008823:Micelles; D015742:Propofol