Comparison of recovery quality following medetomidine versus xylazine balanced isoflurane anaesthesia in horses: A retrospective analysis

Abstract

Medetomidine partial intravenous anaesthesia (PIVA) has not been compared to xy-lazine PIVA regarding quality of recovery. This clinical retrospective study compared recoveries following isoflurane anaesthesia balanced with medetomidine or xylazine. The following standard protocol was used: sedation with 7 µg·kg−1 medetomidine or 1.1 mg·kg−1 xylazine, anaesthesia induction with ketamine/diazepam, maintenance with isoflurane and 3.5 µg·kg−1·h−1 medetomi-dine or 0.7 mg·kg−1·h−1 xylazine, and sedation after anaesthesia with 2 µg·kg−1 medetomidine or 0.3 mg·kg−1 xylazine. Recovery was timed and, using video recordings, numerically scored by two blinded observers. Influence of demographics, procedure, peri-anaesthetic drugs, and intra-operative complications (hypotension, hypoxemia, and tachycardia) on recovery were analysed using regression analysis (p < 0.05). A total of 470 recoveries (medetomidine 279, xylazine 191) were finally included. Following medetomidine, recoveries were significantly longer (median (in-terquartile range): 57 (43–71) min) than xylazine (43 (32–59) min) (p < 0.001). However, the number of attempts to stand was similar (medetomidine and xylazine: 2 (1–3)). Poorer scores were seen with increased pre-anaesthetic dose of xylazine, intraoperative tetrastarch, or salbutamol. How-ever, use of medetomidine or xylazine did not influence recovery score, concluding that, following medetomidine–isoflurane PIVA, recovery is longer, but of similar quality compared to xylazine.