Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38152595›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023

Effects of different rates of propofol with or without S-ketamine on ventricular function in healthy cats - a randomized study.

Sabrine Marangoni, Matheus Ubiali, Francieli Ambrosini, Larissa Jahnel, Julia M Vilani, Paulo V Steagall, Ricardo Guilherme D'Otaviano de Castro Vilani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The effect of maropitant on sedation, propofol requirements, and cardiovascular function at induction of anesthesia in healthy cats.Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Sabrine MarangoniDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Juvevê, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Matheus UbialiDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Juvevê, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Francieli AmbrosiniDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Juvevê, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Larissa JahnelDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Juvevê, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Julia M VilaniDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Juvevê, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Paulo V SteagallDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences and Centre for Companion Animal Health and Welfare, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Ricardo Guilherme D'Otaviano de Castro VilaniDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Juvevê, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Paraná · BRCity University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Propofol is used for anesthetic induction in cats and procedural sedation in countries where alfaxalone is not available. Studies have reported propofol-related effects in echocardiography variables in dogs and humans. However, there is a lack of echocardiography studies investigating propofol-related effects on cats. This study aimed to use echocardiography to investigate echocardiographic changes in three protocols using propofol: propofol-slow (2 mg/kg/min, PS); propofol-fast (8 mg/kg/min, PF); propofol-ketamine (S-ketamine 2 mg/kg bolus followed by propofol 2 mg/kg/min; PK) in healthy premedicated (gabapentin-buprenorphine-acepromazine; 200 mg/cat, 0.4, and 0.1 mg/kg, respectively), non-intubated cats. Echocardiographic measurements were obtained at three time points: baseline (before the administration of propofol), end of propofol titration (end-point, T0), and 15 min after T0 (T15). Propofol at a lower rate continued from T0 to T15. Echocardiographic and physiological variables included fractional shortening (FS%), ejection fraction (EF%), HR, BP, and others. Propofol requirements at T0 for PF, PS, and PK groups were 5.0 ± 0.9, 3.8 ± 0.7, and 2.4 ± 0.5 mg/kg, respectively. EF% neither change over time nor between groups. PF and PK showed a reduction in FS% at T0 (47 ± 6 to 34 ± 6 and 42 ± 6 to 36 ± 5, respectively). BP reduced significantly in PF and PS groups (136 ± 26 to 105 ± 13 and 137 ± 22 to 115 ± 15 mmHg, respectively). It is unclear whether changes in echocardiography variables were of clinical relevance related to treatment groups or a result of within-group individual responses.

Indexed as

cardiovascularfelineprocedural sedationpropofolS-ketamine

Identifiers

PMID38152595
PMCPMC10752607
OpenAlexW4389569134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.