Alfaxalone-2-hydroxpropyl-β-cyclodextrin (alfaxalone-HPCD) was first marketed for veterinary use in Australia in 2001 and has since progressively became available throughout the world, including the USA, where in 2012 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration was granted. Despite the growing body of published works and increasing global availability of alfaxalone-HPCD, the accumulating evidence for its use in cats has not been thoroughly reviewed. The purpose of this review is: (1) to detail the pharmacokinetic properties of alfaxalone-HPCD in cats; (2) to assess the pharmacodynamic properties of alfaxalone-HPCD, including its cardiovascular, respiratory, central nervous system, neuromuscular, hepatic, renal, haematological, blood-biochemical, analgesic and endocrine effects; and (3) to consider the clinical application of alfaxalone-HPCD for sedation, induction and maintenance of anaesthesia in cats. Based on the published literature, alfaxalone-HPCD provides a good alternative to the existing intravenous anaesthetic options for healthy cats.

The performance of a modified target‐controlled infusion system was investigated in 16 dogs undergoing routine dental work, by comparing the predicted concentrations of propofol in venous blood samples with direct measurements; the optimum targets for the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia were also identified. The performance of a target‐controlled infusion system is considered clinically acceptable when the median prediction error, a measure of bias, is not greater than ±10 to 20 per cent, and the median absolute performance error, a measure of the accuracy, is not greater than 20 to 30 per cent. The results fell within these limits indicating that the system performed adequately. The optimal induction target was 3 μg/ml, and anaesthesia of adequate depth and satisfactory quality was achieved with maintenance targets of between 2.5 and 4.7 μg/ml propofol. The system was easy to use and the quality of anaesthesia was adequate for dental work.

Four groups of 20 dogs were anaesthetised by means of target‐controlled infusions of propofol designed to achieve 2·5 µg/ml, 3·0 µg/ml, 3·5 µg/ml or 4·0 µg/ml of propofol in blood. The dogs’ pulse rate and respiratory rate were recorded before premedication and induction, immediately after endotracheal intubation and three and five minutes later (times 0, 3 and 5, respectively), and their arterial blood pressure was recorded oscillometrically just before induction and at times 0, 3 and 5. The targets of 2·5, 3·0, 3·5 and 4·0 µg/ml resulted in the successful induction of anaesthesia in 13 (65 per cent), 16 (80 per cent), 20 (100 per cent) and 20 (100 per cent) of the dogs, respectively. The incidence of postinduction apnoea was 0 (0 per cent), one (5 per cent), two (10 per cent) and eight (40 per cent) at time 5 for groups 2·5, 3·0, 3·5 and 4·0 µg/ml, respectively, and its incidence at time 5 was significantly higher in the 4·0 µg/ml group (P<0·05) than in the other groups. In all the groups there was a significant (P<0·05) decrease in blood pressure between just before induction and the later measurements. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of inducing anaesthesia at a specific target, a target of 3·5 µg/ml appears to ensure a successful induction of anaesthesia without a significant increase in the incidence of apnoea.

The 3Rs, Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, is a framework to ensure the ethical and justified use of animals in research. The implementation of refinements is required to alleviate and minimise the pain and suffering of animals in research. Public acceptability of animal use in research is contingent on satisfying ethical and legal obligations to provide pain relief along with humane endpoints. To fulfil this obligation, staff, researchers, veterinarians, and technicians must rapidly, accurately, efficiently and consistently identify, assess and act on signs of pain. This ability is paramount to uphold animal welfare, prevent undue suffering and mitigate possible negative impacts on research. Identification of pain may be based on indicators such as physiological, behavioural, or physical ones. Each has been used to develop different pain scoring systems with potential benefits and limitations in identifying and assessing pain. Grimace scores are a promising adjunctive behavioural technique in some mammalian species to identify and assess pain in research animals. The use of this method can be beneficial to animal welfare and research outcomes by identifying animals that may require alleviation of pain or humane intervention. This paper highlights the benefits, caveats, and potential applications of grimace scales.

Objective—To compare the perioperative analgesic effect between methadone and butorphanol in cats. Design—Randomized controlled clinical trial. Animals—22 healthy female domestic cats. Procedures—Cats admitted for ovariohysterectomy were allocated to a butorphanol group (n = 10) or methadone group (12) and premedicated with butorphanol (0.4 mg/kg [0.18 mg/lb], SC) or methadone (0.6 mg/kg [0.27 mg/lb], SC), respectively, in combination with acepromazine (0.02 mg/kg [0.01 mg/lb], SC). Anesthesia was induced with propofol (IV) and maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. A multidimensional composite scale was used to conduct pain assessments prior to premedication and 5, 20, 60, 120, 180, 240, 300, and 360 minutes after extubation or until rescue analgesia was given. Groups were compared to evaluate isoflurane requirement, propofol requirement, pain scores, and requirement for rescue analgesia. Results—Propofol and isoflurane requirements and preoperative pain scores were not different between groups. During recovery, dysphoria prevented pain evaluation at 5 minutes. Pain scores at 20 minutes were significantly lower in the methadone group, and 6 of 10 cats in the butorphanol group received rescue analgesia, making subsequent pain score comparisons inapplicable. After 6 hours, only 3 of 12 cats in the methadone group had received rescue analgesia. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In the present study, methadone appeared to be a better postoperative analgesic than butorphanol and provided effective analgesia for 6 hours following ovariohysterectomy in most cats. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;243:844–850)