Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia, 2009, 36, 2533

doi:10.1111/j.1467-2995.2008.00424.x

RESEARCH PAPER

Comparative study on the sedative effects of morphine,

methadone, butorphanol or tramadol, in combination with
acepromazine, in dogs
Eduardo Raposo Monteiro* DVM, PhD, Adolfo Rodrigues Junior* DVM, Hemir Martins Quirilos Assis*
Daniela Campagnol! DVM, MSc & Juliany Gomes Quitzan* DVM, MSc

DVM,

*Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Centro Universitario de Maringa (CESUMAR), Maringa, Parana, Brazil
!Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia, Universidade
Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Correspondence: Eduardo Raposo Monteiro, Cesumar-Hospital Veterinario, Av. Guedner 1610 - Zona 8 -87050-900, Maringa, PR, Brazil.
E-mail: btraposo@hotmail.com

Abstract
Objective To compare the effects of morphine
(MOR), methadone (MET), butorphanol (BUT) and
tramadol (TRA), in combination with acepromazine, on sedation, cardiorespiratory variables, body
temperature and incidence of emesis in dogs.
Study design Prospective randomized, blinded,
experimental trial.
Animals Six adult mixed-breed male dogs weighing
12.0 4.3 kg.
Methods Dogs received intravenous administration
(IV) of acepromazine (0.05 mg kg)1) and 15 minutes later, one of four opioids was randomly
administered IV in a cross-over design, with at least
1-week intervals. Dogs then received MOR 0.5 mg
kg)1; MET 0.5 mg kg)1; BUT 0.15 mg kg)1; or TRA
2.0 mg kg)1. Indirect systolic arterial pressure
(SAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (fR), rectal temperature, pedal withdrawal reflex and sedation were evaluated at regular intervals for
90 minutes.
Results Acepromazine administration decreased
SAP, HR and temperature and produced mild
sedation. All opioids further decreased temperature

and MOR, BUT and TRA were associated with

further decreases in HR. Tramadol decreased SAP
whereas BUT decreased fR compared with values
before opioid administration. Retching was observed
in five of six dogs and vomiting occurred in one dog
in MOR, but not in any dog in the remaining
treatments. Sedation scores were greater in MET
followed by MOR and BUT. Tramadol was associated with minor changes in sedation produced by
acepromazine alone.
Conclusions and clinical relevance When used with
acepromazine, MET appears to provide better sedation than MOR, BUT and TRA. If vomiting is to be
avoided, MET, BUT and TRA may be better options
than MOR.
Keywords acepromazine, butorphanol, dog, methadone, morphine, tramadol.

Introduction
Neuroleptanalgesic combinations are commonly
used in veterinary medicine to facilitate handling of
small animals, as premedication and to provide
analgesia for minor surgical procedures. Phenothiazine agents, a2-adrenoceptor agonists and opioid
analgesics are the most commonly used drugs to
produce neuroleptanalgesia. When these drugs are
25

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

administered together, synergism seems to occur;

sedation and analgesia being greater than that
achieved with either drug given alone (Hall et al.
2001a).
Phenothiazine derivatives, such as acepromazine,
are often used to produce mild to moderate tranquilization/sedation in dogs. This class of drugs, also
named as neuroleptics, interferes with dopamine
transmission within the central nervous system
(Baldessarini & Tarazi 2001). Other advantages
related to the use of acepromazine in dogs include
the reduced requirement of both injectable (Thurmon et al. 1996) and inhaled anaesthetics (Heard
et al. 1986; Webb & OBrien 1988), antiemetic
(Valverde et al. 2004) and anti-arrhythmogenic
effects (Dyson & Pettifer 1997). However, phenothiazine agents do not produce analgesia in dogs
(Hall et al. 2001a).
Opioid analgesics are used primarily to produce
analgesia without resulting in loss of consciousness.
The analgesia produced by this class of drugs is
mediated by stimulation of opioid receptors (l, j
and d) located mainly in the brain and in the dorsal
horn of the spinal cord (Wagner 2002).
Morphine is the prototype opioid to which all
others are compared. Morphine is assigned an
analgesic potency of 1 and although other opioids
are known to have greater analgesic potency, none
has been shown to be more effective in relieving
pain (Wagner 2002). Morphine possesses high
affinity for l receptors where it acts as an agonist,
resulting in analgesia (Hall et al. 2001a). Adverse
effects following MOR administration in dogs
include vomiting (Blancquaert et al. 1986; Valverde
et al. 2004) and release of histamine when administered intravenously (Robinson et al. 1988; Guedes et al. 2006).
Methadone is a synthetic opioid with high affinity
for l receptors and similar analgesic potency to
MOR (Hall et al. 2001a). It was also reported that
MET might act as an antagonist on N-methylD-aspartate (NMDA) receptors and this property
might contribute to its analgesic effect as well as
prevent development of tolerance (Wagner 2002).
Methadone does not induce emesis (Blancquaert
et al. 1986) and, in humans, it has a low potential
for the release of histamine (Bowdle et al. 2004). In
dogs, methadone alone induced mild sedation
wheras the combination of methadone and acepromazine produced mild to intense sedation with
minimal cardiorespiratory effects (Monteiro et al.
2008).
26

Tramadol is a synthetic opioid with low affinity

for l receptors and an analgesic potency of onetenth of that of MOR (Duthie 1998). However, it
has been reported in the literature that the
analgesic properties of TRA result from both opioid
and nonopioid mechanisms (Miranda & Pinardi
1998). This opioid was shown to inhibit the
reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin, achieving spinal modulation of pain and preventing
impulses reaching the brain (Duthie 1998). In
dogs, TRA produced similar analgesia to MOR in
the early postoperative period following ovariohysterectomy (Mastrocinque & Fantoni 2003). The
incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower than
with other opioids in humans (Duthie 1998) and it
does not release histamine (Barth et al. 1987). To
the authors knowledge, there are no data available about the use of TRA alone or in combination
with tranquilizing/sedative drugs for premedication
in dogs.
Butorphanol is a synthetic opioid with agonist
antagonist properties. Its analgesic effect results
from activation of j receptors. Conversely, BUT was
also shown to have affinity for l receptors where it
acts as an antagonist. The analgesic potency of BUT
is 35 times that of MOR. However, a ceiling effect
was reported with no further increase in analgesia
after 0.81.0 mg kg)1 (Wagner 2002). In dogs,
BUT alone or in combination with acepromazine
was associated with minimal cardiopulmonary
depression (Trim 1983; Cornick & Hartsfield
1992) and it was also shown to have an antiemetic
effect (Moore et al. 1994).
The purpose of the present study was to compare
the sedative effects of MOR, MET, BUT and TRA, in
combination with acepromazine, in dogs. It was also
aimed to evaluate the cardiorespiratory effects and
adverse effects of each of the combinations.
We hypothesized that the degree of sedation
provided by administration of acepromazine/opiod
combinations to dogs would vary depending on the
opioid chosen.
Materials and methods
Dogs
Six adult mixed-breed male dogs were used in the
study. Mean SD weight of the dogs was
12.0 4.3 kg. Health status was assessed by
means of physical examination, a complete blood
count and serum biochemical analyses; all findings

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

were within reference ranges. The study was

approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of
the University of Londrina (protocol 43/06).
Study design and experimental protocol
Food but not water was withheld for 12 hours
prior to the experiment. Each dog was allowed to
acclimate to a small quiet room with temperature
at 25 "C for at least 30 minutes before each
experiment was started. Subsequently, the dogs
were instrumented with a Doppler (Doppler model
841-A; Parks Medical Electronics, Aloha, OR, USA)
ultrasonic flow probe placed on the palmar digital
artery with a sphygmomanometer and cuff (cuff
width was 4050% of limb circumference) placed
above the carpus, to allow determination of indirect systolic arterial pressure (SAP). The accuracy
of the sphygmomanometer was checked prior to
the beginning of the study by means of a mercury
manometer. Pulse rate (PR) was counted from the
amplified doppler flow probe, respiratory rate (fR)
was measured by observing thoracic excursions
and rectal temperature was determined by means
of a digital thermometer. Pedal withdrawal reflex
was evaluated by a toe pinch in the thoracic limb
with a 20-cm haemostat with protective rubber
tubing on each jaw that was clamped to the third
ratchet for 15 seconds, or until a positive response
was observed (crying, withdrawal of the limb or
looking at the stimulated limb). The degree of
sedation was assessed using a numeric descriptive
scale (NDS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). The
NDS (Valverde et al. 2004) consisted of a scale
ranging from 0 to 3, with 0: no sedation; 1: mild
sedation (less alert but still active); 2: moderate
sedation (drowsy, recumbent but can walk); and 3:
intense sedation (very drowsy, unable to walk).
The VAS consisted of a 10-cm line representing no
sedation at the left end and the most sedation
possible at the right end. An observer was
responsible for placing a mark on the line that
corresponded to the degree of sedation for the
animal. The distance between the left end of the
scale and the mark was considered the VAS score.
To evaluate the degree of sedation, the dog was
observed initially undisturbed and unrestrained on
a stainless steel table with a rubber mat. Subsequently, with the dog in lateral recumbency, the
remaining variables were measured. Finally, the
assessor observed if the dog was able to walk when
placed on the floor. A single blinded assessor, who

was familiar with the dogs normal behaviour, was

responsible for assessing objective and subjective
data throughout the study. Following determination of baseline data, each animal had a 20-SWG
cephalic catheter placed for drug administration.
Subsequently, the dogs received IV acepromazine
at 0.05 mg kg)1 (Acepran 0.2%; Univet, Sao
Paulo, SP, Brazil). The final volume of acepromazine was corrected to a standardized volume of
1 mL with physiologic saline (NaCl 0.9%) and
administered over 1 minute. Fifteen minutes after
acepromazine administration (Time ACP), SAP,
PR, fR, temperature, NDS, VAS and pedal withdrawal reflex were recorded. Thereafter, dogs were
assigned to receive IV administration of each of
four treatments randomly in a cross-over design as
follows: MOR 0.5 mg kg)1 (Dimorf; Cristalia, Itapira, SP, Brazil); MET 0.5 mg kg)1 (Metadon;
Cristalia, Itapira, SP, Brazil); BUT 0.15 mg kg)1
(Torbugesic; Fort Dodge, IA, USA); or TRA 2.0 mg
kg)1 (Tramadon; Cristalia, Itapira, SP, Brazil). The
final volume of each opioid was corrected to a
standardized volume of 5 mL with physiologic
saline and administered over 5 minutes. A minimum washout period of 7 days was allowed between treatments. Cardiorespiratory variables,
NDS, VAS and pedal withdrawal reflex were evaluated again at 15-minute intervals for 90 minutes
(Times 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90). Temperature
was measured at Times 60 and 90.
Statistical analysis
Differences among treatments in SAP, PR, fR and
temperature were analyzed by a 2-way repeated
measures ANOVA with time and treatment as main
factors. When an overall treatment effect was
detected, the Bonferroni correction for multiple
pairwise comparisons was performed to determine
what treatments differed. The same approach was
used to compare the effect of acepromazine (Time
ACP) on parametric data (SAP, PR, fR and temperature) with mean values at baseline. A one-way
repeated measures ANOVA followed by a Dunnets
test was used to detect differences within each
treatment between Time ACP and T15T90. Variables not normally distributed (NDS and VAS) were
analyzed by a Friedman test followed by a Dunns
multiple comparison test to assess differences
among treatments at all time points and differences
over time. For all analyses, values of p < 0.05 were
considered significant.

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

27

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

in dogs receiving MOR. One dog in MOR was assigned an NDS score of 3. In the remaining five
dogs, NDS was either 1 (2/6 dogs) or 2 (3/6 dogs).
In dogs which received BUT, sedation was mild to
moderate; NDS = 1, in three dogs and = 2, in the
remaining three animals. In five of six dogs given
TRA, sedation was not increased after opioid
administration and NDS was 1. Only one of six dogs
in TRA had moderate sedation (NDS = 2) at T15.
From 15 to 60 minutes after treatment administration, NDS was higher in MET than in TRA. There
were no other significant differences between treatments in NDS. Compared with NDS at Time ACP, NDS
was increased in MET from T15 to T60 (Table 3).
As in NDS, the VAS sedation scores were greater
in MET (Table 3). MET had greater VAS scores than
TRA at T60 and T75. There was an increase in VAS
scores in all treatments compared with values at
Time ACP. The differences were significant from
T30 to T75 in MOR, from T30 to T60 in MET and
BUT and at T30 and T45 in TRA (Table 3).
Pulse rate was higher in MET than in MOR from
T30 to T90 and higher in MET than in BUT and
TRA at T30, T60 and T75. A decrease in PR,
compared with values at Time ACP, was observed
from T15 to T90 in MOR and BUT and at T30, T45
and T75 in TRA (Table 1). Bradycardia (PR <

Results
Effects of acepromazine administration (Time ACP)
Mean values of SAP, PR, fR and rectal temperature did
not differ at baseline or at Time ACP among
treatments (Tables 1 and 2). Following acepromazine administration, PR decreased in MOR, BUT and
TRA. Although PR also decreased in MET, the
difference was not statistically significant. Systolic
arterial pressure decreased significantly in MOR, MET
and BUT treatments after acepromazine administration. The change in fR was not significant with
acepromazine administration (Table 1). A decrease
in rectal temperature was observed in all treatments
after acepromazine. The mean reduction for all
treatments was 0.4 "C (Table 2). Acepromazine
resulted in mild sedation in most dogs. The median
NDS was 1.0 in all treatments whereas the median
VAS for each treatment were 3.4, 3.0, 3.5 and 3.1 in
MOR, MET, BUT and TRA respectively (Table 3).
Effects of opioid administration (Times 1590)
The six dogs which received MET had intense
sedation (NDS = 3) at least at one time point.
Sedation ranged from mild to intense (NDS = 13)

Table 1 Mean SD pulse rate (PR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP) and respiratory rate (fR) in six dogs at baseline (BL), at
15 minutes after intravenous (IV) administration of 0.05 mg kg)1 of acepromazine (ACP) and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and
90 minutes after IV administration of 0.5 mg kg)1 of morphine (MOR), 0.5 mg kg)1 of methadone (MET), 0.15 mg kg)1 of
butorphanol (BUT) or 2.0 mg kg)1 of tramadol (TRA)
Time after opioid (treatment) administration (minutes)

BL
PR (beats minute)1)
MOR
99 19*
MET
94 17
BUT
100 23*
TRA
97 14*
SAP (mmHg)
MOR
130 13*
MET
131 16*
BUT
123 9*
TRA
126 10
fR (breaths minute)1)
MOR
38 17
MET
39 27
BUT
45 23
TRA
44 35

ACP

15

30

76
83
84
79

3
10
24
9

60
73
64
68

3*
29
12*
15

59
91
63
62

5*!
37
14*!
10*!

101
113
107
113

5
11
6
6

101
108
101
102

9
8
10
7*

94
106
101
98

27
27
25
26

20
12
10
15

47
40
17
23

52
41
6*"
17

40
36
17
17

45

60

58
85
64
63

9*!
28
18*
11*

58
91
63
65

6*!
31
14*!
19!

7
10
8
8*

95
107
102
98

7
8
8
7*

95
104
103
100

44
37
4*
4

27
34
16
20

16
33
5*
10

24
30
16
17

75

90

58
92
64
62

11*!
30
17*!
18*!

58
89
68
67

10*!
26
16*
22

6
11
9
8*

96
105
106
100

8
11
13
11*

98
107
108
99

8
12
12
13*

8
23
4*
6

23
28
17
17

7
22
4*
6

23
26
18
20

6
13
4*
7

*Significantly different from ACP; !significantly different from MET; "significantly different from MOR (p < 0.05).

28

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

icantly after opioid administration (Table 1).

Hypotension (SAP < 90 mmHg) was observed at
least at one time point in 2/6, 1/6 and 2/6 dogs
given MOR, BUT and TRA respectively.
Respiratory rate was higher in MOR than in BUT
at T15. Other differences in fR among treatments
were not observed. Respiratory rate decreased in
BUT from T15 to T90 compared with values at Time
ACP (Table 1). Panting was observed in one of six
dogs in MOR and MET.
Rectal temperature decreased after administration of all treatments at T60 and T90 compared
with values at Time ACP. At T60, temperature was
lower in MET than in BUT and TRA and lower in
MOR than in TRA. At T90, temperature was lower
in MOR and MET than in BUT and TRA. Compared
with values at Time ACP, rectal temperature at T90
decreased by 2.1, 1.6, 0.8 and 0.8 "C in MET, MOR,
BUT and TRA respectively (Table 2).
Pedal withdrawal reflex was absent in one dog in
MET within 15 minutes after treatment administration and in another dog in the same treatment
from T15 to T60. In the remaining treatments,
pedal withdrawal reflex was present in all dogs
throughout the study.
Retching was observed in five of six dogs and
vomiting was observed in one dog in MOR. Retching
and vomiting were not observed in any dog in MET,
BUT and TRA. One of six dogs in MOR and two of
six dogs in MET defecated during or immediately
after opioid administration.

Table 2 Mean SD rectal temperature in six dogs at

baseline (BL), at 15 minutes after IV administration of
0.05 mg kg)1 of acepromazine (ACP) and at 60 and
90 minutes after intravenous (IV) administration of
0.5 mg kg)1 of morphine (MOR), 0.5 mg kg)1 of methadone (MET), 0.15 mg kg)1 of butorphanol (BUT) or
2.0 mg kg)1 of tramadol (TRA)
Time after opioid
(treatment) administration
(minutes)

BL

MOR
MET
BUT
TRA

38.9
38.9
38.9
38.9

ACP

0.3*
0.3*
0.4*
0.1*

38.4
38.5
38.4
38.6

0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4

60

37.1
36.8
37.6
37.9

90

0.2*
0.4*
0.4*!
0.4*!"

36.8
36.4
37.6
37.8

0.2*
0.6*
0.5*!"
0.4*!"

*Significantly different from ACP; !significantly different from

MET; "significantly different from MOR (p < 0.05).

60 beats minute)1) was observed at least at one

time point in 3/6 dogs in MOR, MET and BUT and in
4/6 dogs in TRA.
Dogs which received MOR had the lowest values
of SAP. However, significant differences in SAP were
not detected among treatments throughout the
study. Systolic arterial pressure decreased significantly in dogs receiving TRA from T15 to T90
compared with Time ACP. In the remaining treatments, SAP values after ACP did not differ signif-

Table 3 Median (25th to 75th percentile range) numeric descriptive scale (NDS) and visual analog scale (VAS) sedation
scores in six dogs at 15 minutes after IV administration of 0.05 mg kg)1 of acepromazine (ACP) and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75
and 90 minutes after intravenous (IV) administration of 0.5 mg kg)1 of morphine (MOR), 0.5 mg kg)1 of methadone (MET), 0.15 mg kg)1 of butorphanol (BUT) or 2.0 mg kg)1 of tramadol (TRA)
Time after opioid (treatment) administration (minutes)

ACP

NDS
MOR
MET
BUT
TRA
VAS
MOR
MET
BUT
TRA

15

30

45

60

75

90

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

(1.01.5)
(1.01.0)
(1.01.5)
(1.01.5)

1.5
3.0
1.5
1.0

(1.02.5)
(2.53.0)*
(1.02.0)
(1.01.5)!

2.0
3.0
1.5
1.0

(1.02.5)
(3.03.0)*
(1.02.0)
(1.01.0)!

2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0

(1.02.5)
(2.53.0)*
(1.02.0)
(1.01.0)!

1.5
3.0
1.0
1.0

(1.02.0)
(2.03.0)*
(1.02.0)
(0.51.0)!

1.5
2.0
1.0
1.0

(1.02.0)
(1.52.0)
(1.02.0)
(0.51.0)

1.0
2.0
1.0
0.5

(1.01.5)
(1.02.0)
(0.52.0)
(0.01.0)

3.4
3.0
3.5
3.1

(2.23.7)
(2.53.8)
(2.44.4)
(2.14.1)

4.9
5.9
6.0
5.1

(4.56.7)
(4.67.0)
(4.56.2)
(3.86.2)

6.0
7.4
6.7
5.3

(5.37.6)*
(6.28.6)*
(6.07.1)*
(4.67.0)*

6.2
7.6
6.8
5.7

(5.67.9)*
(6.68.6)*
(6.27.3)*
(4.27.1)*

6.0
7.7
6.3
5.1

(5.47.6)*
(6.38.2)*
(6.17.0)*
(4.16.3)!

5.8
6.9
5.4
4.1

(5.07.0)*
(5.67.5)
(4.86.4)
(3.45.4)!

4.9
6.1
4.1
3.0

(4.55.6)
(4.16.7)
(3.05.4)
(2.74.2)

*Significantly different from ACP; !significantly different from MET (p < 0.05).

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

29

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

Discussion
A limitation of the present study was that not all the
opioids used were employed in equipotent doses for
analgesia. Morphine is the prototype opioid to
which all others are compared with a relative
potency of 1. Methadone was reported to have 1 to
1.5 the potency of MOR whereas BUT is 35 times
more potent than MOR (Wagner 2002). Tramadol
is said to have 1/10 the potency of MOR (Duthie
1998). Thus, the doses of MOR, MET and BUT
employed in the present study (0.5, 0.5 and
0.15 mg kg)1 respectively) may be considered to be
equipotent whereas the dose of TRA (2.0 mg kg)1)
may not. The equipotent dose of TRA to 0.5 mg
kg)1 of MOR would be 5 mg kg)1. However, this
dose is higher than the dose commonly used in
clinical practice (Gaynor 2002; Mastrocinque &
Fantoni 2003). All the doses employed in the present study are within reported clinical ranges for
dogs (Hall et al. 2001b; Gaynor 2002; Wagner
2002; Mastrocinque & Fantoni 2003).
Phenothiazine agents produce mild to moderate
sedation. Peak sedation occurs within 20 minutes
following IV administration of acepromazine.
Although other drugs, such as alpha2-adrenoceptor
agonists, produce dose related sedation, increasing
the dose of a phenothiazine does not result in
enhancement of the degree of sedation and it may
actually intensify the adverse effects (Hall et al.
2001a). When moderate to intense sedation is
desired, phenothiazine derivatives should be administered in combination with other drugs with sedative properties such as opioid analgesics. The degree
of sedation is greater with the combination than
with either agent alone (Smith et al. 2001). In the
present study, acepromazine alone produced mild
sedation. However, when an opioid was administered 15 minutes after the phenothiazine, sedation
was greater than that achieved with acepromazine
alone as judged by our visual analog scale.
The sedative effect of opioids results from their
interaction with l and j receptors (Muir 2002).
However, other factors may influence sedation
produced by opioid administration. In addition to
the type of receptor activated, the dose, differences
in pharmacokinetics, the number of observers
assessing sedation and individual variation may
affect the sedation score. In the present study, we
aimed to minimize the influence of all these factors
in the assessment of sedation by using equipotent
doses, by administering the drugs intravenously, to
30

minimize differences in the absorption times and

bioavailability, by using a single blinded observer
and by using a randomized cross-over design to
minimize individual variation.
It has been reported in the literature that administration of l-opioids alone results in mild to
moderate sedation whereas j-agonists produce mild
sedation (Muir 2002). In a previous study, greater
sedation was achieved when the l-opioid oxymorphone was administered in combination with acepromazine than the combination of the j-agonist
BUT with acepromazine (Cornick & Hartsfield
1992). In the present study, a trend for better
sedation was also observed when acepromazine was
administered in combination with the l opioids
agonists (MOR and MET). The degree of sedation
produced by the combination acepromazine/BUT
varied with the scoring system used. Greater sedation was recorded with the VAS than with NDS.
This finding is not unexpected as sedation is a
subjective variable.
Tramadol is an opioid with low affinity for l
receptors, which also acts by inhibiting the reuptake
of norepinephrine and serotonin (Gaynor 2002).
This mixed mechanism of action might explain the
analgesic effect produced by TRA administration in
spite of its low affinity for opioid receptors. In
addition to its ability to block these reuptake
mechanisms, TRA is metabolized in the liver to
O-desmethyltramadol (M1), which is a pharmacologically active metabolite. M1 was reported to have
greater affinity for l receptors than TRA itself
(Poulsen et al. 1996) and it is thought that this
metabolite contributes to the analgesic effect of TRA
(Poulsen et al. 1996; Shipton 2000). M1 also
appears to play a role in sedation produced by
TRA as its IV administration resulted in sedation in
dogs whereas IV (4 mg kg)1) or oral (11 mg kg)1)
administration of the parent drug TRA did not
(Kukanich & Papich 2004). In the present study,
the degree of sedation produced by acepromazine/
TRA was lower than that achieved with the other
combinations. It might be hypothesized that the low
affinity of TRA for l receptors or the production of
insufficiently high concentrations of M1 during the
course of observation, or both, may be responsible
for these results.
Results of the present investigation indicate that
acepromazine in combination with MET, MOR or
BUT results in good sedation; this effect being
apparently greater with acepromazine/MET. Tramadol has little influence on sedation achieved with

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

acepromazine alone. Thus, the combination acepromazine/TRA is not recommended when moderate to
intense sedation is required. Peak sedative effect
appears to occur within 3045 minutes after
administration of all combinations.
Pedal withdrawal reflex was used in the present
study to assess acute somatic pain subjectively.
However, the results of the present study should be
interpreted carefully because drugs that influence
vigilance, motor responses and autonomic reflexes,
such as neuroleptanalgesic combinations, are
thought to affect the subjective experience of pain
making it difficult to differentiate sedative and
analgesic effects of drugs (Ansah et al. 1998). Thus,
one could not ascertain, based on the results of our
study, that better analgesia was provided by the
combination acepromazine/MET.
The effects of acepromazine on HR and arterial
blood pressure of dogs have been previously
reported. Acepromazine causes a decrease in arterial
pressure (Popovic et al. 1972; Turner et al. 1974;
Stepien et al. 1995), which is mediated through
peripheral alpha-1 adrenoceptor block and depression of the vasomotor centre within the hypothalamus, resulting in vasodilation (Thurmon et al.
1996). However, hypotension (SAP < 90 or
MAP < 70 mmHg) was not reported following
acepromazine administration in healthy animals.
The effects of acepromazine on PR in dogs are
variable. Tachycardia in response to a decrease in
arterial blood pressure (Turner et al. 1974), a slight
decrease (Popovic et al. 1972) or no change (Stepien et al. 1995) have been reported. In the study
reported here, a 15% decrease in SAP and a 17%
decrease in PR were observed after acepromazine
administration. Hypotension was not observed in
any of the dogs treated with acepromazine and only
one dog developed bradycardia (PR = 56 beats
minute)1).
The cardiovascular effects of opioids are quite
variable and may be influenced by the drug, its dose
and species involved (Hall et al. 2001a). This class
of drugs seems to affect myocardial contractility
minimally or not at all. However, increased vagal
tone may result in bradycardia (Hall et al. 2001a;
Wagner 2002). A decrease in HR was reported in
dogs treated with MET, oxymorphone and hydromorphone alone (Smith et al. 2001; Monteiro et al.
2008) and following administration of MET, buprenorphine, oxymorphone, hydromorphone or BUT
in combination with acepromazine (Cornick &
Hartsfield 1992; Stepien et al. 1995; Smith et al.

2001; Monteiro et al. 2008). The present study was

in agreement with previous reports. A decrease in
PR was observed after administration of acepromazine with MOR, BUT or TRA. However, PR did not
change significantly after the combination acepromazine/MET and this finding is in contrast with
previous studies. In a previous study performed in
our laboratory, PR decreased after intramuscular
administration of 0.5 mg kg)1 of MET alone or in
combination with acepromazine (0.05 mg kg)1, IM)
(Monteiro et al. 2008). The differences between the
two studies may be due to the routes of administration employed (IV versus IM). In another study in
conscious dogs, IV MET (1 mg kg)1) also decreased
HR (Hellebrekers et al. 1989). In the latter study,
the authors suggested that bradycardia was mediated, at least partially, through vasopressin release
after MET administration in doses of 1 mg kg)1 or
higher. Vasoconstriction and increased systemic
vascular resistance occurs as a result of vasopressin
release and induces a compensatory decrease in HR
and cardiac output. These findings suggest that
another mechanism might be involved in the
decrease in PR after MET administration, in addition
to the centrally mediated increase in vagal tone
reported before. It is possible that, at the dose used
in the present study (0.5 mg kg)1, IV), MET did not
induce significantly high concentrations of vasopressin release and consequently, systemic vascular
resistance did not increase. Therefore, a compensatory bradycardia was not observed. Another
hypothesis is that the alpha-adrenergic blocking
properties of acepromazine overwhelmed the vasoconstriction induced by vasopressin.
Intravenous administration of MOR and meperidine results in histamine release; which causes
vasodilation and decreases arterial blood pressure,
this effect being prevented when the drugs are
administered intramuscularly (IM) (Hall et al.
2001a). In addition to the route, the rate of
administration also influences the release of histamine and this effect appears to be attenuated by
slow IV administration (Moss & Rosow 1983). In
the present study, we minimized the release of
histamine by administering the opioids slowly over
5 minutes. Hence, it is not likely that arterial blood
pressure was influenced by histamine release after
administration of MOR or any other treatments.
A decrease in arterial blood pressure has been
reported after administration of acepromazine in
combination with buprenorphine, hydromorphone,
oxymorphone or BUT in dogs, although severe

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

31

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

hypotension was not reported following any of the

combinations (Cornick & Hartsfield 1992; Stepien
et al. 1995; Smith et al. 2001). The reduction in
blood pressure seems to be more pronounced when
higher doses of the phenothiazine (0.22 mg kg)1,
IV) were used (Cornick & Hartsfield 1992) and less
likely to be influenced by increasing doses of opioids
(Stepien et al. 1995). These findings are supported
by a previous study which reported that the alphaadrenergic block induced by acepromazine is dose
related (Ludders et al. 1983). In the present study, a
further decrease in SAP compared with mean values
at time ACP was observed only after TRA administration, but TRA has not yet been reported to
reduce cardiac output or to decrease systemic
vascular resistance in dogs. Additionally, histamine
release, which could result in decreased systemic
vascular resistance, was not observed following
TRA administration in people (Barth et al. 1987).
Further research is required to evaluate the haemodynamic effects of TRA in dogs.
Acepromazine has little effect on respiratory
function. Although fR may decrease, blood-gases
are not significantly changed (Popovic et al. 1972;
Turner et al. 1974). Conversely, opioid administration may result in respiratory depression by decreasing ventilatory response to hypercapnia (Wagner
2002); this effect being more pronounced with the l
agonists than with the j agonists (Hall et al. 2001a).
When opioids are used alone and within clinical dose
ranges in dogs, respiratory depression is unlikely to
occur. This effect becomes more important when
opioids are administered in combination with other
respiratory depressant drugs such as injectable or
inhaled general anaesthetics (Wagner 2002). However, when opioids were used in conjunction with
acepromazine in healthy dogs, respiratory depression did not occur. Minimal changes were observed
in pH, bicarbonate concentration, PaCO2 and PaO2
in dogs treated with acepromazine and buprenorphine, oxymorphone or BUT (Cornick & Hartsfield
1992; Stepien et al. 1995). In the present study, no
dog had apnoea or obvious cyanosis. However, as
blood-gases were not measured, it cannot be ascertained that respiratory depression did not occur.
The decrease in temperature after administration
of all treatments in the present study was due to the
effects of acepromazine and opioids on thermoregulatory mechanisms (Thurmon et al. 1996; Hall et al.
2001a; Wagner 2002). Rectal temperature
decreased more in MOR and MET than in other
treatments. It has been reported that opioids that
32

cause panting may increase heat loss through

airways (Wagner 2002). However, in the present
study, only one of six dogs in MOR and MET were
panting during the study and panting in these dogs
was not related to the lowest temperatures observed.
Vomition is an adverse effect that may occur after
administration of low lipid soluble opioids such as
MOR, hydromorphone and oxymorphone (Valverde
et al. 2004). This effect is thought to result from
stimulation of d receptors in the chemoreceptor
trigger zone (CTZ) (Blancquaert et al. 1986). The
incidence of vomition after IM administration of
MOR (0.5 mg kg)1) was 75% (Valverde et al.
2004). In the present study, premedication with
acepromazine masked the true emetic effect of the
opioids employed. One of six dogs (17%) vomited
after MOR administration whereas none of the dogs
vomited after MET, BUT and TRA, demonstrating a
higher potential for MOR to induce vomiting in
nonpainful, healthy dogs than for the other opioids
tested, probably because of its lower lipid solubility.
A previous study, using the same doses as the
present one, reported a similar incidence of vomiting
(25%) after acepromazine followed by MOR (Valverde et al. 2004).
Results of the present study suggest that, in the
doses used, all combinations used are well-tolerated
by healthy dogs. The major side effect observed
was bradycardia. Good sedation was achieved with
acepromazine in combination with MET, MOR or
BUT, but not TRA. If vomiting is to be avoided,
MET, BUT and TRA may be better options.
Acknowledgement
Partial funding for this research was provided by
PROBIC-CESUMAR (Programa de Bolsas de Iniciacao Cientfica Centro Universitario de Maringa).
References
Ansah OB, Raekallio M, Vainio O (1998) Comparison of
three doses of dexmedetomidine in cats following intramuscular administration. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 21,
380387.
Baldessarini RJ, Tarazi FI (2001) Drugs and the treatment
of psychiatric disorders: psychosis and mania. In: The
Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (10th edn).
Hardman JG, Limbird LR (eds). McGraw-Hill, New York,
USA. pp. 485520.
Barth H, Giertz H, Schmal A et al. (1987) Anaphylactoid
reactions and histamine release do not occur after

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

Acepromazine-opioid combinations in dogs ER Monteiro et al.

application of the opioid tramadol. Agents Actions 20,

310313.
Blancquaert JP, Lefebvre RA, Willems JL (1986) Emetic
and antiemetic effects of opioids in the dog. Eur J
Pharmacol 128, 143150.
Bowdle TA, Even A, Shen DD et al. (2004) Methadone for
the induction of anesthesia: plasma histamine concentration, arterial blood pressure, and heart rate. Anesth
Analg 98, 16921697.
Cornick JL, Hartsfield SM (1992) Cardiopulmonary and
behavioral effects of combinations of acepromazine/
butorphanol and acepromazine/oxymorphone in dogs.
J Am Vet Med Assoc 200, 19521956.
Duthie DJR (1998) Remifentanil and tramadol. Br J Anaesth 81, 5157.
Dyson D, Pettifer G (1997) Evaluation of the arrhythmogenicity of a low dose of acepromazine: comparison
with xylazine. Can J Vet Res 61, 241245.
Gaynor JS (2002) Other drugs used to treat pain. In:
Handbook Veterinary Pain Management. Gaynor JS,
Muir WW (eds). Mosby, St Louis, USA. pp. 251260.
Guedes AGP, Rude EP, Rider MA (2006) Evaluation of
histamine release during constant rate infusion of
morphine in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 33, 2835.
Hall LW, Clarke KW, Trim CM (2001a) Principles of
sedation, analgesia and premedication. In: Veterinary
Anaesthesia (10th edn). Hall LW, Clarke KW, Trim CM
(eds). W.B.Saunders, London, UK. pp. 75112.
Hall LW, Clarke KW, Trim CM (2001b) Anaesthesia of the
dog. In: Veterinary Anaesthesia (10th edn). Hall LW,
Clarke KW, Trim CM (eds). W.B.Saunders, London, UK.
pp. 385439.
Heard DJ, Webb AI, Daniels RT (1986) Effect of acepromazine on the anesthetic requirement of halothane in
the dog. Am J Vet Res 47, 21132115.
Hellebrekers LJ, van den Brom WE, Mol JA (1989) Plasma
arginine vasopressin response to intravenous methadone and naloxone in conscious dogs. J Pharmacol Exp
Ther 248, 329333.
Kukanich B, Papich MG (2004) Pharmacokinetics of
tramadol and the metabolite O-desmethyltramadol in
dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 27, 239246.
Ludders JW, Reitan JA, Martucci R et al. (1983) Blood
pressure response to phenylephrine infusion in halothane-anesthetized dogs given acetylpromazine maleate.
Am J Vet Res 44, 996999.
Mastrocinque S, Fantoni DT (2003) A comparison of preoperative tramadol and morphine for the control of early
postoperative pain in canine ovariohysterectomy. Vet
Anaesth Analg 30, 220228.
Miranda HF, Pinardi G (1998) Antinociception, tolerance,
and physical dependence comparison between morphine
and tramadol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 61, 357360.
Moore AS, Rand WM, Berg J et al. (1994) Evaluation of
butorphanol and cyproheptadine for prevention of

cisplatin-induced vomiting in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc

205, 441443.
Monteiro ER, Figueroa CD, Choma JC et al. (2008) Effects
of methadone, alone or in combination with acepromazine or xylazine, on sedation and physiologic values
in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg 35, 519527.
Moss J, Rosow CE (1983) Histamine release by narcotics
and muscle relaxants in humans. Anesthesiology 59,
330339.
Muir WW (2002) Drugs used to treat pain. In: Handbook
Veterinary Pain Management. Gaynor JS, Muir WW
(eds). Mosby, St Louis, USA. pp. 142163.
Popovic NA, Mullane JF, Yhap EO (1972) Effects of acetylpromazine maleate on certain cardiorespiratory
responses in dogs. Am J Vet Res 33, 18191824.
Poulsen L, Arendt-Nielsen L, Brsen K et al. (1996) The
hypoalgesic effect of tramadol in relation to CYP2D6.
Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996, 636644.
Robinson EP, Faggella AM, Henry DP et al. (1988) Comparison of histamine release induced by morphine and
oxymorphone administration in dogs. Am J Vet Res 49,
16991701.
Shipton EA (2000) Tramadol present and future. Anaesth Intensive Care 28, 363374.
Smith LJ, Yu JKA, Bjorling DE et al. (2001) Effects of
hydromorphone or oxymorphone, with or without
acepromazine, on preanesthetic sedation, physiologic
values, and histamine release in dogs. J Am Vet Med
Assoc 218, 11011105.
Stepien RL, Bonagura JD, Bednarski RM et al. (1995)
Cardiorespiratory effects of acepromazine maleate and
buprenorphine hydrochloride in clinically normal dogs.
Am J Vet Res 56, 7884.
Thurmon JC, Tranquilli WJ, Benson GJ (1996) Preanesthetics and anesthetic adjuncts. In: Veterinary Anesthesia (3rd edn). Thurmon JC, Tranquilli WJ, Benson GJ
(eds). Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, USA. pp. 183
209.
Trim CM (1983) Cardiopulmonary effects of butorphanol
tartrate in dogs. Am J Vet Res 44, 329331.
Turner DM, Ilkiw JE, Rose RJ et al. (1974) Respiratory and
cardiovascular effects of five drugs used as sedatives in
the dog. Aust Vet J 50, 260265.
Valverde A, Cantwell S, Hernandez J et al. (2004) Effects of
acepromazine on the incidence of vomiting associated
with opioid administration in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg
31, 4045.
Wagner AE (2002) Opioids. In: Handbook Veterinary Pain
Management. Gaynor JS, Muir WW (eds). Mosby,
St Louis, USA. pp. 164183.
Webb AI, OBrien JM (1988) The effect of acepromazine
maleate on the anesthetic potency of halothane and
isoflurane. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 24, 609613.
Received 25 July 2007; accepted 4 October 2007.

! 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2009 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, 36, 2533

33