VetMedInduction in dogs: alfaxalone vs propofol — POSSIBLE
In dogs, does alfaxalone vs propofol induction differ in apnoea, hypotension, and recovery quality?
Shelf #318 · gate-verified and displayed under the developer's blinded-trial rule
POSSIBLE: In the head-to-head records, cardiopulmonary effects did not differ significantly between the two induction agents, while recovery was slower on alfaxalone. Maney 2013 — a prospective, randomized, blinded crossover in 8 dogs — found post-induction and 5-minute physiologic and blood gas values were not significantly different between alfaxalone and propofol (the treatment made no difference on those measures), but alfaxalone resulted in significantly longer times to sternal recumbency (p = 0.0003) and standing (p = 0.0004), subjective induction, recovery and ataxia scores did not differ significantly, and dogs on alfaxalone were more likely to have ≥ 1 adverse event (p = 0.041), with no serious adverse events in either treatment. Suarez 2012 — a prospective non-blinded randomized clinical study of 14 bitches for ovariohysterectomy — likewise found cardiopulmonary effects did not differ between groups, hypoventilation occurred in both groups, recovery quality was good with both, and median recovery times were longer on alfaxalone (to sternal 60 vs 45 minutes; to standing 90 vs 74 minutes for alfaxalone vs propofol). On apnoea specifically, neither head-to-head abstract reports comparative apnoea rates; the alfaxalone-only dose study (Muir 2008, blinded four-way crossover, 8 dogs) found apnoea was the most common side effect of alfaxalone and that hypoventilation and apnoea were its most prominent, dose-dependent effects. On hypotension, no carded record shows a difference between the agents. Small crossovers and one small non-blinded trial keep this at POSSIBLE. Drafted Nov 10, 2026 (VetMed build, topic #318); all figures from abstracts fetched and verified at drafting.
Maney 2013: no significant cardiopulmonary difference between alfaxalone and propofol in 8 dogs (the treatment made no difference) — recovery longer and adverse events more likely on alfaxalone
Prospective, randomized, blinded crossover (record's own design wording; MeSH: Single-Blind Method)
Who: Dogs: 8 random-source adult female mixed-breed dogs weighing 18.7 ± 4.5 kg, in a laboratory crossover study — each dog received up to 8 mg kg-1 propofol or 4 mg kg-1 alfaxalone IV to effect (10% of the calculated dose every 10 seconds), then the alternate drug after a 6-day washout. Induction, recovery and ataxia were scored by a single blinded investigator.
Result: Mean induction doses were 2.6 ± 0.4 mg kg-1 alfaxalone and 5.2 ± 0.8 mg kg-1 propofol. Post-induction and 5-minute physiologic and blood gas values were not significantly different between alfaxalone and propofol. Alfaxalone resulted in significantly longer times to achieve sternal recumbency (p = 0.0003) and standing (p = 0.0004) compared to propofol. Subjective scores for induction, recovery, and ataxia were not significantly different between treatments; however, dogs undergoing alfaxalone anesthesia were more likely to have ≥ 1 adverse event (p = 0.041). There were no serious adverse events in either treatment. Within-drug changes from baseline are reported in the abstract for both agents (for example, after alfaxalone temperature, respiration and pH were significantly lower and PaCO2 significantly higher post-induction, p < 0.03).
Watch out: Only 8 dogs, all female, in a crossover — precise for within-dog physiology, fragile for adverse-event rates. The abstract does not report apnoea counts for either drug, so no comparative apnoea claim is made from this record. Blinding in this record is single-blinding of the scoring investigator (MeSH: Single-Blind Method), not double-blinding.
Maney JK, Shepard MK, Braun C, Cremer J, Hofmeister EH. A comparison of cardiopulmonary and anesthetic effects of an induction dose of alfaxalone or propofol in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2013;40(3):237-44. PMID: 23331573. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Anesthetics/pharmacology · Animals · Cross-Over Studies · Dogs/physiology · Female · Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology · Pregnanediones/pharmacology · Propofol/pharmacology · Single-Blind Method
Suarez 2012: cardiopulmonary effects did not differ between alfaxalone and propofol TIVA in 14 bitches (the treatment made no difference); hypoventilation in both groups, recovery longer on alfaxalone
Prospective non-blinded randomized clinical study (record's own design wording)
Who: Dogs: 14 healthy female crossbred bitches, aged 0.5–5 years and weighing 16–42 kg, undergoing ovariohysterectomy at a clinical service, premedicated with acepromazine 0.01 mg kg-1 and morphine 0.4 mg kg-1, with anaesthesia induced and maintained (total intravenous anaesthesia) with either propofol or alfaxalone to effect, breathing spontaneously on a circle circuit with oxygen supplementation.
Result: Induction doses (mean ± SD) were 5.8 ± 0.30 mg kg-1 for propofol and 1.9 ± 0.07 mg kg-1 for alfaxalone, with infusion rates of 0.37 ± 0.09 and 0.11 ± 0.01 mg kg-1 per minute respectively. Both agents produced smooth, rapid induction and satisfactory maintenance. Median (IQR) recovery times were to sternal 45 (33–69) minutes for propofol and 60 (46–61) minutes for alfaxalone, and to standing 74 (69–76) and 90 (85–107) minutes respectively. Recovery quality was good. Cardiopulmonary effects did not differ between groups. Hypoventilation occurred in both groups, and the authors suggest ventilatory support may be needed during prolonged infusions with either agent.
Watch out: This study was explicitly non-blinded, and it compares induction-plus-infusion (TIVA) protocols, not single induction boluses, so its recovery times are not directly comparable with bolus studies. It reports hypoventilation, not apnoea counts, and no hypotension rates — no comparative apnoea or hypotension claim is made from it.
Suarez MA, Dzikiti BT, Stegmann FG, Hartman M. Comparison of alfaxalone and propofol administered as total intravenous anaesthesia for ovariohysterectomy in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2012;39(3):236-44. PMID: 22405473. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Anesthesia Recovery Period · Anesthesia, General/veterinary · Anesthetics/administration & dosage,pharmacology · Animals · Blood Pressure/drug effects · Dogs/surgery · Female · Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage,pharmacology · Hysterectomy/veterinary · Ovariectomy/veterinary · Pregnanediones/administration & dosage,pharmacology · Propofol/administration & dosage,pharmacology · Respiration/drug effects
Muir 2008: apnoea was the most common side effect of alfaxalone in 8 dogs, dose-dependent — alfaxalone-only context for the apnoea question
Blinded four-way crossover randomized by dose (record's own design wording); alfaxalone only, no propofol arm
Who: Dogs: 8 healthy adult purpose-bred mixed breed dogs (four male, four female) weighing 12–28 kg, in a laboratory study, each receiving four IV alfaxalone treatments (0, 2, 6 and 20 mg kg-1) with a 3-hour washout between doses; unpremedicated dogs. Quality of induction, maintenance and recovery, and response to noxious stimulation, were categorically scored.
Result: Alfaxalone produced dose-dependent changes in cardiovascular and respiratory parameters: decreases in arterial blood pressure and increases in heart rate occurred at higher doses, with most variables returning to baseline in 15–30 minutes. Respiratory rate, minute volume and PaO2 decreased and apnea was the most common side effect. Duration of anesthesia increased with dose, and induction, maintenance and recovery were judged good to excellent at all doses studied. The authors conclude cardiorespiratory effects were minimal at lower doses, and that hypoventilation and apnea were the most prominent, dose-dependent effects.
Watch out: This record has no propofol comparator — it is carded only to ground what is known about alfaxalone and apnoea on its own, at clinical and supraclinical doses in unpremedicated laboratory dogs. It cannot by itself show alfaxalone causes more apnoea than propofol, and no such claim is made. The abstract gives no apnoea counts or rates, only that apnoea was the most common side effect.
Muir W, Lerche P, Wiese A, Nelson L, Pasloske K, Whittem T. Cardiorespiratory and anesthetic effects of clinical and supraclinical doses of alfaxalone in dogs. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2008;35(6):451-62. PMID: 18793290. Registry ID: none in the record. MeSH: Anesthesia/veterinary · Anesthetics/administration & dosage,pharmacology · Animals · Cross-Over Studies · Dogs · Dose-Response Relationship, Drug · Female · Male · Pregnanediones/administration & dosage,pharmacology
Synthesis: no demonstrated cardiopulmonary or hypotension difference; alfaxalone recovery is slower, and its apnoea risk is real but never counted head-to-head in these records
Synthesis
Who: Synthesis of the cards above: dogs in a randomised blinded crossover (Maney 2013, 8 adult female mixed-breed dogs), a non-blinded randomised clinical TIVA study (Suarez 2012, 14 crossbred bitches for ovariohysterectomy), and an alfaxalone-only blinded dose crossover (Muir 2008, 8 purpose-bred mixed breed dogs).
Result: Both head-to-head studies agree that post-induction cardiopulmonary measures did not differ significantly between alfaxalone and propofol, and both found longer recovery times with alfaxalone, while scored induction and recovery quality did not differ significantly in Maney and were good with both agents in Suarez. Alfaxalone carried more (non-serious) adverse events in Maney. For apnoea, the honest summary is: apnoea is alfaxalone's most prominent dose-dependent effect in its own dose study, hypoventilation occurred with both agents in Suarez, and no carded record counts apnoea in a head-to-head comparison.
Watch out: Total head-to-head evidence is 22 dogs across two small studies, one of them non-blinded and both in healthy dogs; sick, geriatric, or emergency patients are not represented in these records. Do not quote an alfaxalone-vs-propofol apnoea rate from this shelf — none is carded, because none is in the records.
Synthesis of Maney JK et al. PMID: 23331573; Suarez MA et al. PMID: 22405473; Muir W et al. PMID: 18793290. Registry ID as on the individual cards.
Back to the library index · VetMed home
VetMed is an educational resource, not veterinary advice.