Evaluation of SNAP cPL, Spec cPL, VetScan cPL Rapid Test, and Precision PSL Assays for the Diagnosis of Clinical Pancreatitis in Dogs.

BACKGROUND: The sensitivity, specificity, and agreement of 4 diagnostic assays (SNAP canine pancreatic lipase (cPL), specific cPL (Spec cPL), VetScan cPL Rapid Test, and Precision PSL) for pancreatitis in dogs have not been directly compared. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of agreement among each of the 4 assays and a clinical suspicion score, level of agreement among the assays, and sensitivity and specificity of each assay in a clinically relevant patient group. ANIMALS: Fifty client-owned dogs with clinical signs of gastrointestinal disease. METHODS: Prospective study. History, physical examination, complete blood count, serum biochemistry, abdominal ultrasound examination, and the 4 diagnostic assays for pancreatitis were performed. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the level of agreement between each assay and a clinical suspicion score determined by a panel of 5 board-certified veterinary internists. RESULTS: The ICC between the clinical suspicion score and the 4 assays were SNAP cPL, 0.61; Spec cPL, 0.68; VetScan cPL Rapid Test, 0.68; and Precision PSL, 0.60. The sensitivities of the assays ranged from 73.9 to 100.0%, whereas the specificities were SNAP cPL, 71.1-77.8%; Spec cPL, 74.1-81.1%; VetScan cPL Rapid Test, 76.9-83.8%; and Precision PSL, 64.0-74.3%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: A good to excellent level of agreement was demonstrated among the 4 assays. The previously unreported sensitivity and specificity of the VetScan cPL Rapid Test were 73.9-83.3% and 76.9-83.8%, respectively. Results of any of the 4 diagnostic assays alone, in the absence of supporting clinical findings, are insufficient to establish a diagnosis of clinical pancreatitis in dogs.

Linear versus non-linear gastrointestinal foreign bodies in 499 dogs: clinical presentation, management and short-term outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical signs, clinicopathological abnormalities, imaging findings and outcome of dogs with linear and non-linear foreign bodies in the gastrointestinal tract. METHODS: Retrospective review of case records of dogs with a confirmed diagnosis of gastrointestinal foreign body. Signalment, history, clinical signs, clinicopathological data, diagnostic imaging studies, surgical and endoscopic procedures, hospital stay, costs and outcome were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 176 dogs had linear and 323 had non-linear foreign bodies. Dogs with a linear foreign body were more likely to have a history of vomiting, anorexia, lethargy and pain on abdominal palpation. They were also more likely to have the foreign body anchored in the stomach and continuing into the small intestine, experience intestinal necrosis, perforation and peritonitis, and require intestinal resection and anastamosis. The duration of hospitalisation was longer for dogs with linear foreign body (3 versus 2 days), and the cost of treatment was 10% higher. However, in both groups, 96% of dogs survived to hospital discharge. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dogs with a linear foreign body had more severe clinical signs and gastrointestinal pathology, and an increased duration of hospitalisation and cost of care. However, overall survival rates were not different in dogs with linear and non-linear foreign bodies.