ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Information is lacking on the prevalence and susceptibility patterns of bacterial isolates in dogs and cats with suspected hepatobiliary disease. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the prevalence, identity, and antimicrobial susceptibility of common hepatobiliary isolates from such patients. ANIMALS: Dogs and cats presented to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital for which samples of bile, gallbladder, or liver were submitted for culture from 1998 to 2003, including 190 dogs (192 culture episodes) and 58 cats (61 culture episodes). METHODS: Cases were identified from the microbiology laboratory database. Data from patient medical records were extracted, including the history of antimicrobial administration, the presence of fever, the results of CBC and serum biochemistry, the presence of biliary obstruction or hepatobiliary inflammation, and the results of aerobic and anaerobic bacterial cultures and aerobic antimicrobial susceptibilities. RESULTS: Biliary cultures yielded a significantly higher percentage of positive results overall (30% [18 of 60]) than did hepatic cultures (7% [15 of 215]). In patients with cholecystitis, 62% (8 of 13) had positive biliary cultures. In patients with hepatic inflammation, 23% (7 of 30) had positive bile cultures, whereas only 6% (6 of 103) had positive hepatic cultures. Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., Bacteroides spp., Streptococcus spp., and Clostridium spp. were the most common true-positive isolates. More than 80% of Enterobacteriaceae were susceptible to ciprofloxacin or aminoglycosides, with only 30-67% susceptible to first-generation aminopenicillins and cephalosporins. Liver samples obtained by surgery or laparoscopy were more likely to yield positive cultures than those obtained by percutaneous needle biopsy.
Subject(s)
Bacteria, Aerobic/isolation & purification , Bacteria, Anaerobic/isolation & purification , Bile Duct Diseases/veterinary , Cat Diseases/microbiology , Dog Diseases/microbiology , Liver Diseases/veterinary , Animals , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacteria, Aerobic/drug effects , Bacteria, Aerobic/growth & development , Bacteria, Anaerobic/drug effects , Bacteria, Anaerobic/growth & development , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Bacterial Infections/pathology , Bacterial Infections/veterinary , Bile/microbiology , Bile Duct Diseases/epidemiology , Bile Duct Diseases/microbiology , Bile Duct Diseases/pathology , Cat Diseases/epidemiology , Cat Diseases/pathology , Cats , Colony Count, Microbial/veterinary , Dog Diseases/epidemiology , Dog Diseases/pathology , Dogs , Female , Gallbladder/microbiology , Liver/microbiology , Liver Diseases/epidemiology , Liver Diseases/microbiology , Liver Diseases/pathology , Male , Microbial Sensitivity Tests/veterinary , PrevalenceABSTRACT
EMLA is a lidocaine/prilocaine cream used for topical analgesia in human pediatric patients. The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of EMLA in clinically ill cats, to measure systemic absorption and to determine whether EMLA reduced the need for sedation for the placement of jugular catheters. Thirty-one cats were randomized to either a placebo or EMLA cream group. Cream was applied to a 10 cm(2) area over the jugular vein, with 1h of occlusive dressing. Neither anesthetic was systemically absorbed in any cat, and no adverse clinical signs were observed. Struggling during catheter placement was less in the EMLA-treated cats compared to placebo, but did not reach significance (P = 0.06). Jugular catheters were successfully placed in 60% of EMLA-treated cats and 38% of placebo cats; this difference was not statistically significant and may not justify the added steps of EMLA cream administration for this purpose. However, EMLA does appear to be safe in clinically ill cats, and may be useful for other applications such as for skin mass removal or repeated venepuncture.
