Outcomes of esophageal and gastric bone foreign bodies in dogs.

BACKGROUND: Bone foreign bodies are commonly encountered in small animal practice. Esophageal bone foreign bodies (E-bFBs) warrant removal, whereas gastric bone foreign bodies might not. OBJECTIVES: Describe management and outcomes for dogs with esophageal or gastric bone foreign bodies. ANIMALS: One hundred twenty-nine dogs with esophageal (n = 45) or gastric (n = 84) bone foreign bodies. METHODS: Retrospective review of medical records. RESULTS: Dogs with E-bFBs were younger than dogs with gastric bone foreign bodies (median age esophageal, 4 years [IQR 2-8]; median age gastric, 6 years [IQR 3-10]; P = .03), and had a higher bone cross-sectional area relative to body weight (median esophageal, 98.21 mm2 /kg [IQR 48.25-142.6]; median gastric, 28.6 mm2 /kg [IQR 17.25-64.28]; P < .001). Forty-two of 45 esophageal foreign bodies were resolved non-surgically and 3 by esophagotomy. Esophageal erosions were more likely with distal entrapment (OR 12.88, [95% CI 31.95-129.29], P = .01) and longer duration (OR 18.82 [95% CI 2.22-273.97], P = .01). Sixty-two of 84 bone gastric foreign bodies were left in situ. Endoscopic removal was successful in 20 of 22 (91%; 95% CI 70-99) attempts. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: While all E-bFBs were dislodged either by advancement into the stomach, endoscopic removal, or esophagotomy, the majority of gastric bone foreign bodies were left in situ for dissolution, with no reported complications. Gastric advancement of E-bFBs should be considered when oral removal is not feasible, and dissolution can be considered even with large bones.

Prevalence of Babesia spp. and clinical characteristics of Babesia vulpes infections in North American dogs.

BACKGROUND: Babesiosis is an important cause of thrombocytopenia and hemolytic anemia in dogs. Babesia vulpes, reported in European dogs and North American foxes, rarely has been reported in domestic North American dogs. Newly optimized polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers facilitate more sensitive amplification of B. vulpes DNA. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of Babesia sp. infections in dogs being tested for Babesia infection, and to describe co-infections and clinicopathologic abnormalities in B. vulpes positive dogs. ANIMALS: Dog blood or tissue samples (n = 9367) submitted to a diagnostic laboratory between June 2015 and June 2018 were tested using an optimized Babesia PCR assay. METHODS: Comprehensive canine vector-borne disease diagnostic testing was performed on convenience samples. RESULTS: Babesia sp. DNA was amplified from 269/9367 (2.9%) North American dogs. Babesia sp. infections included B. gibsoni monoinfection (157; 1.7%), B. vulpes monoinfection (19; 0.20%), and B. gibsoni and B. vulpes coinfection (29; 0.31%). Forty-three of the 48 total B. vulpes-infected dogs were American Pit Bull Terrier-type breeds, of which 36 historically were involved with dog fights. Coinfections with Mycoplasma, Dirofilaria immitis, or Wolbachia and coexposures to Bartonella, Ehrlichia, and Rickettsia spp. were documented in B. vulpes-infected dogs. Clinicopathologic data in B. vulpes-infected dogs both with and without coinfections included anemia, thrombocytopenia, hyperglobulinemia, hypoalbuminemia, and proteinuria. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Babesia vulpes infection in domestic North American dogs is commonly found in conjunction with other coinfections, including B. gibsoni and hemotropic Mycoplasma. Similar to B. gibsoni, dog-to-dog transmission of B. vulpes may be a frequent mode of transmission.

Agreement between Parallel Canine Blood and Urine Cultures: Is Urine Culture the Poor Man's Blood Culture?

Bloodstream infections are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill dogs, but due to cost and difficulties in sample acquisition, blood cultures are infrequently obtained. In ill dogs, urine cultures may be recommended as surrogates for blood cultures. In order to determine the outcome agreement between parallel urine and blood cultures, we retrospectively analyzed parallel blood and urine specimens submitted for culture from dogs at the NC State Veterinary Hospital between 2011 and 2016. Positive cultures were reported from 15% of the submitted blood specimens and 23% of the submitted urine specimens. A total of 295 urine and blood samples were submitted in parallel, with positive growth demonstrated in 14 concordant and five discordant pairs. A kappa statistic comparing blood and urine culture outcomes was 0.266 (fair) when all parallel growth was included, including concordant and discordant results, and 0.170 (poor) when restricted to parallel concordant growth. The sensitivity of urine to reflect concordant bloodstream bacterial organisms was 30%, with a specificity of 87%. The positive and negative predictive values were 30% and 88%, respectively. Of dogs with both specimens positive on bacterial culture, 7 of 7 (100%) with suspected urogenital infection sources were concordant. All dogs with discordant bloodstream and urinary infections were immunosuppressed. Urinary coagulase-positive Staphylococcus isolates were most likely to be concordant with bloodstream infections. In conclusion, we found that urine culture is neither a substitute nor a screen for blood culture. Blood cultures should be performed in any potentially septic animal, especially those that are considered immunosuppressed.