Diagnostic yield of uroendoscopy compared to ultrasonography for evaluating lower urinary tract disorders in dogs.

BACKGROUND: Cystourethroscopy and vaginoscopy (uroendoscopy) is often used in the diagnostic evaluation of dogs with lower urinary tract disorders (LUTD). OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate if uroendoscopy is warranted in dogs with various LUTD, the agreement between uroendoscopic and ultrasonographic diagnoses were compared. Dogs with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTI) will have the highest diagnostic agreement between uroendoscopy and ultrasonography (US) compared to dogs presenting for other LUTD. ANIMALS: Two hundred thirty-seven dogs presenting between 2014 and 2019 with lower urinary tract signs (LUTS) that had US within 60 days preceding uroendoscopy. METHODS: Retrospective study. Dogs were categorized by primary indication for ultrasound. Pertinent uroendoscopic findings were recorded and agreements (κ analysis) between the final uroendoscopic diagnosis were compared with the final ultrasonographic diagnosis. RESULTS: Pertinent uroendoscopic findings were recorded for 69/237 (29%) cases. For dogs presenting primarily for urinary incontinence (UI), agreement between uroendoscopy and US was 71% (46/65; κ = 0.47, 95% CI 0.28-0.66), for dogs with stranguria, 58% (29/50; κ = 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.62) and for dogs with rUTI the agreement was substantial at 87% (26/30; κ = 0.70, 95% CI 0.43-0.98). Urethral strictures were the majority (14/21; 67%) of pertinent uroendoscopic findings for dogs with stranguria, of which 12 were male dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Agreement between uroendoscopy and US was moderate for all dogs. Based on these data, recommendation for uroendoscopy should be tailored to individual clinical presentation and signalment; transabdominal US is not the preferred modality for urethral lesions.

Serial point-prevalence surveys to estimate antibiotic use in a small animal veterinary teaching hospital, November 2018 to October 2019.

BACKGROUND: There is no standardized methodology to measure antibiotic drug use (AU) in small animal veterinary hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To estimate AU prevalence in a small animal veterinary teaching hospital and characterize usage by indication and evidence of infection. To establish an AU measurement methodology for veterinary settings. ANIMALS: Electronic medical records of cats and dogs seen by primary care, urgent care, emergency and critical care, internal medicine, and surgery services during November 2018 to October 2019. METHODS: On 1 day each month, data (signalment, visit reason, diagnostics, and antibiotic details, including indication) were collected for all animals seen on study services. RESULTS: Of 168 inpatient dogs and 452 outpatient dogs, 98 (58.3%) and 107 (23.7%,) were receiving at least 1 antibiotic on the day of data collection, respectively. For cats 15/49 (30.6%) inpatients and 29/187 (15.5%) outpatients were receiving at least 1 antibiotic. Common drug classes prescribed for dogs were potentiated penicillins (28.7%), first-generation cephalosporins (22.1%), and nitroimidazoles (14.7%), and for cats, common drug classes administered were potentiated penicillins (26.9%), fluoroquinolones (13.5%), and penicillins (11.5%). Common indications for antibiotics included skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, perioperative, aural, and urinary conditions. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Serial point-prevalence surveys (PPS) can estimate AU in a large specialty hospital setting and identify targets for antimicrobial stewardship. The methodology developed during this study can be adapted for use in private practice, including large animal practice. Mirroring methods used in human healthcare, the data collection tool can also be used to describe AU nationally through completion of national PPS.

Can a commercially available EPID dosimetry system detect small daily patient setup errors for cranial IMRT/SRS?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the Sun Nuclear PerFRACTION electronic portal imager device dosimetry software would be able to detect setup errors in a clinical setting and would be able to correctly identify the direction in which the setup error was introduced. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 7-field intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan for a centrally located tumor was developed for 1 phantom and 5 canine cadaver heads. Systematic setup errors were introduced by manually moving the treatment couch by 1, 3, and 5 mm in each translational direction to assess stereotactic radiation surgery (SRS), IMRT, and 3-dimensional (3D) treatment tolerances after the initial alignment was performed. An angular setup error of 5° yaw was also assessed. The delivered treatment fluence was automatically imported in the PerFRACTION software and compared with the baseline fluence. RESULTS: In the canine phantom, a 5-mm shift was undetected by gamma analysis, and up to a 2-cm shift had to be introduced for the gamma pass rate of 3%/3 mm to fall below a 95% pass rate criterion. The same 5-mm shift using 3% difference caused the pass rates for 2 fields to drop below the 95% tolerance. For each respective translational shift, the affected beam angles were consistent across the cadaver heads and correlated with the direction of translational shift. The best field pass rate, worst field pass rate, and average pass rate across all 7 fields was analyzed to develop clinical guidance on parameter settings for SRS, IMRT, and 3D tolerances. CONCLUSIONS: PerFRACTION 2-dimensional mode successfully detected setup errors outside the systematic error tolerance for SRS, IMRT, and 3D when an appropriate analysis metric and pass/fail criteria was implemented. Our data confirm that percent difference may be more sensitive in detecting plan failure than gamma analysis.