Search

Objective: To describe the clinical features of dogs treated for suspected anaphylaxis in Perth, Western Australia. Design: Single‐centre observational case series with retrospective and prospective phases. Methods: This was a two‐phase study of dogs with clinical suspicion of anaphylaxis presenting to the emergency service of a university teaching hospital. Dogs required evidence of, and appropriate treatment of, a type 1 hypersensitivity reaction as well as two or more organs affected (or cardiovascular signs alone) to be included. Phase 1 includes retrospective case series of 186 dogs (March 2006–December 2018). Phase 2 includes prospective descriptive case series of 46 dogs (October 2017–July 2018) focused on clinical signs. Results: In phase 1, 88 (47%) dogs had evidence of insect exposure prior to the acute event. One hundred forty (75%) dogs had dermatological signs, 141 (76%) had gastrointestinal signs and 129 (69%) had cardiovascular signs. Ninety‐two (49%) dogs had vasoconstrictive shock (5 with bradycardia), 24 (13%) had vasodilatory shock, 8 (4%) had mixed vasodilatory and vasoconstrictive shock and 5 (3%) had unclassifiable shock. On focused abdominal ultrasound, 42 of 71 (59%) dogs had gallbladder wall oedema and 3 of 71 (4%) dogs had peritoneal free fluid. In phase 2, the distributions of insect exposure, organ dysfunction and sonographic abnormalities were similar to phase 1. Conclusion: Dogs presenting with suspected anaphylaxis showed a broad range of presentations. Dermatological signs were absent in a proportion of dogs, vasoconstrictive shock was more frequent than vasodilatory and unique features of shock were identified. This study highlights the challenges of diagnosis based on presenting features alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Case report Two dogs with an oesophageal foreign body ( FB) were diagnosed with secondary pyothorax at the time of presentation. One dog was managed with surgical FB removal, pleural lavage and thoracostomy tube placement. Following surgery, it was admitted to the intensive care unit for oxygen therapy, antimicrobial and analgesic administration, fluid therapy, thoracic drainage and enteral nutrition. The other dog was managed with endoscopic FB removal, thoracostomy tube placement with continuous suction, and similar aftercare in the intensive care unit. Both survived to discharge from hospital. Conclusion This report details the treatment and survival of two dogs with secondary pyothorax associated with oesophageal FB, with successful management through supportive care, oesophageal rest and treatment of infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]