Search

Background: Rates of detecting ≥1 potential enteric pathogens (PEP) or toxins (PEP-T) in feces, blood, or both of horses ≥6 months of age with enteric disease and impact of multiple detections on outcome of horses with colitis has not been reported., Objective: To determine detection rates of PEP/PEP-T in feces, blood, or both of horses with enteric disease and effect of detecting multiple agents on outcome of horses with colitis., Animals: Thirty-seven hundred fifty-three fecal samples submitted to IDEXX Laboratories and 239 fecal and blood samples submitted to Michigan State University's Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (MSUVDL)., Methods: Retrospective evaluation of PEP/PEP-T testing results was performed to determine rates of detection of 1 or more PEP/PEP-T. Impact of detecting multiple agents on outcome was assessed in 239 horses hospitalized for colitis., Results: One or more PEP/PEP-T was detected in 1175/3753 (31.3%) and 145/239 (60.7%) of samples submitted to IDEXX Laboratories and MSUVDL, respectively. In a hospitalized cohort, survival to discharge was lower (76%) in horses with 1 agent, compared to horses with either no (88%) or multiple (89%) agents. There was no difference (P = .78) in days of hospitalization between horses with 0 (1-17), 1 (1-33), and > 1 positive (1-20) result. There was no difference in cost of hospitalization (P = .25) between horses with 0 ($2357, $1110-15 553), 1 ($2742, $788-11 005), and >1 positive ($2560, $1091-10 895) result., Conclusions and Clinical Importance: Detection rates of PEP/PEP-T in horses with colitis vary with cohorts and tests performed. Detection of more than 1 PEP or PEP-T did not affect outcome., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.)

Background: Obtaining commercial fluids for intravenous administration (IVF) was challenging during a recent shortage. This necessitated use of custom-made non-sterile fluids for intravenous administration (JUGs) in some hospitals. There are no studies comparing outcome of horses treated with JUG versus IVF and limited information is available about adverse effects of JUGs., Hypothesis/objectives: To evaluate death, complications, blood pH, and plasma electrolyte concentrations of horses that received JUG versus IVFs., Animals: One hundred eighty-six horses that received IVFs and 37 that received JUGs., Methods: A retrospective review of medical records was performed to identify horses that received IVFs or JUGs during hospitalization. Information including survival to discharge, complications (fever [>38.5°C], jugular vein phlebitis/thrombosis, arrhythmia, or laminitis), blood pH, and plasma electrolyte concentrations were obtained., Results: There was no difference (P = .67) in survival to discharge for horses that received JUGs (78%) compared to horses that received IVFs (87%). Horses that received JUGs were more likely to develop a jugular vein complication (3 of 37 versus 1 of 186, odds ratio 17.2 [95% CI 1.9-389.8], P = .04). Horses that received JUGs were more likely to have electrolyte abnormalities consistent with hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis., Conclusion and Clinical Importance: Veterinarians using JUGs should obtain informed client consent because of a potential increased risk of jugular vein complications. Chloride content of JUGs should be considered to limit development of hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.)