Investigation of Factors Associated with Subclinical Infections of Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium canis in Kennel-Housed Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. are zoonotic protozoal pathogens, spread by a fecal-oral route, which can infect a wide range of hosts including but not limited to dogs and humans. Giardia was recently estimated to be present in 37% to 50% of kennel-housed dogs. Cryptosporidium infections in kennel-housed dogs have been reported in 7% to 21% of the population. The goal of this study was to define demographic factors and fecal scores associated with positive screening test cases of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in kennel-housed laboratory dogs in the state of Texas. Fecal samples were collected from 153 clinically normal laboratory dogs at an academic research facility and a local laboratory dog supplier. We used 3 diagnostic tests evaluated in parallel to determine test positivity to each organism: a human point-of-care coproantigen test, a direct immunofluorescent assay, and an in-house polymerase chain reaction. Dogs were significantly more likely to test positive for Giardia (45%) than Cryptosporidium (7%) (P < 0.01). Dogs that were 18 mo of age or younger had 3 times the odds (P = 0.009) of subclinical Giardia infection compared with older dogs. We found no significant relationship between age and Cryptosporidium prevalence. Dogs with hard feces (fecal score 1-2) at the time of screening had 0.34 times lower odds ( P = 0.049) of testing positive for Giardia than dogs with normal feces, but no statistically significant relationship was found between fecal score and Cryptosporidium -positive test status. With these findings, we demonstrated the value of considering age and fecal score when choosing which dogs to screen for subclinical Giardia. Additional studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to determine the relationship between age and fecal score and subclinical Cryptosporidium infection.

Optimizing the Glass Bead Sterilization Protocol Focusing on Removal of Organic and Bacterial Intraoperative Contamination.

Validated glass bead sterilization protocols to effectively sterilize rodent surgical instruments after bacterial exposure (for example, cecal contamination) are lacking. To refine current approaches, we added either a multienzyme detergent, neutral pH detergent, or chlorhexidine scrub step before glass bead sterilization of forceps or needle drivers exposed to cecal contents. We exposed sets of forceps and needle drivers to cecal contents, which were then air dried for 3 min. Immediately after, the instruments were wiped several times with a clean, dry paper towel. The contaminated tips were soaked in either a multienzyme or neutral pH detergent (t = 5 min), chlorhexidine scrub (t = 2 min), or no pretreatment solution. To further increase debris removal, instruments (from all groups) were brushed using a clean toothbrush. The nonpretreatment instruments were briefly soaked in saline before brushing. After being rinsed with sterile water, all instruments were exposed to a glass bead sterilizer for 60 s at 500 °F (260 °C). Sets were then swabbed for bacterial culturing. Swabs were plated onto either sheep blood agar (n = 23) or chocolate agar (n = 20) for aerobic culturing or Brucella agar (n = 20) for anaerobic culturing. A subset of instruments was sampled to determine organic material presence after treatment using an ATP luminometer (n = 21). Multiple agar types and bioluminescence were used to more deeply evaluate tool sterility and to differentiate the relative effectiveness of each protocol. From the saline group, only one pair of forceps yielded growth on Brucella agar, and 2 pairs yielded growth on chocolate agar. No other bacterial growth was observed. The use of a pretreatment agent also lowered overall organic contamination levels in needle drivers compared with using only saline. These results indicate that brushing instruments to mechanically remove debris from instruments is paramount to ensure sterility. However, a best practice would be to also use one of the pretreatment options used in this study.