Comparison of bupivacaine liposome injectable solution and fentanyl for postoperative analgesia in dogs undergoing limb amputation.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to compare the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of two analgesic protocols consisting of bupivacaine liposome injectable solution (BLIS) and 0.5% bupivacaine and fentanyl for postsurgical analgesia in dogs undergoing limb amputation. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, prospective, controlled, intent-to-treat, clinical noninferiority trial. ANIMALS: Forty client-owned dogs. METHODS: Dogs undergoing amputation were randomly assigned to either the BLIS or control group. Postoperative pain, sedation, nausea, and amount eaten were assessed using appropriate scales at 6, 12, 18, and 24 h by trained individuals blinded to the treatment protocol. Rescue analgesia was provided for Glasgow composite measure pain scale (short form) (CMPS-SF) scores of 5 or above. Clients were requested to pain score their dogs at home using a visual analogue scale (VAS) for 48 h following discharge. RESULTS: Forty dogs completed this study (20 control dogs and 20 BLIS dogs). The BLIS and control groups were equivalent for sedation, nausea, amount eaten, and pain, at all time periods except at 6 h (p < .01), when the BLIS group pain score was lower. CONCLUSION: The BLIS provided equivalent analgesia with fewer adverse effects than fentanyl constant rate infusion (CRI) following limb amputation. Rescue analgesia was provided to five dogs in the BLIS group and four in the control group, and there was no statistical difference. Nausea scores did not differ statistically. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: As BLIS provides equivalent analgesia, this may allow for decreased reliance on opioids in the immediate postoperative period.

Characterization of alkaline phosphatase cytochemistry in canine neoplastic and non-neoplastic pulmonary mass aspirates.

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing primary and secondary pulmonary neoplasms can be challenging via cytology, and a rapid, inexpensive diagnostic tool to differentiate these neoplasms is unavailable. Alkaline phosphatase cytochemistry (ALP-CC) has been used to identify primary pulmonary carcinomas in human patients, and we hypothesized it could be applied to canine lung aspirates. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize ALP-CC expression in fine-needle aspirate (FNA) samples of canine pulmonary neoplastic and non-neoplastic tumors. METHODS: A retrospective case search was conducted to identify cases with contemporaneous cytology and histopathology reports from pulmonary lesions, including neoplastic and non-neoplastic etiologies. Slides prepared from pulmonary aspirates were stained for ALP-CC activity, and the percentage of ALP-CC-positive primary pulmonary epithelial tumors was determined. To characterize the ALP-CC expression in non-neoplastic cellular constituents of pulmonary FNA samples, mesothelial cells were also evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-eight canine cases met the inclusion criteria. ALP-CC-positive cells were seen in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. In non-neoplastic lesions, pulmonary epithelial cells were ALP-CC positive. Eighty-nine percent of primary pulmonary epithelial neoplasms were ALP-CC positive, and no ALP-CC positivity was noted in mesothelial cells. ALP-CC-positive neoplastic cells were seen in a metastatic amelanotic melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Primary pulmonary epithelial neoplasms are frequently ALP-CC positive, but such positivity is not restricted to this tumor type. Non-neoplastic pulmonary epithelial cells can be ALP-CC positive, whereas mesothelial cells are negative.

Infrequent intrahousehold transmission of Clostridioides difficile between pet owners and their pets.

Companion animals have been shown to carry Clostridioides difficile strains that are similar or identical to strains found in people, and a small number of studies have shown that pets carry genetically identical C. difficile isolates as their owners, suggesting inter-species transmission. However, the directionality of transmission is ultimately unknown, and the frequency with which animals acquire C. difficile following their owners' infection is unclear. The goal of this study was to assess how often pets belonging to people with C. difficile infection carry genetically related C. difficile isolates. We enrolled pet owners from two medical institutions (University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) and The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUWMC)) who had diarrhoea with or without positive C. difficile assays and tested their faeces and their pets' faeces for C. difficile using both anaerobic culture and PCR assays. When microorganisms were obtained from both the owner and pet and had the same toxin profile or ribotype, isolates underwent genomic sequencing. Faecal samples were obtained from a total of 59 humans, 72 dogs and 9 cats, representing 47 complete households (i.e. where a sample was available from the owner and at least one pet). Of these, C. difficile was detected in 30 humans, 10 dogs and 0 cats. There were only two households where C. difficile was detected in both the owner and pet. In one of these households, the C. difficile isolates were of different toxin profiles/ribotypes (A+/B+ / RT 499 from the owner, A-/B- / RT PR22386 from the dog). In the other household, the isolates were genetically identical (one SNP difference). Interestingly, the dog from this household had recently received a course of antibiotics (cefpodoxime and metronidazole). Our findings suggest that inter-species transmission of C. difficile occurs infrequently in households with human C. difficile infections.