Epidemiologic evaluation of calcium oxalate urolithiasis in dogs in the United States: 2010-2015.
North America
calculus
dog
epidemiology
risk factor
Journal
Journal of veterinary internal medicine
ISSN: 1939-1676
Titre abrégé: J Vet Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8708660
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
22
06
2018
accepted:
20
08
2019
pubmed:
1
9
2019
medline:
6
2
2020
entrez:
1
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Positive health implications of early recognition of calcium oxalate (CaOx) urolithiasis include increased opportunity for nonsurgical removal, early dietary modification to minimize urolith growth, early removal to avoid urinary obstruction, and early recognition of genetic and metabolic diseases before they contribute to additional morbidity. To identify high- and low-risk dog breeds for CaOx uroliths and to determine the relationship of age and sex to the development of CaOx uroliths. Calcium oxalate urolith submissions between 2010 and 2015. A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted to identify high- and low-risk breeds for CaOx uroliths by comparing cases to multiple comparison groups. At-risk breeds were identified if odds ratios were significant (P value <.05) across all comparison groups. Of 258 898 urolith submissions, 124 285 were CaOx. Calcium oxalate was identified in 212 breeds. Twelve breeds were identified as high-risk breeds, and 14 breeds were identified as low-risk breeds. All high-risk breeds were small dog breeds, and all low-risk breeds were medium to large dog breeds. Overall, the mean age ± standard deviation of the first CaOx urolith was 8.4 ± 2.8 years. To achieve the health benefits of preclinical evaluation, breeds at high risk for CaOx urolithiasis should be screened at 5 to 6 years of age, which is 2 to 3 years before likely development of clinical urolithiasis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Positive health implications of early recognition of calcium oxalate (CaOx) urolithiasis include increased opportunity for nonsurgical removal, early dietary modification to minimize urolith growth, early removal to avoid urinary obstruction, and early recognition of genetic and metabolic diseases before they contribute to additional morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To identify high- and low-risk dog breeds for CaOx uroliths and to determine the relationship of age and sex to the development of CaOx uroliths.
ANIMALS
METHODS
Calcium oxalate urolith submissions between 2010 and 2015.
METHODS
METHODS
A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted to identify high- and low-risk breeds for CaOx uroliths by comparing cases to multiple comparison groups. At-risk breeds were identified if odds ratios were significant (P value <.05) across all comparison groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 258 898 urolith submissions, 124 285 were CaOx. Calcium oxalate was identified in 212 breeds. Twelve breeds were identified as high-risk breeds, and 14 breeds were identified as low-risk breeds. All high-risk breeds were small dog breeds, and all low-risk breeds were medium to large dog breeds. Overall, the mean age ± standard deviation of the first CaOx urolith was 8.4 ± 2.8 years.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE
CONCLUSIONS
To achieve the health benefits of preclinical evaluation, breeds at high risk for CaOx urolithiasis should be screened at 5 to 6 years of age, which is 2 to 3 years before likely development of clinical urolithiasis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31471926
doi: 10.1111/jvim.15613
pmc: PMC6766490
doi:
Substances chimiques
Calcium Oxalate
2612HC57YE
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2090-2095Subventions
Organisme : Anadamahidol Foundation
Organisme : Hills Pet Nutrition
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
Références
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2009 Jan;39(1):79-91
pubmed: 19038652
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2007 Jun;91(5-6):247-51
pubmed: 17516947
Can Vet J. 2004 Mar;45(3):225-30
pubmed: 15072194
Am J Vet Res. 2001 Nov;62(11):1782-6
pubmed: 11703024
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2010 Jan 15;236(2):193-200
pubmed: 20074011
Urol Res. 1990;18 Suppl 1:S3-8
pubmed: 2291246
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1996 Mar;26(2):393-400
pubmed: 8711873
J Vet Intern Med. 2019 Sep;33(5):2090-2095
pubmed: 31471926
Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1999 Jul-Aug;40(4):386-400
pubmed: 10463834
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2015 May 15;246(10):1098-103
pubmed: 25932935
Vet Rec. 2013 Apr 6;172(14):363
pubmed: 23396526
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1999 Jan;29(1):17-38, ix-x
pubmed: 10028149
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 1999 Jan;29(1):283-91, xiv
pubmed: 10028163
Can Vet J. 2017 Jan;58(1):45-50
pubmed: 28042154
J Small Anim Pract. 2012 Nov;53(11):634-40
pubmed: 22957984
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2013 Dec 15;243(12):1737-45
pubmed: 24299545
Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2009 Jan;39(1):183-97
pubmed: 19038658
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Aug 1;115(3-4):217-28
pubmed: 24834804
Can Vet J. 2009 Dec;50(12):1263-8
pubmed: 20190975
Am J Vet Res. 2010 Sep;71(9):1045-54
pubmed: 20807144
Acta Vet Hung. 2015 Sep;63(3):323-36
pubmed: 26551422
Res Vet Sci. 2011 Oct;91(2):208-11
pubmed: 21316720
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1993 Sep 1;203(5):660-3
pubmed: 8407532
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000 Aug 15;217(4):515-9
pubmed: 10953715
Urol Res. 1984;12(1):7-9
pubmed: 6719658
J Small Anim Pract. 2005 Apr;46(4):177-84
pubmed: 15835236