Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Signs linked to bacterial urine infections in proteinuric dogs
By Grimes, Millie et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2020·Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Characteristics associated with bacterial growth in urine in 451 proteinuric dogs (2008-2018).
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study involving 451 dogs with protein in their urine found that only 6.7% had bacterial growth in their urine. Most of these dogs showed signs of active urine sediment, which means there were more white blood cells or other indicators of infection. The presence of pus in the urine (pyuria) and bacteria (bacteriuria) were strong indicators that a urine culture should be done. If your dog has protein in their urine, especially with signs of urinary tract issues, your vet may recommend a urine culture to check for infection.
People also search for: dog protein in urine · dog urine infection symptoms · dog urinary tract disease treatment
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urine cultures are frequently recommended to rule out infection as a postrenal cause of proteinuria. OBJECTIVE: Identify characteristics associated with bacterial growth in urine in proteinuric dogs. ANIMALS: Four hundred and fifty-one dogs admitted to a teaching hospital between January 2008 and January 2018 with urine protein-to-creatinine ratios (UPCs) >0.5. METHODS: Retrospective study included dogs with a UPC, urinalysis, and quantitative urine culture (QUC) performed within a 72-hour period by searching electronic records. Dogs with recent antimicrobial therapy, urine collected by methods other than cystocentesis, or UPC ≤0.5 were excluded. Signalment, comorbidities, serum BUN and creatinine concentrations, urinalysis findings, and QUC results were recorded. The association between these characteristics and presence of bacterial growth in urine was assessed by univariable and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Thirty of four hundred fifty-one dogs (6.7%) had bacterial growth in urine. Of these, 18 (60.0%) had active urine sediment. Bacterial growth in urine was associated with pyuria (odd ratio [OR] 25.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-79.6, P < .001), bacteriuria (OR 11.1, 95% CI 3.2-39.1, P < .001), and lower urinary tract disease (OR 6.7, 95% CI 1.9-23.0; P = .0028). If QUC was prompted based on these criteria, 8/451 (1.8%) of proteinuric dogs would have had undetected bacterial growth. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The proportion of proteinuric dogs with both inactive urine sediment and bacterial growth in urine was low, suggesting that QUC might not be necessary in the evaluation of all proteinuric dogs. An active urine sediment or lower urinary tract disease should prompt QUC for proteinuric dogs.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31951043/