Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Does blood in dog urine affect protein to creatinine ratio test
By Jillings, Ekp et al.·Published in New Zealand veterinary journal·2019·a School of Veterinary Science·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Does blood contamination of urine compromise interpretation of the urine protein to creatinine ratio in dogs?
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how adding blood to urine samples from dogs affects the urine protein to creatinine ratio (UPC), which helps assess kidney health. They found that even small amounts of blood can raise the UPC, but if the urine stays yellow, it’s unlikely that the protein levels are solely due to the blood. However, if the urine changes color to orange or red, it could indicate a more serious issue, and the higher UPC should be taken seriously. This information can help vets interpret test results more accurately when blood is present in urine samples.
People also search for: dog urine test results · dog blood in urine causes · dog protein in urine treatment
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the effect of contamination of urine with 0-5% blood, varying in haematocrit and protein concentrations, on the urine protein to creatinine ratio (UPC) in dogs, and to determine whether the colour of urine can be used to aid interpretation of UPC results. METHODS: Urine samples were collected by free catch from 18 dogs, all of which had UPC <0.2. Venous blood samples were also collected from each dog, and the blood from each dog was added to its own urine to produce serial concentrations of 0.125-5% blood. The colour of each urine sample was recorded by two observers scoring them as either yellow, peach, orange, orange/red or red. Protein and creatinine concentrations were determined, and dipstick analysis and sediment examination was carried out on each sample. Based on colour and dipstick analysis, samples were categorised as either having microscopic, macroscopic or gross haematuria. A linear mixed model was used to examine the effect of blood contamination on UPC. RESULTS: The uncontaminated urine of all 18 dogs had a UPC <0.2. Adding blood to the urine samples resulted in an increase in UPC at all contamination concentrations compared to the non-contaminated urine (p<0.001). None of the 54 samples with microscopic haematuria had UPC >0.5. For 108 samples with macroscopic haematuria the UPC was >0.5 in 21 samples (19.4 (95% CI=13.1-27.9)%), and for 54 samples with gross haematuria 39 (72 (CI=59.1-82.4)%) had a UPC >0.5. No samples had a UPC >2.0 unless the blood contamination was 5% and only 3/18 (17%) samples at this blood contamination concentration had a UPC >2.0. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study showed that while blood contamination of ≥0.125% does increase the UPC, if the urine remains yellow (microscopic haematuria), then there is negligible chance that a UPC >0.5 will be solely due to the added blood. In that scenario, attributing the proteinuria present to the haematuria in the sample would be inappropriate. However blood contamination that results in discolouration of the urine sample from yellow (indicating macroscopic or gross haematuria) could increase the UPC above the abnormal range and would need to be considered as a differential for the proteinuria. Thus knowledge of urine colour, even if limited to simple colour scores (yellow, discoloured, red) could be utilised to aid interpretation of the UPC in samples with haematuria.
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/30517829/