Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Using rectal to paw temperature difference to detect shock in dogs
By Schaefer, Jonathan D et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2020·School of Veterinary Medicine, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Evaluation of the rectal-interdigital temperature gradient as a diagnostic marker of shock in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs showing signs of shock, like rapid heart rate and low body temperature, were studied to see if measuring the temperature difference between their rectum and paws could help diagnose shock. The results showed that dogs in shock had a significantly higher temperature gradient, which could be a useful marker for identifying shock in emergency situations. This finding suggests that veterinarians might use this temperature measurement alongside other signs to assess a dog's condition more accurately. Further research is needed to confirm these results with more dogs.
People also search for: dog shock symptoms · how to tell if my dog is in shock · emergency vet for dog shock · dog temperature measurement · diagnosing shock in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the difference in the rectal-interdigital temperature gradient (RITG) between dogs that were presented to an emergency room with clinical signs of shock compared to those without signs of shock, and if this gradient can be used as a diagnostic marker for shock. DESIGN: Prospective, single center, observational study conducted from 2014 to 2015. SETTING: University veterinary teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Twenty dogs with a clinical diagnosis of shock and 60 dogs without a clinical diagnosis of shock (controls). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Upon presentation to the emergency room and prior to intervention, measurements of rectal temperature, interdigital temperature, ambient temperature, systemic markers of perfusion (capillary refill time [CRT], heart rate [HR], respiratory rate [RR], Doppler blood pressure [DBP], and venous plasma lactate concentration), and venous blood gas analytes were recorded. Dogs were initially determined to be in shock by the attending clinician, and post hoc inclusion criteria were applied. Shock was defined as abnormalities in ≥3 of the 6 following criteria: HR > 120/min, RR > 40/min, CRT > 2 seconds, rectal temperature <37.8°C (100.0°F), venous plasma lactate concentration >2.5 mmol/L, or DBP < 90 mm Hg. Animals with circulatory shock had a significantly increased RITG. An increased RITG was also correlated with individual perfusion parameters including prolonged CRT (ρ = .353, P = 0.0013), tachycardia (ρ = .3485, P = 0.0015), decreased DBP (ρ = -0.6162, P = 0.0003), and shock index (ρ = 0.6168, P = 0.0003). Receiver operator curve analysis indicated a RITG cutoff point of 11.6°F had 90% specificity for the diagnosis of shock (area under the curve = 0.7604). CONCLUSIONS: The RITG in this study was associated with a diagnosis of shock and therefore may serve as a diagnostic marker of circulatory shock. Future studies with larger sample sizes to validate the use of temperature gradients and other peripheral perfusion abnormalities as diagnostic and monitoring tools are warranted.
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/32965089/