Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Hydroxyethyl starch and gelatine fluids affect protein tests in dogs
By Yam, Elodie et al.·Published in Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia·2019·School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Australia·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (6%) and succinylated gelatine (4%) interfere with refractometry in dogs with haemorrhagic shock.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of healthy Greyhound dogs was tested to see how certain fluids given during a medical emergency, like hemorrhagic shock, affected blood and urine tests. The dogs received either a common electrolyte solution or synthetic fluids (hydroxyethyl starch or succinylated gelatine) after experiencing blood loss. It was found that the synthetic fluids caused misleading results in tests measuring total plasma protein and urine concentration for several hours after treatment. This means that if your dog receives these fluids in an emergency, the test results might not be accurate for a while, which could affect treatment decisions.
People also search for: dog hemorrhagic shock treatment · Greyhound blood test results · synthetic fluids dog emergency
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if low molecular weight synthetic colloid fluids administered to dogs interfere with refractometric estimates of total plasma protein (TPPr) and urine osmolality (UOsm). STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. ANIMALS: Eighteen healthy Greyhound dogs. METHODS: Anaesthetized Greyhounds subjected to haemorrhage for 60 minutes were given 80 mL kgof Plasma-Lyte 148 (CRYST), or 20 mL kgof hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (HES) or succinylated gelatine (GELO) (n = 6 per group) intravenously over 20 minutes. Refractometric (TPPr) and biuret total plasma protein (TPPb) were measured before haemorrhage (Baseline), at end of shock (Shock), immediately (T20), then 40 minutes (T60), 100 minutes (T120) and 160 minutes (T180) after fluid administration. Urine specific gravity (USG) and UOsm were measured at all time points except T20. Estimated UOsm (eUOsm) was calculated from USG. Bias and limits of agreement (LOA) for TPPr versus TPPb, and eUOsm versus UOsm were calculated at each time point. RESULTS: For dogs given CRYST and GELO, median TPPr and TPPb decreased in parallel, with a small consistent TPP bias (CRYST range of bias, 0.38-0.67 g dL; GELO range of bias, 0.42-0.58 g dL). Dogs given HES showed divergence between median TPPr and TPPb after T20, with a peak bias at T20 of 1.62 g dL(LOA 1.29-1.95). Dogs given HES and GELO had markedly increased USG [HES peak median USG at T180 of 1.119 (Q1-Q3 1.103-1.122); GELO peak median USG at T120 of 1.114 (Q1-Q3 1.082-1.119)], with large increases in bias between eUOsm and UOsm [HES peak bias at T60 of 2995 mOsm kg(LOA 2032-3958 mOsm kg); GELO peak bias at T120 of 2465 mOsm kg(LOA 940-3990 mOsm kg)]. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Administration of HES and GELO to dogs with haemorrhagic shock interferes with refractometric measurements for at least 3 hours after administration.
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/31401048/