Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Nutrition timing and method in dogs with septic peritonitis
By Smith, Kristin M et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2019·University of Minnesota·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Retrospective evaluation of the route and timing of nutrition in dogs with septic peritonitis: 68 cases (2007-2016).
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 68 dogs diagnosed with septic peritonitis (a serious abdominal infection) were evaluated to see how different feeding methods affected their recovery. The study found that dogs receiving parenteral nutrition (PN), which is nutrition given through an IV, were less likely to survive and spent more time in the hospital compared to those who received food through a feeding tube or were allowed to eat on their own. Overall, about 79% of the dogs survived, but those on PN faced more complications. This suggests that enteral nutrition (feeding through the digestive tract) may be a better option for these dogs.
People also search for: dog septic peritonitis treatment · dog feeding tube recovery · parenteral nutrition in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of route of nutrition on length of hospitalization and survival to discharge in dogs with septic peritonitis. DESIGN: Retrospective study from 2007 to 2016. SETTING: University teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Sixty-eight dogs with septic peritonitis that survived ≥48 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nutritional strategy was categorized into 1 of 4 groups: voluntary, feeding tube, parenteral (PN), and combined feeding tube and PN. Body weight, body condition score, time without caloric intake before and during hospitalization, length of hospitalization, and percentage of resting energy requirements provided during the first 3 days of nutritional support were recorded. Overall, 54/68 dogs survived (79%). Survival Prediction Index 2 scores were not significantly different between groups. Dogs receiving PN only were less likely to survive than those receiving any enteral nutrition (OR 9.7; 95CI 1.84-58.75). Compared to dogs not receiving PN, dogs receiving any PN were significantly less likely to survive (OR 9.66; 95% CI 1.7-105.8), and were in hospital significantly longer (P = 0.025). Metabolic complications associated with PN were frequent but not associated with increased length of hospitalization or survival to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Dogs with septic peritonitis that received any PN were in hospital longer and less likely to survive but may have been sicker than those receiving other forms of nutritional support. Further studies are warranted to evaluate reasons for worse outcomes in dogs with septic peritonitis receiving PN.
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/31021527/