Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Variability in lab testing for Pseudomonas ear infections in dogs
By Schick, Anthea E et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2007·Dermatology Clinic for Animals, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Variability of laboratory identification and antibiotic susceptibility reporting of Pseudomonas spp. isolates from dogs with chronic otitis externa.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 26 dogs with chronic ear infections (otitis externa) were tested for a common bacteria called Pseudomonas. The tests were sent to three different laboratories, and while they all found Pseudomonas in most cases, they often disagreed on which antibiotics would work best against it. In fact, none of the dogs had the same antibiotic resistance patterns reported by all labs. This means that if your dog has an ear infection, it's important to discuss the lab results with your vet, as different labs may give different recommendations for treatment.
People also search for: dog ear infection treatment · Pseudomonas in dogs · antibiotic resistance in dog infections
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate interlaboratory variation in isolation and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of Pseudomonas spp. as reported to veterinarians for cases of canine chronic bacterial otitis externa. Twenty-six dogs with unilateral or bilateral bacterial otitis externa from multiple referral practices were included in this prospective study. Triplicate samples collected simultaneously from the same location in the external ear canal were randomly submitted to three laboratories for culture and susceptibility testing. Pseudomonas spp. were isolated from 18 of 34 (53%) ears. All three laboratories agreed on the presence of Pseudomonas spp. in 15 (83.3%) ears sampled. However, two laboratories agreed on two (11.1%) occasions, and on one occasion (5.5%) Pseudomonas spp. were identified in only one laboratory. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) susceptibilities to 11 antibiotics were compared between laboratories B and C. Using laboratory-defined susceptibility of sensitive (S), intermediate (I) and resistant (R), none of the 16 Pseudomonas spp. with MIC data reported had identical patterns of antibiotic susceptibility. Agreement in susceptibility to individual antibiotics was observed in 13 of 16 (81%) occasions for amikacin and gentamicin, 10 of 16 (63%) occasions for ticarcillin, and nine of 16 (56%) for enrofloxacin. These results indicate that Pseudomonas spp. were identified by all three laboratories chosen for this study in 83% of the time. Moreover, antibiotic susceptibility patterns and MIC values reported to veterinarians may not agree between laboratories. Veterinarians should interpret bacterial culture and susceptibility results with multiple caveats including variability between laboratories.
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/17355427/